Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive425

Template Warnings

How do I stop this user persistently adding a 3RR template to my talk page. This is getting extremely annoying now. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a message here. xenocidic (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've blocked them both for edit warring. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You blocked the guy for edit warring on his own talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the original edit warring was on an article, and then it spilled onto the userpage. xenocidic (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Demos from the Basement to be exact. xenocidic (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow this spilled onto my user page a bit, too. Looking at the recent contributions of Nouse4aname (talk · contribs) & USEDfan (talk · contribs) reveals that the two revert each other fairly regularly over a number of articles. Check out the histories of Shallow Believer, Demos from the Basement & Paralyzed (song). These guys need to go to WP:DR...edit warring blocks look perfectly appropriate. — Scientizzle 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the block for USEDfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I would have blocked longer, given this stance on edit warring and his numerous 3RR vios. -- which I have all but extended my last bit of good faith towards.

• [1] (have fun reading this one)
• Edit warring @ The Used over genres of all things. I put an end to this by protecting the page (twice...) and eventually went for consensus on this. Despite consensus and a lack of reliable sources for his edits, he replies with [2] [3] [4] [5]
• USEDfan cannot count his number of violations in his previous 5RR, which I overlooked in a stretch of good faith @ The Used -- I locked the page and allowed them to discuss it on the talk page. [6] [7] [8] [9]
• And quite frankly, I can't comprehend half of the comments that are made, such as this. I would endorse a lengthier block, perhaps one week, based on the edit warring of the past and the lack of communication (that is understandable). seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User :90.196.3.2

Please check User 90.196.3.2 He is making repeated disruptive edits. [10][11] [12] [13]

Also check his edit history. He is same user [14][15] [16][17] Mahaakaal (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:RFCU is where Requests for Check User go. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Finaldrive

Any administrators looking for a 10-minute job? I've got one.

In responding to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Finaldrive it became clear to me that Finaldrive was blocked for repeatedly posting an article about a band that he says is notable and admins say is not notable. He is requesting an unblock for the second time, and his unblock reason is that (surprise!) the band is notable.

The smart thing to do is to resolve the underlying content issue. Once the content issue is resolved, we can worry about the user's behavior if he continues to cause problems.

To that end, please unblock User:Finaldrive and start a deletion review for Final Drive where he is allowed to comment. Note that the second user in the SSP report may be someone else but should be considered involved with respect to a DRV discussion. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who deleted the article, I have unblocked the user and set up a deletion review. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging by User:DAJF

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

---

Resolved

User:DAJF recently tagged the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany minutes after its creation with refimprove, orphaned and uncategoirzed despite the fact I added "underconstruction" template in the article. When I removed the tags with this edit summary, he issued me this. This kind of tagging is not constructive and unhelpful. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his Talk Page about this thread. I don't think he was being malicious about it. He probably didn't notice the under construction tag or it didn't occur to him. I'd suggest just ignore it and continue working on the article :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was surprised to see that such a minor incident got raised here. My actions in tagging the article certainly weren't intended to be malicious, but I was well aware of the "Under constuction tag" at the top of the page. Marking a new article as "Under construction" does not magically make it immune from being tagged as requiring references etc. The original author or other editors are of course free to remove the relevant tags once the respective issues have been addressed, but removing them before improvements have been made is not something I consider constructive, which is why I posted the warning to his Talk page. Maybe the original author should have considered using the "Show preview" button a few more times and waiting until the article was in a more complete state before uploading it for other editors to pick through. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. DAJF, please, when you are new page patrolling check the edit count of the creators of new pages before giving them a templated warning. Otolemur Crassicaudatus has just shy of 23k edits to their credit and can reasonably be considered not to be a newbie. Using your own words not templates will always be the best way to contact an established user. See WP:DTTR. Finally, we usually give established editors much more leaway when it comes to giving articles time to develop before tagging. All that said this is a minor incident and not really worthy of much further discussion. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

::::The overzealous edits by the above user is now bordering vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:00, 30 May 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.

Legal threats from anons

Over the last two days I have received some vaguely threatening messages from two anons, 155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs). This mainly concerns an image presently being displayed on mini-mental state examination. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[18]

The anons now claim that:

• An image of two interlocking pentagons is a copyright violation, even though I uploaded a new version that I have certainly drawn myself.[19]
• We might be breaking a law in 20 states of the USA.[20]
• Showing a simple copy of an image from the test somehow interferes with the administration of the test in physician's offices.[21]

The anons decline to provide evidence for their points, but I am worried about the WP:LEGAL here. Could someone have a look and see whether (1) I am right or wrong in my assessment, (2) anything of this holds any water. JFW | T@lk 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar behaviour has been exhibited by Npsych (talk · contribs) on the MMSE page and on Rorschach inkblot test, as well as by the abovementioned 155.41.160.31 on Image:WCST.png (which is not displayed on any page). JFW | T@lk 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a copyright dispute... not WP:LEGAL. They may be baseless but it doesn't seem that they are threatening to sue you or anything. gren グレン 05:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You might consider posting this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted now. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 06:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WebbyTaranula44444

Resolved

 – User blocked, articles G3'd.

Can someone please block this user and delete his articles? He's introduced several hoax articles about "upcoming" 2008 films (The Sword in the Stone (2008 film) and BareWolf 3-D)? Unfortunately, as hoaxes none of his contributions are candidates for speedy deletion, and his other contributions to existing articles are all vandalism as his adding links to his hoax films. AniMate 08:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are CSD-eligible: WP:CSD#G3 includes misinformation. I won't tag because I don't know if they're really hoaxes...... Dendodge .. Talk^Help 08:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are hoaxes - deleted. Neıl 龱 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The user was blocked indef by Alexf. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda refuses to retract offensive personal attack

Resolved

 – This is becoming entirely pointless, remember that this is not the Wikipedia complaints department, if you want to bash each other do so on your talk pages. This entire thread is a drama magnet, the matter at hand does not require sysop attention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda recently claimed that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good" in an unspecified post at Wikipedia Review. [22] There's two problems with this: 1) I have made no such statement, and 2) Guettarda refuses to retract the claim or prove it.

Since there is no evidence, I'm left with the conclusion that Guettarda's statement was a lie, and responded based on that. [23] [24] [25] Guettarda claims this is a personal attack, but WP:AGF clearly states otherwise. I will not "discuss" something that isn't true, even if it were somehow possible to do so.

Guettarda has thus far only removed the "observation" because it made me more than a little angry, which was "distracting from its purpose." [26] I find the allegation extremely offensive, and do not want it to become a "fact" simply because Guettarda stated it and refused to retract the claim. In fact, Guettarda continues to treat the claim as if it has some truth to it, still without producing any evidence. [27] [28]

I refuse to be unfairly maligned in this way. This behavior is completely inappropriate for any editor, much less an admin. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have tried discussing this with the subject of this AN/I report (previously WQA), but I'm afraid I already know what he's capable of saying in response to me. Therefore, I think it'd be better if another user discussed it with him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you talking about me? If so, where have you tried discussing this? As far as I can recall, I have never interacted with you, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

See below. Maybe I read too much into it at the time when you left that note for Shoemaker's Holiday. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Guettarda has deleted and struck all of his comments about this, I am mystified as to what you want. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I want a retraction. Guettarda is claiming that the supposed statement "undercuts his/her credibility here." [29] Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. That was not what I was saying. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. - how about you start by linking to this alleged statement by Sxeptomaniac so we know exactly what statement you may have misinterpreted. --Random832 (contribs) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question by Sxeptomaniac, I said what I did to try to explain to him/her why his/her activity at Wikipedia Review is hurts his/her credibility (at least with some editors) over here. Instead of communication, my illustration brought anger and personal attacks* from Sxeptomaniac. So I edited my comment to remove the offending text. If Sxeptomaniac choses to remove his/her personal attacks, I am quite willing to discuss how it is that I mischaracterised what Sxeptomaniac wrote. All I have seen are further personal attacks.*

I removed the comment. Sxeptomaniac has repeated my comment in various places (both here and at WR), when a diff would suffice. Make of that what you will. My comment was a good-faith attempt to reflect what I wrote. Maybe once Sxeptomaniac is willing to have a civil discussion, I will learn what the problem was with interpretation. [*Sxeptomaniac has characterised my comment as a "lie". Calling something a lie is, on the face of it, a personal attack - a lie is an intentional falsehood. Thus, it is a statement about intent, rather than a statement about the action. While I may have misunderstood what Sxeptomaniac meant (I have no way of knowing what s/he meant) it was made in good faith] Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Gaming the system: "An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy." I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that wikilawyering about the implication of using a term like "lie" as opposed to neutral terms like "untruth" isn't the way to go here.PelleSmith (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this reads like a demand for "satisfaction". Are we talking about pistols at dawn on the hill outside of Wiki-town? But whose dawn? Are we in the same time zone? Different time zones? Oh, this is all so complicated. But I'm sure that, somehow, it furthers the mission of writing an encyclopaedia, right? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This all reads like classic victim bullying by Sxeptomaniac and his pal Ncmvocalist to me. Move along, there's nothing to see here. Odd nature (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm awfully tempted to call mark this as resolved, Guettarda already moved on, perhaps Sxeptomaniac should do the same. There is no point in "demanding" an apology just to feel that you "won" an argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if suggesting Sxeptomaniac bring it here (from the WQA) so that there is more input means I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature. I've had no prior dealings with either editor; the only reason I didn't want to comment either way was so that the dispute was resolved as quickly as possible. (Having seen Guettarda make a certain comment about me to another editor recently, I didn't see there was any point in me discussing it with him; it'd probably compound rather than resolve itself). If there's consensus that it's resolved, then I agree - it should be marked so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Towards who is this: "I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement" directed towards? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you missed the target: "then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature." User:Odd nature is an editor. See [30] Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers PelleSmith - you hit the target. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean H.Q., I'm not interested in "winning", but in having my name cleared of a false accusation. Let me give an example, somewhat amplified to hopefully give some idea of where I'm coming from: Suppose I posted a claim that you had admitted to being a child molester in another forum (with no evidence). How would you respond? Then suppose that, instead of retracting the statement as false, I simply blanked that accusation "because you got upset"? Would you find that satisfactory?

I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation, so I'm going to do everything I can to stop that. Guettarda could have ended this very quickly with a quick retraction or a link, but has made excuse after excuse for not doing so. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not an example, that's a hypothetical -- and a deliberately provocative one at that. You're not helping yourself. --Calton | Talk 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Calton on this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to be provocative. I'm just trying to give people an idea of where I'm coming from. Some people don't seem to understand why I'm not satisfied with the accusation simply being blanked, so I tried to give an example that most people would understand. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we created a Userbox that says "Sxeptomaniac has been certified never to have injected pro-Intelligent Design POV into articles", and link it to this thread, will that solve the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose at this point I'll have to be satisfied with having taken this as far as I can, in the hope that it will deter others from repeating the lie in the future. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't you think you've used up your quota of personal attacks by now? I made a good-faith attempt to accurately portray your comment. Had I anticipated your reaction, I might have used some other illustration, or none at all. My only purpose was clear communication. And at that, I failed utterly. Oh well... Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd let it go at this point, for my two cents. Guettarda's response about "lie" being a personal attack seemed a bit much under the circumstances, but if he removed the comment that's a retraction in my book, whether anyone wants to characterize it as something else. Mackan79 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This puzzles me. Sxeptomaniac wrote:

I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation

If he was afraid of his "reputation" being sullied, why is he spreading what I said all over? The statement was up on a low-traffic page for 8.5 hours before I removed it. Since then, he's repeated it at two higher traffic pages (here and WQA; I'd mention another place as well, but then we'd probably see another post go *poof*), when a link to the page history would have done the job just as well. But maybe that's just my lack of understanding of how the world works. Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda -- I am not sure it is helpful at this point to speculate on the wisdom of Sxeptomaniac's bringing this to WP:ANI. People have their motives for what they do. Would I have done it? Probably not, but then again I did fly off the handle one time when a vandal account called me a Scientologist for no particular reason -- I mean, it was to the point where I almost asked an admin to remove the edit in question from the page history, until I decided it was better to just leave it be. ha ha ha... Anyway, my point is, people have their reasons for what they do, and those reasons don't always make sense to everyone. Sometimes people's reasons, in retrospect, don't even make sense to themselves, as in my freak-out over being called a Scientologist :D That's just the way it is.

At this point, these are the facts: Guettarda has deleted the comment in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he may have to be satisfied with no additional action taken beyond that. At this point, other than making it abundantly clear that you guys don't particularly like each other, what more is there to resolve? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my reasoning: I expected the accusation to be repeated at some point in the future, so I want to make it abundantly clear it is not true and I won't tolerate such things, since Guettarda refused to retract it. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to ask again for a link to the alleged statement of Sxeptomaniac saying he would insert ID POV into articles, though I'm guessing it's probably of similar quality to the evidence that Filll and FeloniousMonk produced for their accusations against Moulton. If that's the case, then when faced with a choice between malice or utter incompetence as theories for why you said what you said, he chose not to insult your intelligence. Perhaps an unfortunate choice, since it goes against WP:AGF, but there you go --Random832 (contribs) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, Sxeptomaniac. So you're not satisfied with a remark being deleted, you want to keep repeating it and calling another user a liar as well as demanding that the user retracts the remark. I'm sure that when you take up issues that an indefinitely blocked user has told you about, you do so in good faith. I'd hope that you take care to disregard the sort of personal attacks that are acceptable on another site, but I'd also hope that you can also accept that views on issues differ in good faith and that someone you describe as behaving like "a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist" may actually have a valid point. Now, Guettarda has to accept that his reading of off-wiki remarks may be mistaken and without evidence can't stand. That doesn't make him a liar, and I'd expect you to withdraw that accusation. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave I think the issue that Sxeptomaniac and others are having is that there is in fact currently no evidence of any "reading of off-wiki remarks" at all, and none in particular to have been misinterpreted. Sxeptomaniac can be taken to task once Guettarda makes it clear what remark he misread to come to the interpretation he stated. That is the basic amount of evidence needed to, if we assume good faith, say that Sxeptomaniac's remark was uncalled for. Until then how do we know whether or not it was a misinterpretation or actually a conscious lie? Its that simple, and the fact that Guettarda refuses to do so is rather astonishing. Either he's so proud that he is incapable of pointing directly to his mistakes or he's actually trying to wikilawyer himself out of being called a spade. With a solution this simple one wonders what the hold up is.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

... and slinging around accusations of any kind, whether they be about "lying" or threats to insert POV into entries is a detriment to the project, and while no one likes Wikidrama letting that kind of behavior slide because its just "easier" is not the solution.PelleSmith (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, I reiterate: Guettarda has removed the remark in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he is unlikely to be successful in getting any further action taken. It is abundantly clear to everyone here that y'all don't like each other. What further action needs to be taken? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

The same thing every accomplished victim bully expects: leverage over others. Until Sxeptomaniac and his pals Random832, PelleSmith, and Ncmvocalist feel they've sufficiently brow beaten Guettarda into silence and waylaid him at the articles in question, expect them to linger here and raise the ante. That is, until the community's had enough and closes this thread. Odd nature (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

That's right we are all buddies, we've just disguised it on Wikipedia, pretending to not have the same interests or communicating so that no one could tell that its true! At what point, Odd nature, do you accept that we're all just members of the "community" using a community forum to voice our concerns?PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Odd Nature, I suggest you read that blog posting you like throwing around. I have not been carrying around hurts to use in unrelated matters as per the article you reference. I have consistently been after one very specific thing: a retraction, and took it as far as I could in my pursuit of that. That said, Jaysweet is right, nothing much else is likely to help, unfortunately. I'm done. Sχeptomaniac^{χαιρετε} 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This entire thing is ludicrous. It is about a possible misreading and/or misinterpretation of a post on another site that might very well have already been removed, and for which we have no record if it ever existed or was removed, by who and when. And even if the reading was correct, it is not some terrible indictment or something with terrible negative connotations; even if true, so what? And in any case, Guettarda struck and deleted all references to it. The only person spreading and repeating this nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a frenzy like some sort of drama queen is Sxeptomaniac. Come on people. Give this a rest. It is nothing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, as you well know some of us like to think that there should be accountability for baseless accusations used in an attempt gain advantage in various disputes. No amount of buttering these accusations up with supposed, "oh I don't even care if he is what I spuriously claimed he is," changes the problem here, and this problem is rather clear from Guettarda's own remarks. 1) He believes that Sxeptomaniac's behavior at Wikipedia Review destroys his credibility on Wikipedia yet 2) he misrepresents (whether consciously or not) this behavior in a way that furthers this claim. I stand by the fact that this type of behavior should not be encouraged, and that Guettarda could easily lay this to rest by obliging the "drama queens," in any number of ways.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Accountability for baseless accusations" is not an excuse for making baseless accusations of your own, like those here. Odd nature (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For your convenience Odd nature, I've linked once again to the pertinent remarks that are not in dispute, unless perchance someone hijacked Guettarda's account. I'll take full accountability for anything I've said, but someone has to say it. Baseless accusations are harmful to our project, and letting everyone off the hook just to diffuse the "drama" isn't the way to go. This supposed "drama" perpetuates itself in the vacuum of responsible action by the community at large. If an uninvolved admin had asked Guettarda to apologize and or to explain his misinterpretation would that have been so evil or hard? Some people are sanctioned from posts at this board in seconds, and it sends a bad message to the community when disputes involving other people just get the "ok move along, enough with the drama" routine.PelleSmith (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I wish I had the energy to reply to some of the blather on this, but I'm tuckered out just reading teh dramaz. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was it requested? Or let me rephrase, what exactly compelled you expend the energy to add that non-comment?PelleSmith (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, that was really clever. Nonetheless, this is naught but much ado about nothing. If we really want to get technical: saying that someone "lied" absent proof is basically libel, especially when one won't retract it. Hence, Guettarda's NPA comment was correct, yet he just "let it go". The rest can be ascertained from Dave's comments below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Baseless remarks should be removed. There is no evidence supporting the accusation of a "lie" and that should be removed, there is no evidence supporting the accusation of announcing an intention to make "pro-ID edits" and that has been removed. Statements made on other forums may seem to some people to discredit the editors making the statements, that's purely a matter of opinion and not one that can be resolved here. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave, some statements if true, are seen to discredit any editor in the eyes of pretty much any other editor. Being unabashedly pro-ID is one thing, but threatening to disrupt the encyclopedia consciously by willfully inserting a POV into entries is quite another. Feel free to have a look at the recent CAMERA fiasco, where it was pretty clear that simply being pro-Israeli is quite different from consciously disregarding Wikipedia policy and acceptable etiquette. Consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries (which is what Sxeptomaniac was accused of threatening) is likewise clearly against our basic guidelines and policies. Now, I know that you and others understand the distinction and I would appreciate a little recognition of that. This is not a matter of simply calling someone pro-ID, but of claiming that they have threatened to disrupt the encyclopedia. Given the larger context that this is all happening within (Moulton, Wikipedia Review, etc.) one would expect the nature of this accusation to be even more clear.PelleSmith (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

BTW, as I have stated in part already, there is no way to prove whether or not someone has in fact intentionally told a falsehood, and if no admission of such intent is available then clearly there is no way to suggest the likelihood that a lie in fact has been told. On the other hand if we assume good faith, as many are perfectly willing to do, there is at least one way to move on with more certainty that there was not an intended falsehood. If the person who claims not to have lied, but to have misinterpreted something, were to give evidence of this misinterpretation, then assuming good faith, we can accept this as true, and ask that the person claiming the lie to apologize and retract his/her claim. I think this is more than reasonable, not to mention easy and by Sxeptomaniac's own admission would solve the entire issue. He at least claims he'll retract his statement given this type of proof, and many others would undoubtedly sway towards simply believing Guettarda.PelleSmith (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

So what you're saying is that you want "proof" before you'll assume good faith? My feeling is that we should assume good faith all round, and neither assume that Guettarda lied nor that Sxeptomaniac was *threatened* "consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries" which was not something I saw in any remarks made. If we can all back down from such antagonistic positions and accept the sincerity of both editors, I'm sure that there will be a reasonable explanation. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Corrected by striking "was" and substituting *threatened*, as PelleSmith notes. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

This is the last I'm going to say on this, but I didn't claim that Sxeptomaniac was accused of doing that, but that he was accused of threatening to do so. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that correction, I've amended my statement accordingly and hope that conrrectly conveys your meaning. It's still not my reading of the sentence that Sxeptomaniac finds objectionable, and my feeling is that you're overstating its effect, but of course that's individual interpretation and not an absolute. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh Dave. I see you like to apply that subjectivist safety net when obvious meanings don't suit your interests. The appeal to individual interpretation is a non-starter, and a boring diversion from the practical aims of human communication. Keep it up and we'll have to start assuming that we probably don't understand a thing you write.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Going back on my word already, one more thing. I think there is some confusion here as to the dimensions of AGF at play in a matter like this one. Hypothetically, if you claim that I have written a lie and I respond by saying that "the reason I attributed something untrue to you is because I misinterpreted something you wrote," then both you and I have made affirmative claims--you that I lied and I that you produced some piece of writing that could be misinterpreted and that I …so misinterpreted it. The main thing that differentiates these claims, that one is very possibly a personal attack, has no bearing on AGF. A personal attack may be very sincere, however much its choice of words violates civility and acceptable modes of communication. When you retort with "I don't believe that what you say is possible because I have never written anything that could be so interpreted," then whose statement is the outside observer meant to accept based on an "assumption of good faith"? Do we have to assume good faith in Sxeptomaniac's assertion that the original comment was a lie? Do we have to AGF behind Guettarda's explanation? And do we have to AGF in Sxeptomaniac's second assertion that Guettarda's explanation doesn't make sense? It is only Guettarda's explanation that you claim I'm unwilling to AGF in until he gives proof. AGF here, to me, means assuming goof faith all around until there is reason to believe otherwise. When one party is presenting themselves in a transparent manner, personal attack or no personal attack, claiming to have reviewed all his own comments and welcoming others to do the same, and the other person, sitting on the other end of a contradictory claim, closes up entirely and claims, based upon a technicality (NPA), that he no longer has to resolve this contradiction then how are we to AGF? I'll tell you how, AGF means extending the courtesy not to judge Guettarda on what Sxeptomaniac is claiming, but to let Guettarda defend himself. In taking the fifth, we are left with just that, the implication that Guettarda has chosen not to continue in order not to incriminate himself. While this may keep him from incriminating himself it also makes us lose trust in him, and trust is rather important to AGF if it is to function at all. Anyway my point here is that I'm not asking for proof prior to AGF, but simply for proof so that AGF (and trust) can be maintained.PelleSmith (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My feeling is that such hypothesising is an obstacle rather than an aid to mutual understanding, and that all personal attacks should be withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's highly suspicious that the original accusation was not accompanied with a link at all. You can say now that the post may have been edited and removed, but presumably he saw it at some point, why not have copied the link then? --Random832 (contribs) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda has long withdrawn the comment and said he might have made a mistake. He's already met all the conditions any editor acting in good faith would expect to resolve this matter. Yet the piling on continues and a completely unnecessary drama implying Guettarda had intentionally misrepresented things has sprung up without any meaningful evidence to that effect. It looks less and less like the the aggrieved party and his pals genuinely wanted his greivance resolved and was simply setting the stage to score some point against Guettarda from their past content dispute. Odd nature (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Odd nature has (until now) only made comments in this thread that heighten the drama rather than help quickly resolve whatever issues/misunderstandings/dispute that existed between the complainant and his pal. He's continues to make unsupported accusations that editors are commenting here because of involvement in non-existent content disputes with Guettarda - could someone kindly tell him to either provide evidence, or to stop with the incivility and assumptions of bad faith? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

WHAT content dispute? I have never, to my knowledge, edited an article that Guettarda has edited. --Random832 (contribs) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And there are two very important things he has not done: He has not actually apologized, and he has not said just WHAT he was looking at that gave him this extremely negative impression of Sxeptomaniac. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So seriously. What do you all want? Guettarda has deleted the comment, which essentially amounts to a retraction. It appears some people would like Guettarda to make an official apology, but he has made it very clear that he is unwilling to do so, and I don't see how we can force him. I have never heard of sanctions being taken against an editor because they refused to apologize, and nobody appears to be asking for this. (If you are, please say so explicitly so we can at least discuss the proposal in concrete terms rather than abstract, e.g. say, "If Guettarda doesn't apologize, I think he should be blocked for 3.1415926 hours", or "If Guettarda doesn't post an official retraction on his user page, then we'll all point at him and call his mother fat.") Sxeptomaniac originally seemed to want public confirmation that the alleged accusation was untrue, and if this is really the case then I reiterate my suggestion that we create a UBX that says, "This user is not now, nor has ever been, a pro-ID POV warrior on Wikipedia", and link it to this ANI thread. I mean, if that's really what you want, why not?

But let's have concrete requests. The level of dialogue so far has been fairly poor on both sides, which is made all the more pathetic because it involves longstanding users. At this point, everyone has aired their grievances and I think we are quite clear on that. So from now on, if you don't have a specific request, then keep it to yourself. Agreed? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - specific request: please warn User:Odd nature to stop making assumptions of bad faith and make him retract his unsubstantiated accusations here. He's failed to provide evidence to support his accusations of me (or the other users he mentioned) being previously involved in content disputes with Guettarda, or of being in any way involved with the complainant beyond this incident. The issue is resolved if and when the relevant lines are removed. I want to make it clear - I am uninvolved (in case any future steps of dispute resolution are attempted concerning any of the users here, I don't want any ambiguity when someone refers to this in the archives). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there in any of this, something that needs admin attention? --Kbdank71 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Establishing whether he made a personal attack apparently requires community discussion. If it is established that he did, well, WP:No personal attacks is still policy, and admins implement it. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

He who, Guettarda? Apparently the comment was struck, so a block is highly unlikely at this point. What else do you need an admin for? --Kbdank71 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the comment being struck as being the only thing under discussion, and its significance also seems disputed. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda has deleted the comment, which essentially amounts to a retraction. He deleted it citing a specific reason other than it being false, so it does not in any way amount to a retraction. There is no carte blanche to snipe at people so long as you blank it after they complain. A simple apology and/or retraction would go far at this point. --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough. It really is time to move on. At this point, this thread is becoming no more than an excuse to argue and bicker like nattering noetic nulls. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;^dissera! 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Followup Comment - Some actual admin attention to AN/I postings like this one, when they do occur, would go miles towards preventing situations like: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_design_editors. "Lets move along, there is nothing to see, this is all whiny drama," will surely lead to more unnecessary RfCs and arbcom requests. I know some people commenting here and reading this think that my commentary (along with that of others) belongs on a "complaint" noticeboard but as Relata suggests there are possible policy violations here to be addressed by uninvolved admins who should be 1) trained to understand them and 2) empowered to act upon them (e.g. either Guettarda or Sxeptomaniac or both could have been at the very least officially warned by an admin for violating WP:NPA). Is it preferable to zip up the drama so that it can be unleashed tenfold somewhere else? I don't think so, what do you think?PelleSmith (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User Hudavendigar's vandalism and edit warring on Armenian Genocide-related articles

Hudavendigar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Despite multiple warnings, user Hudavendigar's continues to not only aggressively remove any and all mention of the Armenian Genocide in articles but goes on to remove neutral sources and distorts the historical reality of the genocide by claiming that it is a myth - a grossly inaccurate assertion since most historians recognize the genocide as so: Letter on the genocide by IAGS. Along with a "my way or the way" attitude, any attempts at discussion and compromise are brushed off with disdain and hysterical accusations of a genocide conspiracy to besmirch Turks. Please see the following articles for this user's record of vandalism Sason, Sason Edit 2, Sason Edit 3, Van, Turkey, Bitlis, Van Resistance, etc., see also this user's editing history here. He fails to cease his edit warring and vandalism and after tens of warnings by several users, I hope a topic ban may be in order here. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure his edits are vandalism? The official policy on vandalism defines it as something done in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which I don't think qualifies in this case. Plus, this user has only been around for 8 days, I don't see tens of warnings left on his userpage, only a welcome note and the warning you left 3 days ago. Maybe you should try honestly talking to this editor about what you see as potential problems. You'd be surprised how much you could accomplish by doing that instad of just reporting him here. SWik78 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, consider his edits tantamount to inserting the notion that Jews took up arms against Nazi Germany in the 1940s, which thus resulted in their tragic fate to "relocation camps." His talk page notwithstanding, warnings and invitations for discussion were indeed stated on the talk pages and on the edit summaries of the articles, not just his talk page. I think it's indicative that a user who just ignores your comments and proclaims himself as the sole guarantor of truth and honesty on Wikipedia and labels everything else as propaganda is not doing so because he's interested in the truth. Do you get that impression when you read his edit summary, saying that he is removing "propagandistic Armenian pov" and is combative with anything that goes against his beliefs? Please see his comments on user The Myotis's talk page to see what sort of editor you're dealing with. Some users who are informed on the Armenian Genocide and Turkey's position on it will be useful also.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Hudavendigar is the type of editor that can be engaged with constructively. He has been inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as sources obscure extreme-nationalist Turkish propaganda. Hudavendigar might well believe those sources to be truthful, but they are at total odds with every credible source. However, the rest of what SWik78 said above is true, he has only been editing for a week ar so and has been restricting his editing to a small amount of related articles of minor importance. I think he will quickly tire of his unsuccessful edits and either leave or extend his POV editing and warring to so many other articles that he will get restrictions or get banned for that. So best leave things as they are for now - don't hang someone for stealing just a chicken. Meowy 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does it? Oversight and administrator revision removal

Hi. See. Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The mirror would have to have a copy of the page between the time the offending text was posted and the time it was oversighted. Most mirrors do not keep the entire page history (or even the changelog in violation of the GFDL) so as long as the text gets removed it should be fine once oversight deletes the record. In any case, if some libelous comment is on a mirror, it is the mirror that will be sued not Wikimedia. --Selket ^Talk 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure. I don't think Wikimedia can be sued, but the mirror apparently could not be sued under US law, either. The original poster (if it wasn't a repost from somewhere else) is the one who can be sued. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

By my understanding, this is actually a legal gray area that I don't think anyone is eager to test. There is some precedent that if you knowingly host a libelous statement, even if it was posted by someone else, that could create legal issues (at the very least, someone could definitely sue you and cost lots of money, even if the case was ultimately dismissed).

I think that, in the hypothetical example of a mirror preserving a libelous statement after it had been oversighted out of Wikipedia, the fact that Wikipedia removed the statement as soon as it was discovered would go a long way to averting legal responsibility. But again, nobody can say for sure, as this has not been extensively tested in the courts. Depends on which attorney you ask, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

More RollbackUndo abuse by user:Gulmammad as well as WP:BATTLE and WP:HARASS

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

Please refer to the previous ANI THREAD.

In that thread, admin user:Tiptoety revoked Gulmammad's rollback rights however gave them back when he promised to use them only against vandalism. Gulmammad is now back to rollback abuse. He rolled my backused undo on my own talk page. Not only is this abuse of rollback undo but this is harassment. His post was clear battling along ethnic lines. He seems to refer to people he doesn't like as Armenian, I am not Armenian. He has also referred to admin user:Golbez as Armenian see here. Please consider my earlier suggestions of taking away his rollback rights as well as putting him on supervised editing. I leave it up to the discretion of the admins. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the accusation of rollback abuse, the diff that you provided clearly states that he did not use rollback, but instead the undo button and thus allowing him to enter a edit summary. Tiptoety ^talk 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, my mistake on that one but he still shouldn't be reverting me on my own talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In this instance the undo is essentially reposting his previous question with a request for you to clarify your response in the edit summary. It wouldn't be wrong for him to do this using copy and paste, so what is wrong with the undo button if the outcome is the same? Xaeon (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Something's wrong with Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous

It seems that there's floating text there with an image with a caption that says "Avril Lavigne with horns" I can't access the top tabs due to that picture.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What the...? I'll try to fix this (hopefully without botching anything! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:12, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

It's an ongoing vandalism problem the Reference Desk is having. Amusing, isn't it? I'm terrible at finding which template the vandal hides the pictures in; good thing the ref desk has 133t3r editors than I working there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Another one at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Misc. one fixed by User:Algebraist, I got the science one. They hide it in the archives, which are then transcluded on to the main page. How about (fully) protecting the archives? No-one has need to edit them, really. If not, perhaps don't transclude them on to the main page, just link them. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:21, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

I think archive protection would be good idea. Anyways thanks for your help. Will be sleeping soon as it is almost midnight in my part of the world. Goodnight.--Lenticel ^(talk) 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:RD Archive header monthly. still unprotected. Please protect, thank you. Hint on finding right template: Click on the Avril image and then on "What links here". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(double ec)I don't think the full effect on the misc desk was intended; an unclosed div was involved. Algebraist 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

(blaargh! ECx2) I've warned the Science vandal (he had his User Talk: redirected to his User:, I undid this, I would imagine this isn't allowed), and could the next passing admin please protect all the refdesk archives: no-one has any (legitimate) reason to edit them, and it would avoid future silly vandalism. The Science refdesk archive was edited directly, it wasn't that template causing the issue. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:29, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Re:FisherQueen. Yes, it's an ongoing problem. Sometimes it's highly disruptive vandalism of pages and templates, like in this example, sometimes it's a series of sockpuppets with first contributions consisting in non-sensical and surreal questions, probably also meant to be funny, but actually quite annoying and capable of luring good faith editors into wasting time trying to answer them. It is disrupting the desks, and both types of disruption occurred today, but from what I gathered from previous reports here, the editor also uses TOR nodes or whatnot and blocking him appears to be non-trivial. If it helps, I can collect a list of sockpuppets I'm talking about. It just looks as though it's all a waste of time and simply reverting the vandalism, protecting the templates, and removing the questions is probably easier and more effective. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the edits to archives illustrate, protection isn't really a good option. The core flaw is that disruptive HTML can be injected; specifically that of the form:

<div style="_position:fixed; _width=20000; _height=2000; _left:9%; _top:0%; _overflow:visible;">

(leading underscores added to make sure it doesn't break this page). Is there a technical means of restricting this sort of stuff? I'd think that stripping user-added CSS is a start, but that messes with sigs and such. "position" and "overflow" are the key exploits here -- perhaps they can be selectively stripped without much collateral damage. — Lomn 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Follow-up re: User:Algebraist's "not intended" suggestion -- the code above makes it quite clear that the disruption was intended. If you want a pic at top right, you don't define a div larger than any computer monitor with those provisions and then "forget" to close it. — Lomn 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

When you say 'injected', I assume you mean 'injected into the rendering of the page without the wikicode needing to be edited'? Otherwise, how would they get it in there? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

"Injected" isn't really the right word. The code has to be inserted via normal edits, but there's not really a need for the abuser to track down an unprotected template file or other obscure source -- any edit that places the relevant code at any point on the page results in the page being obscured. Yes, yes, WP:BEANS, but I think this editor has already demonstrated that he gets the concept. So I'm wondering if filtering those CSS elements from user edits (perhaps on a sliding scale similar to page creation) would serve to inhibit the threat. — Lomn 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed one of these last week (in accordance with WP:BEANS, I won't mention the ridiculously easy way in which I—about as computer-unsavvy as they come—found where the code was hidden in the archive). If anyone wants the name of the throwaway account (which I warned) used in that case, drop me a note. Deor (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course! Sorry, I had a bit of a brain-fart moment there! I say file a Bugzilla (I can do it if you want) asking for the 'position' and 'overflow' CSS elements to be filtered from non-sysop edits. There are very few legit uses for those elements in WP, and if they ever are needed, then an admin can insert them. This should stop them from being so disruptive. Yes they can still replace templates/pages with an image, but at least they can't obscure the entire page with the @$£!@# stuff! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:28, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And my Bugzilla competency has never been all that good, so I'd appreciate the assist. — Lomn 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, late-breaking thought: This guy is also fond of using character escape codes to obscure stuff -- thus far, he's used it to hide "Avril" in the image name, but similar precautions should be taken to prevent the escaped version of "overflow" and such from slipping through. — Lomn 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Bug 14346 filed. I'll add the stuff about escaped versions, any chance of an example diff to help the devs? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:13, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Here's the offending RD/M edit. It's easiest to find the code in question via "view source", but note the section of "[[Image:&%65;&%118;&%114;&%105;&%108;...]]" ("#" changed to "%") -- that's the escape code in question (that renders as [[Image:Avril...]]). — Lomn 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[too many colons!] The bug has been marked as a dupe of Bug 8679. I've added a reference to this spate of vandalism and a recommendation to blacklist 'overflow' to that bug. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:29, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Continous personal attacks

Resolved

 – IP address blocked.

I have been a target of continuous personal attacks by anon despite repeated warning.

User:24.180.3.127: Keeps making edits despite my pleas to discuss. And when he finally agreed, he wrote this. Made statements like "this guy thinks he is God here", "I think this is turning into too much falsehood", "Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak". Look at this edit summary: "undoing above the law user AI009 here who is trying to make this his webpage, stop your police state and go to college" making repeated taunts on my age. Repeatedly uses argumentative tone making it extremely difficult to continue discussion. Called me a Nazi, and this comment almost made me lose my cool as he resorted to all sought of lies. Goes on to make statements like "The threat is this guy", a 18 year old kid, and a a big fat liar. Also vandalized my talkpage and my userpage. Highly un-civil behavior making it very difficult to discuss.

Let me also add, I've never resorted to name calling and tried to make all efforts to discuss the topic in as civil manner as possible. I reported the same to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but did not receive any response. That's why I'm posting here.

Also, concern over his sources were also raised by others. See [31] [32]. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am still in the process of familiarizing myself with Wikipedia rules. Any help, feedback, advise on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks --AI009 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 31 hours for harassment and personal attacks.-Wafulz (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Thelegendofvix

User:Thelegendofvix has been engaging in extensive edit warring on Greek (TV series), refusing to allow no less than six editors to remove his WP:NPOV and WP:OR additions. After four reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning (foolishly being generous). We discussed on his talk page, but he continued to assert his right to put the information in there. Less than hour later, an account that has not been used in nearly a year suddenly appeared to revert the article again to Thelegendofvix's preferred version, then disappeared again. Fairly obvious reason to be suspecion, so I filed a sock puppet report. Thelegendofvix made various comments there as well, before finally filing a blatantly obvious retaliatory sockpuppet report against me, claiming was the inactive account and was trying to frame him! He then messed up my user page to shove the sockpuppet notice into the middle of it (rather than on my talk page)[33]. He's since blanked the sockpuppet case notice from his own talk page[34]. I think this pointy behavior is inappropriate, and would like an admin to please take a look at the situation and respond in whatever manner seems appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No one should be sockpuppeteering, and if proven, the admins should give Vix the Vapor Rub. One of vix's sins, apparently, is explaining that G R sigma sigma K does not spell "GREEK", which is not OR, it's verifiable. Collectonian is death on trivia, so this seems to stem from a content dispute. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I came in at the request of another editor who posted for help in the TV project because Thelegendofvix had already reverted multiple editors removing the section. I wasn't the first, nor only, editor to say the section doesn't belong. Thelegendofvix preferred to continue an extended edit war rather than yield to overwhelming consensus. From the talk page, it looks like he's actually been at this since around August 2007 or so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it is funny that I get accused of sockpuppeteering from someone, but when I try to do the same thing I get no "due process." The circumstances are the same for both users (Collectonian and myself) even though the alleged motives are different. Interesting how her sockpuppet case was removed and mine was not. Concordantly, I also think it is funny/pathetic/sad that Collectonian cannot stand it when someone makes a valid point that is contrary to hers. She will throw every weak argument in the book at you to prove you wrong even going as far as to accuse you of sockpuppeting. If you look at her editing history, on her 20K+ so called "contributions" you will see that rather than taking a neutral and academic stance she frequently deletes anything that is contrary to her wikipedia ideology offering no respect for users out there who hold different viewpoints and opinions out there. If you want to see an example of this take a look at her precious award winning Meercat Manor. If she, the wikiGod, does not approve of what goes into the content, precisely how it reads, or its literary merit, she will remove it. If it does not flow with what she feels is true and accurate it is gone. Sounds more like a wikiBully obsessed with being right and winning internet arguments all under the guise of finding just the right statement (while ignoring the ones that are contrary) on wikipedia's vast array of guidelines. All in all, I know that I can be stubborn but wow...I have never seen anything linke this! You win the DundieThelegendofvix (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Any admin want to go ahead and deal with the sock puppet report against Thelegendofvix. I'm fine with ignoring the insults above (and his copy/pasting the same lengthy diatribe into the sockpuppet report...followed 2 hours later by the suspected sock account. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Any admin want to go ahead and deal with the sock puppet report against Collectonian. I'm not fine with ignoring/removing my report on her. To show that I am serious, I will refile it again. And yes, I would not put it past someone, especially anyone who knows all of the deep and intimate innerworkins of wikipedia to setup someone like myself just because they annoyed her by sharing different viewpoints and opinions.Thelegendofvix (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He has actually gone ahead and refiled his false report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Collectonian. Can someone deal with him already, please. This is just plain silly, and his reasoning for accusing me of sockpuppetry is ludicrous. Does he really think I have nothing better in my life to do than try to frame him when he was already well on his way to a block for edit warring?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I feel like I have a say in this because I, in fact allerted Collectonian about the greek issue. I think any skeptical admins should look at the Greek (TV) history page. To see how far it goes back, you will have to go to the next page. Oh, and god knows how many others. The conflict heads back to atleast a year and 1 month. My involvement was only recent. When you are looking at the history page, do not be confused by his edit summaries which say "Minor edits" and "Restoring pop culture section". Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's, just under the 3rr threshold

We have a content dispute at Da Costa's syndrome. Today, I have been called a liar by Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). He has "warned" me that I'm "attacking him" even though I have said absolutely nothing about him and instead commented solely on his content. Editors who disagree with him get strongly worded warnings on their talk pages about "errors" and "original research".

Guido has been blocked in the past for edit warring, so he is being very careful to only make his changes three times in 24 hours, such as:

• His original, undiscussed changes to a Manual of Style page and the first and second reversions, complete with a claim that "you are reverting the wrong editor; please mind WP:3RR".

• Today, we have his first removal of information at Da Costa's syndrome followed by another and the most recent reversions. That's three, so his response is now to dump a bunch of warning and cleanup tags on the top of the article.

• Earlier in the week, we had his removal of information followed by another and a third.

Note, please, that all of this has been discussed, at length, on the relevant talk pages; Guido is the only person with significant objections. IMO it is not possible for us to reach agreement: he has a strongly held POV and is fighting anything that contradicts his personal position tooth and nail. I even had to start an RFC on whether a very widely used medical dictionary(!) was a reliable source! It seems unfair for all other editors to be tied up in these endless and wholly unproductive discussions simply because he's only making changes three times instead of four.

Does this situation justify a block, or are we just stuck with this tendentious editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note an open user-conduct RfC which is languishing without much input, involving similar concerns. MastCell ^Talk 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder is under a probation order on the Dutch Wikipedia. This user has been a disruptive influence on articles such as chronic fatigue syndrome, Simon Wessely (see the talk page) and now on the Da Costa syndrome page. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above information by User:Jfdwolff is false. It is a repeat of similar false statements by other Dutch users on en:Wikipedia which have already been addressed. Nor have I caused any disruption on mentioned en:Wikipedia articles. It is rather User:Jfdwolff himself who has, and now seems to seek an opportunity to bandwagon. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The information provided by User:WhatamIdoing is also false. User keeps adding original research to the article Da Costa's syndrome, making statements for which there is no consensus, while piling insult on insult. Everyone who opposes him gets accused in one way or another. I have worked hard to turn this article into a neutral text, based on reliable sources rather than random websites and personal views. Please let this not go to waste. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note, by the way, that I only found out about this incident report because I saw User:Jfdwolff rallying troops on nl:Wikipedia. Nobody bothered to inform me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done Block for progressive period of 1 week - Gross incivility by GDB as per links given (edit summaries and talk page warnings to several users). 3RR is not permission to revert upto 3 times a day. Given past edit warring history & block, and past issues of failing to engage constructively with other editors or accept need to work within consensus (see RfC link), I think this warrants block from English Wikipedia whilst he rereads policies on civility himself and also WP:3RR - especially given that past repeatedly directing him to WP policy/guideline pages pages had no effect and would continue editing in complete distain for views of multiple other editors. David Ruben ^Talk 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification: GDB has not edited on the Dutch Wikipedia for a long time and seems to have withdrawn on the condition that previous sanctions against him there were declared null and void. I have asked his mentor from NL to comment here or on the RFC. JFW | T@lk 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion based on interactions with GDB on different pages and during his RFC:

1. He seems incapable of admitting that other editors' opinions may have any merit, in theory or in practice
2. His interpretations of policies are idiosyncratic, and diverge greatly from mine at least, though other editors have also mentioned they are, ahem, unusual. For example, see this discussion regards notability, and a discussion in the RFC that I can only call 'delicious' in its ability to capture everything that I think is wrong with GDB's approach to wikipedia.
3. His view of consensus is troubling - if it does not agree with his idea of what is correct, then it is a serious problem. Broad consensus is not a problem, it is something to be cherished. If an editor finds that a policy with truly broad consensus is problematic, they should perhaps seek out a different on-line venue.

Regards Dutch wikipedia - the project may have different policies and definitely has a different language. I would be cautious (actually, my personal stance is to outright reject) of any consideration of circumstances on other wikis. Everyone deserves a fresh start, and if they choose to use that fresh start as an opportunity to repeat their mistakes, that's fine with me. I see GDB as heading for a permablock that is inevitable if he does not re-evaluate how he contributes to wikipedia. The only question in my mind is if it will come from an AN/I posting or an arbitration hearing. WLU (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in commenting on the RfC, and I had considered the matters there to be at least partially resolved and in the past. I'm concerned that people are bringing those past issues up again as part of the justification for this block, and are risking opening up old debates. I haven't looked too closely, but there are always two sides to a dispute and I hope someone has looked at the conduct of the other editors involved in editing that page. Guido can be combative, but people should also remember to look past that and consider the substance of what he is saying, and if he has a point, at least support that on the talk page of the article even if you block him for his behaviour in making that point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Webby Awards

A tendentious editor, Dario D. (talk · contribs · logs), has added the same material thirteen times now, accusing the Webby Awards of being a Who's Who scam, mostly by engaging in a slow speed edit / revert war but also with two bogus arbitration cases and some incivilities. Full details at Talk:Webby_Awards#Tendentious editor adding defamatory material.

I bring it here because the editor has resisted attempts to explain Wikipedia policy, vowing at the end of the second bogus arbitration case he brought on the article to spend as much time as it takes to prevail in his edits because he wants to warn the world about the organization. If anyone could, please take a look at this. Perhaps page protection (libel is probably an exception to the "wrong version" thing) or give the editor a talking-to...though he has been testy with people trying to give him advice (he seems to think I'm a Webbies employee and accused a helpful third party of being my sock, etc). Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A note on my role here - I edit lots of articles and there's nothing wrong with a legitimate, well sourced criticism section. But I'm often on the lookout for coat-racking and other problem edits. My objection is that this particular criticism in this particular form is baseless poorly sourced and unsourced material intended to harm a business. I would normally remove myself and go through dispute resolution channels first rather than getting involved in an edit war. However, he is using Wikipedia as a platform for defamation. If you read my write-up he declared that his purpose is to drive business away by calling the Webbies a scam, which is textbook libel. Indeed, people comment on the blog he used as a source that they will not enter the contest because they believed the accusation it is a scam.[35] - Wikidemo (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The editor has just reverted again so that's revert #13 and 14 from this one[36][37]. So I will bow out for the moment rather than edit warring. Please help if you can though. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have issued the user a final warning. If they persist in edit warring, they may be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was going to block this guy but I'm going to hold off out of respect for Jayron and his final warning. This guy has been edit warring over this piece of text since January and has had numerous warnings and explanations of policy and so on but continues edit warring regardless. He also uses IPs to continue his edit warring, such as 68.111.164.208. Between the warnings on his account's talk page (some have been removed) and the warnings on his IP's talk page, he's had at least a dozen warnings. If he comes back and starts reverting again, I intend to block him. Sarah 03:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, if that's the case, he'll ignore my warning. But since I didn't see how far back this went, and warned him anyways, lets see what happens. You never know, I can be convincing. Maybe he'll listen to me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification in the interest of transparency - I believe all the warnings until now regarding this article come from me, although he was warned by someone else about an edit to another article. Multiple people have tried to explain this to him, though, mostly telling him that he's going about it the wrong way but also a few telling him what's wrong with the content he's been trying to add.Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problems, understood. I just remember this case from when he tried to start an Arbitration back in January to force the material in and a variety of people went and tried to give him advice and assistance. I also think Newyorkbrad tried to help him on the Arb page and explained policy and DR to him. I actually put the article on my watchlist back then to try to help if the wdit warring started up again but I obviously didn't do a very good job of watching out for more trouble. :) And I just noticed that he tried another RfArb just a week ago. *sigh* Sarah 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

@Jayron, oh, I know you can be convincing, that's why I re-sis-ted hitting the block button. :) Sarah 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted at WP:RFPP and it's been fully protected. I'd put a third opinion on this a while back, and I thought it looked fine. It has three sources; two I'm skeptical about. (One is a blog for sure; I'm not sure about the second, but it looks like a blog.) The third source is the Chicago Tribune, and that seemed acceptable. It's an opinion piece, but the article was worded to reflect that. There was another source that was removed earlier in the edit war, this, which also seemed valid. I don't think it's fair to call this a problem user issue, even if the user doesn't understand what does and doesn't go to arbcom. I'm going to give them some pointers on DR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I explain this in great detail on the article's talk page, and with all due respect, that interpretation is just flat incorrect. As I said on the talk page, please don't encourage this user. The edits are utterly improper per policy, they contradict the sources, they're defamatory, and the last thing we need is to give him more ammunition to carry out his tendentiousness. Wikidemo (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The only tendentiousness I see is the edit warring, which you were both doing. You two need to work toward a compromise, rather than call each other wrong. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Now that the article is fully-protected, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring admin attention. The discussion should be continued on the Talk page, and if you cannot reach a consensus, file an RfC. (I am about to comment on the talk page myself) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Agreed, no additional administrative action needed at this time. Thanks all, Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cursing anonymous IPs - User:Hegumen

Resolved

It's just a single issue, but it seems pretty bad to me. Reverting an anonymous IP on the image map of Macedonian speakers the user Hegumen used some pretty bad words in Macedonian (cyrillic). His exact words were "F*ck of little tatar" (see [38]). Now if it was just a WP:BITE issue I'd try to settle it with him, but this is way off. Using the word tatar is considered pejorative and highly offensive by Bulgarians. I cab\n assure you it was meant as a curse (even if you disregard the f*ck part). --Laveol ^T 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gave my one and only warning I'll give on this. That was pretty bad. Let us know if he does it again. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I feel kind of honored that I have my own little section on the Admin noticeboard. This is, I think, part of an ongoing tiff between Laveol and I. It's hardly a WP:BITE issue, I told a nasty vandal where to stick it. I stand by what I said. Night, Hegumen (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you probably add a similar warning on the anonymous IP's talk page? --Hegumen (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I told a nasty vandal where to stick it. There's a reason we have WP:CIVIL, y'know. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

IP reverts

An IP, User:195.222.97.164, recently started disruptive editing in a significant number of articles. Basically, he just calls every single historic entity in the Balkans "Serbia" and adds the History of Serbia template. Its a full time job undoing the damage, especially when he engages in undiscussed revert-warring. He is possibly a sock of User:PANONIAN. He has been warned, could anyone lend a hand?

His edits: [39]
Revert-warring: [40]
--DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this appears to be a content dispute. Warn the user for WP:3RR, once they breach it, I'm sure an administrator will..well...administer a block. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A Wise course of action ;) Thanks, will do. --DIREKTOR ^(TALK) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob! Just a word of advice though. Don't get yourself into a revert war over this. After warning them and it happens again, come back and drop a note here. Also, continue to direct them to the talk page. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Zackkelly

Resolved

 – User indefblocked by LessHeard vanU. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Zackkelly (talk · contribs) is a vandal who has already had a final warning for vandalism and has been blocked once already. He came back today to vandalize some more. I reported him at WP:AIV and User:Alexf responded that the vandal has not had a sufficient number of warnings. How many final warnings does a vandal need to have before they get blocked for a second time? Corvus cornix_talk 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LHvU has blocked him indef. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

School Threat

Resolved

 – They're "going down" on a field trip. Oh boy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

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

---

Diff. I think we all know what to do. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

wrong diff. Sorry. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Update: bstone is making the call. CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked the IP for 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't fight me on this Monobi.... CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fighting you, I was right. It wasn't a threat at all and just wasted a few Kb of space on the servers. Monobi (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing I'm just slow, but I'm not seeing the "threat"... --Onorem♠Dil 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is none. They're going on a field trip. Bstone Confirms. :( Sorry, CWii_{(Talk|Contribs)} 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Have our amateur police gotten this far off track? Friday (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hahaha. My first thought was... Going where? to the lighthouse? It didn't say 'going to blow up'. Sheesh. Find the real threats and act on them. Somerville cops must be laughing up their sleeves at us now. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems most of inserted "GOING DOWN" in our minds, my apologies as well >.<...better unblock the IP.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's probably good to warn the light house folks. I wouldn't put it past these kids to bring markers and write on the walls, the scamps. Friday (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's been known to happen. --Onorem♠Dil 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I talked to the superintendent of the district. We confirmed this is a location they are going on a school field trip. Once we figured out this was not an actual threat and just vandalism we had a good laugh. I have called schools to inform them of vandalism before, which this basically is. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really slow, but how the hell is that a threat? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. What an anticlimax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not. I was just calling a school to let them know one of their students vandalized an article. Nothing much to see here. Move along. Bstone (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we need to call schools to let them know one of their students vandalised an article unless there is a sustained long term pattern and even then I think an email from an admin to the school's IT would be a better response. We're going to drive schools crazy and become a laughing stock if people are going to start responding to stupid vandal edits like this. Sarah 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What Sarah said. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It was a friggin mistake on my part. Move on Please. CWii 2_{(Talk|Contribs)} 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't responding to your mistake in reporting it to ANI because you misread the edit as a threat, that's fine, in my opinion. I don't have a problem with users reporting vandalism. I was responding to Bstone saying that he was "just" calling a school to tell them one of their students vandalised an article. That's what I have a pretty big concern about, not you reporting the vandalism in the first place. So there was no need for the snarky response. Sarah 01:27, 31 May 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.

Personal Attack on User Wildhartlivie from User Nyannrunning

It looks like Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) is personally attacking Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs).

Here: Talk:Jim_Morrison#New_chapter_about_Morrison.27s_relationship_with_Thomas_Reese

And is engaging in sock puppetry:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie&diff=prev&oldid=215930491#You_are_referenced_on_discussion_page_for_Jim_Morrison

Please advise. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence: User_talk:Faithlessthewonderboy#Jim_Morrison and User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox

Possible sockpuppet names: Dooyar (talk · contribs) and Debbiesvoucher (talk · contribs)

Additional evidence

The obscure but nearly identical information added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.

Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

Adding and re-adding the same material, based on a discredited book, to the Jim Morrison page, first added by User:Nyannrunning here, which was removed by User:Faithlesswonderboy with good rationale, after which, the personal attack was posted. A few hours later, the IP 69.234.176.245 returned the same material here, which again was removed by User:Faithlesswonderboy. The material was once again returned, somewhat edited but using a large amount of the same material, by User:Debbiesvoucher here.

Results from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related. And "Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. I'm pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock." from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning.

I just want this stopped. Please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter phelps

I am concerned about the username of User:Peter phelps. This user has made some rather controversial edits to Mike Kelly (politician) ([41]), and also made some heated comments on my talk page when I reverted those edits ([42]), although they were later retracted ([43]).

The user in question has more or less claimed to be Dr Peter Phelps at this discussion at WP:AWNB. For more background on this person, read Gary Nairn, particularly the final paragraph. I am not convinced that this person is who they say they are, however. I question whether a political staffer for a federal government minister would have the questionable judgement to get involved in an internet flamewar over edits as unsubtle as these. I think it may be an attempt to make Phelps (and perhaps by extension Nairn or the Liberal Party of Australia) look foolish through impersonation (something that I think User:Rebecca was getting at in the AWNB discussion).

Does it seem reasonable to 'officially' ask this user to provide some proof of their identity (perhaps through OTRS) before engaging in further discussion, and taking some corrective action if this is not forthcoming? Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names has some guidance on this. I suggest politely raising the issue on his talk page asking him to email info-en@wikimedia.org and show us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've username blocked this user pending confirmation of his identity as he is representing himself as Gary Nairn's former Chief of Staff and targeting the bio of the man who defeated Nairn at the Federal election. We've had other Australian political figures impersonated before and the Australian political bios have been the target of a great amount of trolling, particularly those with any Jewish ties, as this article does have. There is a paragraph in the Nairn article about Phelps so I think application of the username policy is entirely reasonable. Sarah 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious legal threat following baseball card link removal

Resolved

 – Users blocked for 24 hours.

--Selket ^Talk 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from the owner of a site that I warned about spamming yesterday. He demanded I provide him with my contact information for a review of my "censorship" of his links. He said any attempt to censor his links would be met with legal action and he copied a prominent intellectual property lawyer on his e-mail. As opposed to the standard legalistic, blustery threats we receive everyday, I consider this a credible threat to pursue legal action, even if the actual legal complaint itself lacks credibility and legal merit.

I acted in response to a complaint made by:

• 71.56.118.64 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

71.56.118.64 made his complaint at:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link spam violations

I investigated both the complaining IP and the histories of the two articles he cited. The complainant appeared to have a "clean history". The two articles showed a clear pattern of repeated additions of the same links by 4 IPs which were repeatedly reversed. There was also evidence of heavy, unrelated spamming of these articles prior to this.

Here are the two articles involved:

• T206 edit history
• Goudey edit history

Here are the four IPs; 3 traceroute to the New York City area; the 4th traceroute I can't decypher:

• 69.201.150.82 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 216.73.161.196 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 208.106.31.66 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
• 66.65.142.43 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
  • Note the site-owner's response made after the second warning.

I gave all four IPs standard spam warnings.^{[44][45][46][47]} I used level 2 warnings instead of level 1 warnings since the links had been repeatedly added notwithstanding messages in the removing editor's edit summaries; the four IPs had also not engaged with anyone through the use of talk pages. I also removed two other, unrelated links from one of the articles. I wrote up my spam investigation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link spam violations.^[48]

66.65.142.43 reversed my deletions, so I gave a second standard warning (level 3)^[49] and deleted his links using TWINKLE.^[50][51]

Subsequently, the IP responded at User talk:66.65.142.43 with a strong complaint, signing it "ds".^[52][53] He also sent me the e-mail I referred to above.

ds claims: "All of this is legitimate reference information, and as such is protected speech in the U.S." He states that I have eliminated all references for these articles, however I note each has a reference section. ds also has alleged off-line that I am acting as an agent for the owner of cardpricer.com. I was unfamiliar with cardpricer.com and took the actions I did based on the merits of the spam complaint, not some connection to cardpricer.com.

Subsequent to this complaint, I did some checking; it appears cardpricer.com may be associated with banned user Tecmobowl:

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Tecmobowl
  • 71.56.118.64, the IP making the spam complaint, is in the same 71.56.xxx.xxx range as some of the IPs cited in the sock puppet report.

Nevertheless, even if 71.56.118.64 owns cardpricer.com, I'm not sure what this has to do with the conflict of interest "ds" has in adding these links or his refusal to back off after being asked to stop with the first warning.

I also note that, from his Wikipedia edits and e-mail comments, ds may have more familiarity with Wikipedia processes than would be expected based on those 4 IPs' edit histories.

As I see it, ds's edits run afoul of multiple content and behavioural rules that govern the use of this site:

• Conflict of Interest Guideline
• Spam Guideline
• Wikipedia is not a Soapbox
• Wikipedia is not a Link Farm
• Vandalism Policy (after ignoring the first warning).

Given the gravity of ds's threats, I would appreciate the community's review of our respective actions in this matter.
Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know little of law surrounding this type of thing, but I fail to see how he has any case. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and it is not like we are excluding his links from those articles while including other ones. Wikipedia has a right to formulate guidelines for itself, and as long as we follow them, I see no way that he can force us to add his links. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't actually answer your question. My answer is, treat him just as you would any other spammer. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We had lots of trouble with the long-since-banned User:Tecmobowl trying to post his personal baseball card page, and it was removed from all pages, as far as I know. Whoever "ds" is, he's blowing smoke, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and hence the "protected free speech" stuff is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 216.73.161.196 for violating 3RR on T206. I will be blocking the others for the same duration as sock puppets. --Selket ^Talk 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else. You did nothing wrong. Suggest ignoring his email. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this spammers email harassment. User is in clear violation of multiple policies including Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I gather that no actual legal threat has yet been made on-wiki. If this happens, it is traditional to issue an indefinite block per WP:NLT until the threat is withdrawn. I didn't known that IPs could use Wikipedia email; I wonder how he reached you. If he is trying to intimidate you via email, a vigorous response would certainly be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A.B. has her e-mail address listed on her page; one simply has to navigate through to find it. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the bright side, this person just pretty conclusively demonstrated they're a spammer, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Protected speech? How is Wikipedia subject to the First Amendment? Isn't it technically a private website, that the Wikimedia Foundation can ban anyone from for any reason? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sigh, yet another legal threat from someone who knows nothing of the law(yaltfswknotl). _{1 != 2} 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person at it Again

Resolved

 – user blocked Sasquatch t|c

My talk page is constantly being reverted by 118.98.171.74, who is the banned user BoxingWear/Projects/etc. (aka, the George Reeves Person). He had a pretty ugly incident on Jimbo's talk page yesterday using the proxy 68.144.163.60.MKil (talk) 20:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

I do not know what happened here but it seems boxingwear simply wanted to reply to the problems at hand. Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, he uses open proxies when the Chicago Public Library is blocked; this one is in Indonesia. I blocked it. I'm sure he'll love me even more for this than he already does (oh, and by the way, as soon as this thread is archived, he'll edit it to remove "Projects" and "George Reeves Person" from both our comments). Antandrus (talk) 21:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No comments, antandrus and mkil have been working together for a long time so we know what the problem is.Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, now he's using his Whatsupdoggy account. The guy is persistent, I'll give him that.MKil (talk) 21:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)MKil

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MKil&action=history Mkil knows the rules on privacy, i simply tried to help, look at my account history, i tried to help with previous incident, to no avail.

I am not the one to comment if boxingwaer is this and that or whatever, but I know privacy rules have been violated and mkil and antandrus know this very very well.

The above user thinks everybody is boxignwear, i simply reverted his page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MKil&action=history privacy vilation, mkil is using names, not name of the account he is not supposed to use, now he even posted same reply on noticeboard, this problem truly violates wikipedia rules, i simply reverted the name, nothing more and nothing else, is that a crime? This site and articles talk about privacy policy a lot, antandrus as an administrator should enforce those rules, he is not, he is supporting mkil on this minor problem, i do not care if library or indonesia is blocked, privacy rules do not seem to matter to some people here... I am simply following the rules, I am not changing anything mkil has done, except the name. Mkil had 3rr rule problems before, many times: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MKil#3RR Whatsupdoggy (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for harassment, apparent single purpose account and most likely sockpuppetry. Sasquatch t|c 21:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No harassment, read again! But if you think it is fine

 Confirmed GRP, sock drawer cleaned out. Thatcher 02:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

No sock, believe what you want!

Thank you. If we could at least slow down his e-mail hate campaign that would be helpful, and he was using those socks to spam a lot of people. Antandrus (talk) 02:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Correction, whatsupdoggy did not have any email registered to the account, nobody spammed anybody from this account, except reverting privacy violation, but of course nothing is sacred here, then that gives others the right to reveal names of other administrators, of course. No hate mail, except in antandrus head.

Is this contradiction, antandrus says hate mail, but no email registered, DUH-lol, you made my day! But you know blocking others will not bring you any results only continuation of hatred as antandrus wants.

Multipundit

Can someone uninvolved please say a few firm words to Multipundit (talk · contribs)? This is essentially a single purpose account related to the works of Mark Burgin, UCLA. Probably a conflict of interest. I am particularly concerned about comments such as this one about Vaughan Pratt (talk · contribs), also known as Vaughan Pratt. Apart from editing superrecursive algorithm (a vapor-ware mathematical notion due to Burgin) and closely related articles, showing his own mathematical immaturity on the talk pages, and accusing everybody else of stupidity, Multipundit makes occasional edits to other mathematics topics; but those are mostly of dubious quality. [54]

To be fair, recent escalations have been caused in part by Yakushima (talk · contribs), who has confronted Multipundit with relentless criticism of Burgin. See WP:Articles for deletion/Super-recursive algorithm and Talk:Super-recursive algorithm for more details. --Hans Adler (talk) 00:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Looking over his recent comments on the cited pages, it does look like Multipundit is suffering from an acute attack of arrogance, bordering on (or passing the border of) trolling. He's been asked before on his talk page to tone things down (by Hans, the user who brought this up), on May 14th, but it doesn't seem to have had any effect. Would someone who's currently around more frequently care to have a word? (Multipundit has been informed of this discussion) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Known sock--why not blocked?

Resolved

 – blocked

Hi there...User:Bjbarnettmusic55 is a sock of User:Jamesinc14 (one of my unfavoritemost sockmasters) However, BJ has not been blocked and continues to edit James-inc-ishly. Could we please purge him? Thanks... Gladys J Cortez 21:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

How do you know he's a sock? — Rlevse • Talk • 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My question exactly. The user seems to be editing in good faith. The only evidence seems to be slight similarities in the kind of articles edited. This is fairly tenuous. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:51, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess that's a good question; however, I saw the EXCEEDINGLY James-inc-ish edits (with attention to levels of detail that would make the average mortal mind crawl into a meerkat den and hide away forever) and the sock notice placed by Azumanga (who in my encounters with him hasn't ever been wrong about who was or was not socks of this character) and apparently drew a conclusion too soon. Generally, if there's a sock template on a user's page, doesn't that mean they've been largely proven--DUCK-wise or otherwise--to be a sock? Or is it much more informal than that? Gladys J Cortez 23:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Since Jamesinc14 has only like 6 edits, I find it hard to correlate the two. Do you have some diffs from other known socks of Jamesinc14 to show that these two are the same. As I am unfamiliar with this editor, I have no idea a) why he was initially blocked and b) what his standard MO is. Could you please provide that info so we can act appropriately to this? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He usually adds nonsense to articles like promos which have a kaliedoscope theme (his first way of making mischief), news slogans for public television stations which don't have news departments, PBS Kids promocruft which has continually been reversed due to consensus it's cruft, heavy vandalsim of Little Rock television station articles, and incorrect affiliations for television stations which either don't exist or aren't going to happen (NBC Weather Plus for an ABC affiliate for instance). I agree with Gladys that this is Jamesinc; please look further into his known socks or alleged socks to see his MO (he burned through the Jamesinc14 account and moved on to 11, 12, 13, 15, etc., then onto other names to push us off-track). Nate • (chatter) 02:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What Nate said. Also--if you peek at this you'll see that there are other BJBarnett-named accounts listed here. This is the first SSP case, and another, and another (This one is the best-documented example, about as clear-cut as it gets). There were a couple of cases where the closing admin couldn't find any edits by the original Jamesinc14 to correlate with--should we rename these cases to someone with more edits, so his contributions and their parallels are easier to find? Also, I'm notifying Azumanga1 about this, as he's the one who enlightened me, during my first run-in with J14, as to what I was up against. Gladys J Cortez 03:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I needed to see. I just blocked him for socking. Marking as resolved. Keep us aprised if he comes back. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Mass canvasser

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

Entire edit history consists of promoting the 'Ancient Greek Wikipedia' to pretty much every account they find. I've noted their activity and suggested that what their doing might be bordering on abuse, but I'm frankly uncertain if it's actually against any specific rule. HalfShadow 02:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would seem that mass canvassing , no matter the type, qualifies as disruptive per WP:CANVASS. The only saving grace here is that these messages do seem to be targeting a specific subset of users who participate in Greek-related articles. xenocidic (talk) 02:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI: They appear to be using Category:User grc-N, Category:User grc-4, and Category:User grc-3 as their lists for which user pages to post onto. Seems abuse of those category lists, and an issue with WP:CANVASS to me. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:55, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

On further consideration, I'm not quite sure if it would be considered "canvassing" because they're not really requesting the users visit a particular discussion. xenocidic (talk) 02:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. CANVASS was created in order to prevent flooding of discussions, especially in a biased manner. Advertising a project wouldn't really fall under that; and the only difference between this and, say, telling editors in a specific area about a Wikiproject in that area is that this isn't actually on enwiki, but that's not really a big deal. If it actually becomes disruptive, however, or it becomes more spam than notification, the user should probably be asked to stop, and failing that, perhaps blocked (but only if it gets very bad). --Rory096 03:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's why I brought it here. 'Canvassing' was the only term that came to mind and, as I said, it's literally all they've done. HalfShadow 03:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

That's alright. SPAs aren't necessarily bad, as long as they don't break any rules. --Rory096 04:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

← It seems this user has completed their strafing run. However if it begins again, we should probably suggest they add the messages to the bottom of individuals talk pages, rather than the top, per the guideline. xenocidic (talk) 04:32, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Concisebliss

User:Concisebliss has been posting lewd images on pages relating to Nicklodeon. He has been warned but continues to make the actions. A block would be greatly appreciated! — Chad "1m" Mosher ^Email Talk _Cont. 21:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User is claiming that somebody usurped his computer while he was away. Perhaps WP:AGF first, and if it continues then a block might be in order. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I usually AGF, but I don’t know about this case. The user’s last productive edit was on 17 August 2007 and there were no edits between then and yesterday. All of the edits yesterday and today were inappropriate, including the uploading of two inappropriate images. The “stepped away from the computer for a moment” argument sounds a little disingenuous, IMO. —Travis^talk 21:53, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this discussion —Travis^talk 22:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We're extremely harsh on admins for allowing their accounts to be compromised. While a regular user isn't as dangerous, I think it needs to be made clear that we can't take chances with those either. Plus, the whole "It wasn't me, it was one-armed man!" defense is really stretching things at this point. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 22:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Block indef until "legit editor" can prove the account is secure...? LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No productive edits in mainspace... Compromised or not, I think it's time to move on. Grandmasterka 23:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Compromised accounts should not be allowed to edit, since they are compromised. If he is a legitimate editor, he can always create a new account, and edit constructively from that one. If the new account vandalises, that one will be blocked too. Its that simple. As a regular CAT:UNB patroller, I would same some large % of unblock requests (at least half) have some form of the "my little brother/sister/roomate/stolen password/stayed logged in at public computer" defense as an excuse. I unilaterally decline these, and from what I have seen most other admins do as well. EVERY time I have seen this defense, there are no positive edits prior to the vandalism to back it up; its never an established user when this happens. These are always vandalism only accounts. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

To back up Jayron, I also decline those requests, and would note that most of those accounts were created just moments before the block. This isn't the case here, of course, but I endorse the block all the same. If it is back under control of the same person who edited constructively in the past, and they still wish to edit, they ought to know how to do so. Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 01:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Despite my earlier comment, the august 2007 to the now recent bloom of disruptive activity does seem..well...suspect. Just so that we are all clear and on the same page, I am not disagreeing with the block in place at all. In fact, it seems reasonable seeing as though an account that has sat dormant for so long, with a burst of recent inappropriate edits, is a far greater risk to the project than potentially allowing it to continue unabated. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I blocked this one the other day without noticing this thread (he hit yesterday's frontpage article, at which point I checked contribs). Generally echo the sentiments mentioned above, as far as reservations regarding an unblock, but no particularly strong opinion on it. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar vandalism, different identities

Edits from here [55], [56] and here [57], [58] offer almost identical contributions. Perhaps an administrator can confirm, and take appropriate measures. Cheers, JNW (talk) 04:01, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

They look like the same guy to me. Ramblinwreck72 (talk) 04:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've extended the block on the IP to a month as an obvious sock of Theantiwbc Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

Just check the edit history of MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. This ridiculous war has been going on for months now, and I know for a fact that it was brought here are least once before. Uuu987 (talk · contribs) and Verklempt (talk · contribs) ought to both get final warnings over edit warring. Corvus cornix_talk 23:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

warned. — Rlevse • Talk • 02:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What solution do you suggest? uuu987 ignores attempts to engage on the talk page. I really do not know how to deal with such an editor.Verklempt (talk) 02:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could start by knocking off the blanking. Parsimony and context make clear that the reporter quotes the report, then quotes the individual's response. Stop playing this stupid gotcha game and work on improving the article. ThuranX (talk) 03:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong. The speaker's identity is not at all clear. To infer the identity is to engage in original research. Furthermore, the previous statement contradicts the allegation of Indian ancestry. To elide that statement is highly POV. Finally, anthropologists and most indendent geneticists agree that DNA testing cannot establish ethnic identity. To include such pseudoscience in Wikipedia is a significant error, especially given that it is sourced only to a local tv news report.Verklempt (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

So... you won't stop playing gotcha games then. Ok. Well, Push your POV away, then. ThuranX (talk) 21:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are denying that there is a substantive disagreement, and instead engaging in a personal attack. This is not nice.Verklempt (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If this continues, let me know. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Usury edits

Archilles last stand (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been continually adding what I consider inflammatory opinion to the Usury article. After a final vandalism warning and the 3RR warning the reverts continued. I reported this on the vandalism page where Wknight94 has suggested it's more suitably placed here. I've attempt to reason with the user on their talk page to no avail; the user has descended into accusations of stalking, harassments and threats. It's all become rather strange; and I don't know how to proceed, or indeed if I've ended up violating 3RR myself. --Blowdart | ^talk 14:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Many of the user's edits are good (removing bloat or rewriting lumpen prose), but the bit of opinion on the Bible's being an "arcane, frequently tribal and sectarian text" is unnecessary and inflammatory. I don't think it should be described as vandalism. I've protected the Usury article for two days to prevent further edit-warring; I would prefer not to block a good-faith new editor. I think he needs to be gently pointed in the direction of our policy on original research and opinionating. I am going now so would appreciate it if someone else could craft something to this end for the user. If noone has by Sunday I'll add something then. If this doesn't elicit a change in editing then yes, perhaps blocking might need to be considered. Neıl 龱 15:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I dropped him a note. We'll see where it goes. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Into more insults it seems. --Blowdart | ^talk 04:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Jaysweet. He's on a final warning. Neıl 龱 12:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

JB196 again

Just blocked Team4D‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as an obvious sock of JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Given this guy's history, could use some help playing whack-a-mole. Blueboy96 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Good work. Durova^Charge! 20:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I just looked in checkuser, and (1) as usual, tracking JB196 is like going down a rabbit-hole (2) interestingly enough, these all appear to be coming from home DSL IPs - he couldn't possibly be running out of proxies, surely? - David Gerard (talk) 20:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Were they the same ISP/geographic location? If not, maybe he's using a botnet? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

...man, Durova, every time I see that picture while scrolling quickly through a page, I think it's a mushroom cloud from a nuke test... Rdfox 76 (talk) 03:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Huh. JB's back? Just like old times. Hopefully he's not proxying. SirFozzie (talk) 03:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Nostalgia ... or something :) Co-incidentally, I removed his RL name from a page here the other day. Privacy reasons. Oh well ... - Alison ^❤ 05:51, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

He has voluntarily disclosed his own identity on Wikipedia. The privacy policy doesn't kick in automatically in his case. We don't throw his identity around unnecessarily, but FYI those voluntary disclosures of his were key to connecting his BooyakaDell sock to his original account. Since he hasn't actually vanished, the right to vanish doesn't apply. Durova^Charge! 11:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistant edit warrior

67.135.49.116 (talk · contribs) continues to edit war even though he's been told numerous times to discuss any content deletions on the talk page of American Family Association. See IP's own talk page littered with warnings and admonishments regarding his/her edits. The IP keeps removing valid and sourced content. No doubt an agenda going on here given the nature of the article. Trying to censor/whitewash the content doesn't mean it didn't happen. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 01:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• removed from Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism pending review here. Jeepday (talk) 01:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• On review I blocked 24 hours for 3RR. Suggest follow up by uninvolved admin. Jeepday (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's the "valid and sourced content" that the IP keeps removing. The first statement about the content of the AFA Journal is sourced to the AFA Journal itself — origninal research, which should be removed. The fact tags are par for the course. The second paragraph removed was properly sourced to a backwater newspaper, indeed, but his assertion that the quote was taken of of context should be checked out for merit. He was edit warring for sure. This IP editor needs guidance more that blocking, though. ➪HiDrNick! 02:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, another IP (121.216.227.175 (talk · contribs)), which is a Single Purpose account as its only edits are today to American Family Association and related McGuffey Readers, has removed the content in question. I submit that this new IP is either a Sock of either the original IP, or HiDrNick himself. If it's not you Nick, my apologies in advance. However, based on our past run-ins, I would not be surprised. You tend to make sure to follow my edits all over Wikipedia and show up in the oddest places. If the article continues to have sourced content removed, without discussion or consensus on the article's talk page, I will request it to be semi-protected. - ✰ALLST☆R✰ ^echo 04:53, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of sockpuppetry? I'm flattered indeed, but I'm afraid it's not me. I try to stay logged in when I edit. As near as I can tell the second IP is registered to Telstra, a large Australian ISP, and the first one is to Quest, in the western US. If I were inclined to revert you, I would have done so when I read this thread, but that's not my style. I assumed it would just annoy you, and you wouldn't learn anything from it. I thought it would be better instead to point out the merits of the IP's edits here, in hopes that passers-by who you are more likely to listen to than me might chime in. ➪HiDrNick! 05:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not a sock of the other IP, a quick WHOIS will tell you we are based in different countries and are not editing through proxies. Instead I am a former editor on wikipedia (I can try digging up my password to my old account if necessary) who came across this dispute on another wiki. I have attempted to begin discussion on the talk page, however Allstarecho has not only failed to participate despite reverting me twice but has also accused me of edit warring.

I believe the material is not valid. It is claimed that the AFA’s article insinuates that raising children as Jews will harm them, the only source for which is a link back to the AFA article. It is not explicitly stated in the AFA article that raising children as Jews will harm them, nor have any independent and reliable sources supporting this claim been produced. As such I believe this claim constitutes original research, and must either be removed or resourced and worded differently. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 05:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Allstarecho

Hi everyone. I am simply reporting two things: First off: Allstarecho has been misusing the rollback tool in a dispute, and it ought to be removed from him, as the consequences of such actions are clearly explained to users to whom it is give: [59]. In fact, I'm quite sure that the rollback page states that someone should not have it unless s/he does not have a history of edit warring, which Allstar has anyway. Second, concerning Allstar's page: I believe 121.216.227.175 is a meatpuppet of 67.135.49.116 (see the talk page history: [60] and ought to be blocked. I ask and beg that no one make this about the correctness of the edits on this page: I have already opened up a thread on the NPOV noticeboard, and cross-posting is no fun. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See WP:ANI#Persistant edit warrior. I semi'd AFA for one week so that all parties interested can work out a compromise or discuss the controversy without edit warring. I highly doubt that 121.216.227.175 was blissfully ignorant of the previous reverts. seicer | talk | contribs 06:46, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Which, of course, by policy, is required to by a full-protection in the case of an edit war. But that's a side point: how about Allstar's rollback button and are we going to block the other IP? The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

At this point, a block on the IP address would be punitive rather than preventive, and most blocks aren't justifiable for that reason. seicer | talk | contribs 07:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can I please just say that I am not a meatpuppet of another editor. I am a former editor of Wikipedia who came across this issue whilst editing another wiki. When I was informed about it I was only told about what I perceived to be original research, not that there was an edit war surrounding it. Although I suspect that the user of the other IP has obtained their information from the same source I have had no connection with them, and there has been no attempt to coordinate an attack or anything of that sort. The only reason I edited the article today and not earlier (when I first received the news) was because of work commitments, if you check you’ll notice it is currently a Saturday afternoon here in Australia.

I have no intention to disrupt Wikipedia, I posted on the talk page immediately after removing the material and attempted to start discussion. Allstarecho has failed to participate, and has twice reverted me, at least once knowing that I had posted on the talk page. He has labelled me a vandal and a censor and a troll, assumed that I am a confirmed meatpuppet, and reverted my comments on his user page when I have tried to address his accusations. All this time he and other editors have not (as far as I can tell) made any real effort to attempt to resolve this issue, and instead have continued to exert their authority over anonymous editors.

Once again I am not a meatpuppet and I am more than happy to resolve this issue on the talk page. However, other editors such as Allstarecho must be wiling to debate whether the material is sourced or not before any consensus can be reached.

It would also be nice if the required full page protection could be implemented, rather than a semi protection that fails to restrict some of the edit warers. 121.216.227.175 (talk) 07:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this looks like an edit war between registered and unregistered users, in which case this is an improper use of semiprotection. Mr.Z-man 08:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Right. Will someone undo it? And how about Allstar's rollback? WP:RFR is quite unequivocal on this: "Administrators should not grant rollback to editors with a history of abusing the revert process." The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

If ASE returns to editing, I'm sure someone will notice, and his rollback will proabably be removed. Until then I don't think it's hurting anything. ➪HiDrNick! 12:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, these edits are not vandalism, they are a content dispute. It is disappointing to see Seicer, an administrator, describing these edits as vandalism, when they are clearly not.

To wit: replacing an entire article with "George Bush sucks cock"; removing a poorly sourced statement about an organization full of living people; changing the lead of an article to tell the world that your friend is gay: one of these things is not like the other things. Can you guess which thing does not belong? This is hard, even for an administrator. Apologies in advance for the reference to the very young and possibility those not raised by television in America.

You can almost see where Allstarecho gets the idea that his edits were acceptable when people confuse the content dispute he was in with vandalism reversion: it wasn’t. ➪HiDrNick! 10:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Following Allstarecho posting a leaving message, I've unprotected the article. PhilKnight (talk) 11:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As HiDrNick notes, the editor has only retired his registered user ID, and suggests he will return as an IP address. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I wondered if this was, in fact, a mere content dispute, or if it was original research. The actual quote in the magazine is, "The Athens, Ohio, man grew up in a Jewish home and developed a hostile attitude toward Christ." That sentence, by itself, only verifiably refers to the one guy in the article. If I were to similarly word a statement, "The man grew up in an [ethnic group #1] home and developed a hostile attitude toward [ethnic group #2]", would it be appropriate to extrapolate that all members of ethnic group #1 are hostile towards ethnic group #2? I think not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The linkage of "Jewish home" and "developed a hostile attitude towards Christ" does imply that hostility towards Christ is a result of growing up in a Jewish home. Anti-semites (and bigots of all persuasions) are often very clever at such phrasings - saying something that by a strict analysis is more-or-less unobjectionable, but at the same time making their intent very clear. If it was not intended to link growing up in a Jewish home with hostility to Christ, then the two terms would not have been linked in such a way. It's like the way that certain racist newspapers will only mention the ethnicity of criminals when the criminals under discussion are members of the targeted minority. DuncanHill (talk) 12:37, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's easy to draw that inference, especially given the AFA's other odious activities, but it's not up to wikipedians to draw that inference, and that's why it's original research / original analysis to do so. I added back the link to the full article, since I don't think it's fair to only report someone's spin (i.e. interpretation) on it and to only quote a single paragraph. I left the commentary article as the first link and the article itself as the second. They could be switched if appropriate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 12:41, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Inventions in the Islamic world

Maybe this is the wrong place, maybe I shouldn't worry about it, but I'm a bit concerned about the comments verging on racialism by some posters on the talk page and feel there may be an incident brewing.--Doug Weller (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed the "This article should be removed" section as it was started entirely by IPs with highly provacative troll-style comments (and I suspect one or more of them may be an IP sock of indef blocked User:Protest against islamic imposition, but who knows). A recent AfD already ruled on that, so there is no need to rehash it, especially in the sensationalist terms being used by the IPs. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Thanks, maybe I should have been bold and done that myself, but I wasn't sure about the etiquette. Doug Weller (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I felt it was eminently AFd'able, irrespective of the mere 5 users who opined a few months ago. Ergo Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inventions in the Islamic world (2nd nomination). Hopefully being here it will attract double plus 5 votes for consensus either way. Allah Akbarkimedies. MickMacNee (talk) 00:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that's fine. I probably should have focused more on the sensationalist terms being used by the editor(s) in question rather than their calls for deletion. The article has a lot of problems, which clouds the issue -- but the fact remains that some editor(s) are being unnecessarily provocative. I've got an eye on it, but hey, if the AfD succeeds, that would save me some work! ha ha ha... --Jaysweet (talk) 15:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Confirmed sockpuppets

Resolved

 – Sock farmer's crop destroyed, farmer indef'd. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:54, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The checkuser case Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Jlcruse has confirmed User:Jlcruse and User:Jonboy322 as sockpuppets. Both have uploaded multiple images claimed as PD (self) in violation of copyright, and consistently been adding unsource information to articles. The RFCU page says come here to request a block, if that's appropriate. Thanks. LostOldPassword (talk) 17:05, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Probable socking by PetraSchelm

I’d like some extra eyes on something I’ve been looking into. PetraSchelm (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) joined us last month, and has gone straight into turning Wikipedia into a battleground in the pedophile article arena. A look through his contributions clearly show he wasn’t a new user [61]. He nominated an article for afd within an hour of joining, and then proceeded to comment at a fair few pedophilia articles with a stance against these articles being allowed. He nominated a couple for deletion in this spree. All this, on his first day here. So who is he a sock of? Well, Pol64 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked in January and the similarity is unbelievably similar – they both turned this editorial area into a battleground, and have exactly the same stance on all these types of articles. I’ve run a check to compare their edits which can be seen here. So, what does this show? Well, out of Pol64s 133 edits, 64 were on the same pages as Petra. Again, all with the same POV, and battleground mentality. Their average edit time is also interesting; Petra being 13:47, with Pol at 13:17 – this is one of the closest average edit times ever seen with this tool. I don’t think CU will help here – it’s probably stale given Pol64 was blocked indef in later January. I’d appreciate some opinions on this prior to blocking. Ryan Postlethwaite 00:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• While both are women they appear to be from different countries. Pol was unquestionably British (she admitted it, admitted a UK based ip anon edits were hers, spelt using British English) whereas Petra appears to be American. Thanks, SqueakBox 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
• Yes, I am in New York, and have already accidentally exposed my IP once while logged out. (Also, a quick glance over Pol's contribs makes the comparison seem very odd--I do a lot of research/add a lot of refs/am a grad student; Pol's edits are not at all... academic.) -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • IP: [62] Jack fixed it for me after I asked him to, as well as burying it in a series of edits to reduce the chance that someone would notice (Thanks, Ryan! :-): [63]. It's also very recognizably me in the context of the discussion on the talkpage, about the Williams/Widom research and a 1996 meta-analysis. -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Here's Pol's IP from January 28: [64] -PetraSchelm (talk) 01:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

-edit conflict- Hi to ryan etc- just to say that when I first made an account on wiki I joined precisely because I thought an article should be deleted, and I went through the laborious process of formatting an AfD. If someone feels passionately enough to do it properly, even a newbie can do it (eventually.) And it wasn't a sign I'd been on wiki before or anything like that. As to getting angry on paedo articles, a lot of people do.:) Has this editor been spoken to on her talk page and this issues discussed with her personally prior to making a thread on ANI?Sticky Parkin 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm obviously not going to discuss it with her - she's obviously going to deny it, and I'm still convinced that these two users are the same people. There's more to this than just getting on pedophilia related articles. Ryan Postlethwaite 01:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strong oppose to block. No evidence of socking. The evidence is so flimsy that it's not even evidence. A quick scan of the two editors' contribs shows completely different approaches. Pol used very few edit summaries; Petra uses consistent and detailed edit summaries. Pol edited a variety of topics that Petra does not edit. Pol did not add references; Petra has extensively upgraded the articles with scientific sources, and discussed those in detail on talk pages. Pol had less than 150 hundred edits over 4 months; in two months Petra has made almost 1800 edits - that's 12 times the edits in half the number of days making PetraSchelm's editing frequency 24 times that of Pol.
• Also, I strongly disagree that PetraSchelm has made a battleground here and I object to that characterization. If not for the extensive disruption by now-blocked user Jovin Lambton, and a significant number of pro-pedophile sockpuppets and IP/proxy editors, there would have been no battle. The pedophilia-related articles are much more accurate than before she began editing. For years those articles have been under continual attack by pedophile advocates; that is well known to the readers of this noticeboard -- not just Pedophilia but many related and important topics such as Child sexual abuse and others, where pedophile-advocates repeatedly insert fringe theories that seriously undermine the accuracy of the information. If not for the very positive and admirable work by PetraSchelm, that recent progress would not have been made. Far from deserving a complaint, she deserves the hearty thanks of the Wikipedia community.--Jack-A-Roe (talk) 01:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

We can see both of their IPs. One is from the UK, the other from the States. I think this accusation should be withdrawn to be honest. Sticky Parkin 02:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose block I believe there is insufficient evidence of socking as per the above comments and the toolserver url. Pol64 made 9 edits on Anti-pedophile_activism while Petra only made one. Pol64 made one edit on Child_pornography while Petra made 92. Though there is some overlap on a few pages, it only shows a common interest on these few and as per Jack-A-Roe above, the evidence of socking is not very strong. ResearchEditor (talk) 02:42, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• This is a tough one. On the one hand, having borne witness to Pol64's previous vitriol, I find PetraSchelm to be much less of a divisive, agenda-driven polarizing figure. Were I to judge independently, I'd come to the conclusion that Petra is not a sockpuppet of Pol. However, Ryan is an admin I mostly trust. Added to that, based on my experience of him, Ryan's proclivity is to defend anti-pedophile activists/warriors over others; If anything, his bias should be in favor of Petra. Therefore, if Ryan is concerned enough to raise it here, I can't easily dismiss that. Not all socks are detectable by checking IPs and meatpuppetry is similarly immune to technical analysis. So, give Petra the benefit of the doubt, but don't dismiss Ryan's concerns lightly. He wouldn't accuse an editor like Petra lightly. --SSBohio 11:20, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block.I have witnessed the aforementioned IP evidence that Pol64 and PetraSchelm are from two completely different parts of the world, and I have no reason at all to think they are the same person. Granted, while Petra can be a bit forceful for my liking, she has shown herself to be very knowledgeable about the subject matter. She provided numerous scholarly references AND demonstrated that she's actually read them critically. She's shown admirable courage in confronting biased fringe material that has the potential to be quite harmful (and has earned wikipedia a bad reputation). I'm confident she can learn to compromise and converse less forcibly with time and some guidance.Legitimus (talk) 12:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

comment in response to SSB- we can all sometimes get things wrong, even a respected admin, and have suspicions we feel honour-bound to disclose despite the side of the argument we personally take. It's not a fault in someone particularly to be occassionally incorrect- we all are except maybe the pope when he's speaking ex cathedra. :) But being an admin doesn't confer continuous infallibility. The word of someone's belief shouldn't be enough, or even their interpretation of edit patterns. Checkuser could be done but as Ryan himself says it probably wouldn't identify Petra with Pol due to Pol's block being a while ago. That what we know of their IPs shows they are from different countries (but not the random ones such as Germany, Australia etc TOR sometimes shows) counts against it. So oppose block because it cannot be proven beyond reasonal doubt, quite the opposite, and anyway Petra's edits often seem sourced or reasoned so she's not a hindrance to the project. A lot of people mainly focus on paedo arguments- that's not evidence of socking in itself. It's an emotive subject where what people see as mistakes, can lead them to begin to contribute, I imagine. Sticky Parkin 13:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

OPPOSE. Unrelated IPs, different styles, different interests. In fact, Pol64 should be checked against Ztep and Blowhardforever, as all are on BT IPs, and all have very similar styles. Pol64 and socks is far likelier to be SqueakBox, [refactored] (remote admin, anyone?). Just look at the editing times of Pol64 and compare them to that editor. They seem to coincide perfectly. Just as Pol64/SqueakBox finishes, the other starts, often helping them out in some way. Same goes for Ztep. How come this remains uninvestigated if Ztep's account creation was during Squeak's ban, his editing was on similar articles, and after months of inactivity, he suddenly appeared on another SqueakBox dominated article and reverted on his behalf? The editing traits of all three socks and SqueakBox are uncanny.

This is in no way an apology for the innocent PetraSchelm. struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good Lord, no. Oppose block. PetraSchelm turns Wikipedia into a battleground only in the sense that people who revert (say) 9/11 conspiracy theories or holocaust denial do. PetraSchelm does not seem to me to be anyone's sock, but beyond that PetraSchelm is an important an necessary editor for fighting against the Wikipedia being hijacked by pro-pedophile activists for their nefarious ends. Herostratus (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose block and suggest snowballing this thread to keep sock IPs from clouding the issue further. If you'll excuse a moment of soapboxing here, one thing that has troubled me on Wikipedia is that a lot of the anti-pedophile activists we encounter are total jerks who feel that Wikipedia policies are nothing more than an inconvenient stumbling block for their holy war (see also User:XavierVE). I can understand how many of them feel this way, given the nature of their cause, but that doesn't at all lessen the disruption to the project that it creates. PetraSchelm stands in stark contrast to this generalization. I see no evidence of policy violation, no evidence of incivility or edit warring... her edits and comments are well thought out and appropriate. We need editors like this to fight the good fight against crafty pedophile apologists, without turning the whole thing into a messy holy war the way certain other anti-pedophile activists on Wikipedia have done. PetraSchelm deserves to be commended, not blocked. --Jaysweet (talk) 17:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Question for PetraSchelm

You say that Jack-A-Roe replaced your IP signature with your real signature.

1. How did he know that the IP was yours? 2. How did he do it so quickly. 3. If you told him to do it, why couldn't you have done it? 4. If Jack-A-Roe has no e-mail and no message from you on his talk page, how did you inform him? 5. Are you editing from the same location, or on behalf of the same special interest group? 208.88.52.21 (talk) 13:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC) struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may, this is explainable simply by being in the right place at the right time. The IP post was part of a continuous thread that was in full swing, and easily followed a pattern and content that would indicate the IP poster was Petra (which it turns out was true and there was never any denial). Jack-A-Roe was also part of that discussion, or at least was looking at it at the time, and likely just stepped in to cover it out of respect for another user's privacy. It's not unreasonable for a set of users to become familiar with one another over time, particularly in subject-matter niches.Legitimus (talk) 14:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Your honor, let the record show the IP above is from a open proxy.Legitimus (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I sent several "oh no!" emails asking for help when I realized I posted logged out, including one to Alison, asking her to oversight it (because there was zero plausible deniability that the post was me--I posted something about the research, Legitimus asked me a question about it, and I replied logged out). Note to Legitimus--I can tell that 208. is a sock, but how can you tell it is an open proxy? (Just curious).-PetraSchelm (talk) 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record, that email was received by me and forwarded to the oversight mailing list for comment, as I was unsure as to whether it was within policy. I did not receive a response - Alison ^❤ 16:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--I think I probably overreacted in the moment/when I emailed you (and I didn't know then that no one could trace my exact location with an IP/someone else explained to me that it wasn't great cause for concern; NYC is a big town, etc....) -PetraSchelm (talk) 17:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to claim I'm some clever cyber-sleuth and traced the IP to ultimateproxy.org, but...ah...I just typed it into Google :) Also, generally the WHOIS check only returns a single line with very little information if it's a proxy.Legitimus (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

;A better theory

If any socking is to be implied, we should consider:

PetraSchelm : User:XavierVE. Jack-A-Roe : User:AWeidman, User:DPeterson and socks.

After a detailed looking over their contribs, these would seem to be the most possible puppet masters. 208.88.52.21 (talk) 13:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC) struck-through comment from now-blocked proxy ip of blocked user 208.88.52.21 --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 17:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well we know Xavier is based in Oregon, a long way away from New York. If we want to investigate socks concerning the Pedophile articles we also need to investigatethose who are, let us sdsay, putting forward the opposing view. There have been less than half a dozen socks from the, let us say SB camp and 50 or 60 from the, let us say Another Sollipsist camp, and a wonky one sided investigation as we are saying is genuinely not serving wikipedia. Peterson is a proven sock of Weidman though it was Peterson whop edited the pedophile articles. I certainly do not believe that Peterson is connected to Jack or Petra based on my experience of these 3 folk, nopr do I believe veryu calm Jack is Xavier, possibly the least calm person to ever edit these articles from an APA perspective. Thanks, SqueakBox 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

And what is especially silly is that an obvious sockpuppet is making these allegations...-PetraSchelm (talk) 16:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Having dealt with XavierVE, PetraSchelm is clearly not the same person. PetraSchelm has made at least a half a dozen posts to this noticeboard without accusing anyone of being a pedophile or pedophile apologist. Nope, definitely not XavierVE. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Petra, 208.88.52.21 has now been blocked for 5 years as an open proxy, and his or her disruptive edits in this thread merely demonstrate the enormous problem faced by the pedophile articles. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The blocking two hours ago of 208.88.52.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) as an open proxy does not reflect favorably or unfavorably on any of the other editors who are being discussed here. (None of them are said to have used open proxies). It only suggests that the three comments that 208.88.52.21 left above need not be taken with great seriousness. EdJohnston (talk) 17:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, quite so. The fact that the blocked user intruded here with a proxy is relevant to the discussion though. This is an excellent illustration of the problems that continually occur on the pedophilia-related articles. Not only proxy IPs, but also endless parades of single-purpose sockpuppets as can be seen at the pedophilia-related blocked users list. So, while we should not let the IP reflect on any other editor's comments here, we should note that the battleground atmosphere on those articles is not generated by good faith Wikipedia editors improving those pages, but by activists from outside Wikipedia, possibly co-ordinated through pedophpile chat boards as has been documented in the past. Whether co-ordinated or not, that there are continuing activist-attacks to undermine those articles is not in doubt and the IP post right here in this discussion shows that clearly.

As an example of their methods, note that the IP did not support the block of PetraSchelm, instead, the IP took the opposite side and posted an "oppose" vote, while expressing various other suspicions. That is how the pedophile activists work on the articles too, under the guise of adding references or seemingly scientific content - but what they add is calculated to undermine reporting of mainstream information and to insert fringe theories and false content, even to direct misquotes of references that can't be found without reading the added references themselves - and usually those references do not include URLs so that requires searching. And not just on Pedophilia, but on a range of important topics like Child sexual abuse and Child pornography. So it's good that the IP posted here, to demonstrate for this noticeboard the challenges that editors of those topics face every day. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I can confirm that. They are not garden-variety sockpuppets, they are crafty, seasoned, and adept at gaslighting. My favorite was Onevictim, who used the edit summary "delete pedo weasel word." It was obvious to those of us who edit PAW articles immediately that it was a PPA sockpuppet; based on the edit, and because none of us would ever use an edit summary like that. But it took a day or two for the checkuser to come through/the sock to be blocked (along with the other three that appeared at exactly the same time). And you can't really go to the SSP board and use an edit summary like 'delete pedo weasel word" as evidence, it requires a more complicated explanation of the edit the sock made v. the misleading edit summary... a group of people has to watch these articles carefully, because it is not at all obvious to casual observers what the socks do. -PetraSchelm (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Strong Oppose to Block Petra Schlem in my experience is always courteous and respectful, and has uncompromising commitment to maintiaining NPOV. Perhaps some mistake refusing to back-down for obstreperousness. If PS is blocked, I believe the quality of articles in which she takes an interest will suffer. Googie man (talk) 19:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Mike Babic

Resolved

 – Images deleted, user banned from further uploads. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I must ask that this user be banned from "creating" pictures for wikipedia because of copyright violations and writing of false informations about "his" pictures.

Mike Babic has been earlier suspected by me that he is making copyright violations. "His first pictures" has been deleted because of missing information on its copyright status [65] . Maybe I am mistaking but after this first deletings he has learned how to write false copyright information so new pictures has survived (example:image Cuvari Hristova groba has been deleted on 20 March, but he has recreated picture on 24 and because of new "OK writen copyright information" picture has survived [66]). Now we are having evidence that user:Mike Babic is writing false copyright information because image manastiri is copy of image on site www.kosovo.net (first and second picture). Similar thing he has done with Croatian historical map (Mike Babic, www.croatia-in-english.com). Because of this reasons I must ask that Mike Babic is banned from "creating" new pictures. About need for deleting "his" old pictures I will inform administrators of page copyright violations.--Rjecina (talk) 02:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Picture Lapada he has taken from National newspaper site (wikipedia, National ) and I can find many other examples but this is enough.--Rjecina (talk) 02:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, we've got problems. I have checked this editor's entire upload history and, in my opinion, everything is deletable as probable or confirmed copyright violation. Nothing has metadata and it is all sized for Web viewing, which suggests that even the obvious scans were things this editor nicked from other people's copyvios elsewhere on the Web. I've categorized these in case anybody wants to discuss them, but short answer is that nothing is clear from license/sourcing concerns, and everything fully confirmable is obvious copyvio. Recommend mass deleting the whole lot. No opinion on whether to impose a restriction (possible language/educational issues I haven't explored). Durova^Charge! 03:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Heraldic images

1. Image:Ba)serb.gif
2. Image:Grb1.JPG
3. Image:S4 crveni.gif

• Photographs lacking metadata

1. Image:Knin Licence Plates.JPG
2. Image:Krajisnikbrkonja20040bv.jpg
3. Image:Cuvar hristovog groba.jpg - obvious scan with visible halftoning
4. Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg
5. Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg - obvious copyvio composite from different artists
6. Image:N72606994 36624816 7282.jpg - not used in article space
7. Image:N72606994 36624814 6761.jpg
8. Image:Srpska banka.jpg
9. Image:Dubrovnik's Hotel Lapad.jpg
10. Image:Lapada.jpg

• Maps that lack sources and metadata

1. Image:Krajina-map.jpg - obvious scan with visible halftoning
2. Image:KFOR Structur1.2006.PNG
3. Image:Kosovo Demographic Map.PNG
4. Image:Manastiri.jpg
5. Image:Location-Europe-regions.png
6. Image:Europepolitical map.png
7. Image:VojnaKrajina.jpg - obvious scan with paper fold visible
8. Image:Krajina_ethnic_map.jpg - obvious scan with paper folds visible
9. Image:17-18cen.jpg - obvious scan with paper folds visible

• Questionable status, not used in article space

1. Image:Serb population.JPG

Yep, looks like it. I remember dealing with Image:Cuvari_hristovog_groba.jpg earlier and couldn't at the time find anything that would have contradicted the claim this was an old photograph from the uploader's personal collection; and I seem to remember I once checked on Image:Famous Serbs from Krajina and Croatia.jpg and came up with the result that all four component images were indeed free, but apart from that, the scanned maps are of course obvious copyvios, and if we now also have confirmed cases among the photographs, I'd probably go for a topic ban from further image uploads, like I've done in comparable cases. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:39, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason why some of these are still bluelinked? Durova^Charge! 20:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Let's discuss this, please: copyright policy and the law demand attention. Why are some of these images still bluelinked? IMO they can all go. Durova^Charge! 11:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I left the three coats of arms because they could routinely be kept under fair use if declared correctly; I tagged them as lacking fair use rationales so if nobody takes mercy on them they can be gone in a few days. Image:VojnaKrajina.jpg was originally uploaded by somebody else and has a plausible copyright declaration. Image:Location-Europe-regions.png was one I simply missed out on; now that I look at it one might in fact ask if it approaches the level of creativity necessary to be copyrighted. Image:Serb population.JPG is so inexpertly made I find it most likely it's actually the uploader's own work (based on sourced statistics he was quoting in some discussion, if I recall correctly). The three remaining ones are photographs of sufficiently low quality that they may well be snapshots taken by the uploader himself, and unlikely to be from a professional commercial source, so as long as we have no actual proof of them being copyvios, getting rid of them struck me as of not quite so high priority. I certainly have no problem if somebody wants to delete all of these or take them to IfD. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)*I have deleted all blue linked images (see Special:Contributions/LessHeard_vanU) I saw, citing this discussion. I don't do image admin stuff, so if there is any further housekeeping required please go at it. I have left the "questionable status" image, since I haven't the faintest idea how to determine its status. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I'll wait and delete that remaining one too if it remains unused in a couple of days or unless the uploader makes a convincing case he needs it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:56, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Basically I marked that as questionable because he might have created that legitimately, although it appears unlikely that he did. Giving extreme benefit of the doubt there because everything else has been copyvio. Durova^Charge! 21:34, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Systematic racist vandalism by User:Steelizzle816

Resolved

 – User indef blocked. Hut 8.5 20:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Can an admin have a look at the contributions of this user here? Insofar as I can tell, this editor is nothing but a vandal, and making extremely offensive racist edits. I wonder if a lengthy block might not be more in order than a mere warning???--Ramdrake (talk) 19:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef'd. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Theplanetsaturn

Could someone please take a look at the Talk:Billie Joe Armstrong page (Bisexuality section[67]) and give some advice. Theplanetsaturn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to reinterpret a cited and referenced quote from Billie Joe Armstrong and (IMO) distort the quote by stating what Billie Joe Armstrong "really meant to say", which seems highly WP:POV. He/she has also incorporated his reinterpretation into the article several times now (I thought it was 3, but was mistaken):

[68]

[69]

The crux of the argument is that Armstrong is quoted (referenced) from a magazine (The Advocate) stating: ""I think I've always been bisexual. I mean, it's something that I've always been interested in. I think people are born bisexual, and it's just that our parents and society kind of veer us off into this feeling of 'Oh, I can't.' They say it's taboo. It's ingrained in our heads that it's bad, when it's not bad at all. It's a very beautiful thing." User:Theplanetsaturn has decided that the statement "I think I've always been bisexual" isn't fully reflective of Armstrong necessarily being bisexual, when Armstrong (IMO) clearly states that he is.

This discussion has gone on for a day now, and I have exhausted myself trying to make any headway with this person. I've given up on the discussion for now as I can't seem to make this person understand that their inclusions on the talk page and subsequent change to the article is POV. Any help appreciated, sorry if this not the right forum - I haven't really encountered this problem before. ExRat (talk) 20:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, we don't mediate content disputes on this board. WP:3O might be a better approach here.  Sandstein  20:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Giant Avril lavigne vandalism.

Wikipedia:Vandalism and this page both show giant Avrils. Wtf? PLEASE FIX? ThuranX (talk) 20:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I found it :). Next time just click on the image and if the usage links trace to a Template...then that's where the vandalism originated.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:00, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, cool. But why isn't that account indef'd for such obvious, carefully crafted and planned, intentional vandalism? ThuranX (talk) 22:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I do believe it is. Metros (talk) 22:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The sooner they blacklist the 'overflow' CSS element the better. This has been going on for a while at the refdesks. They fiddle with the archive templates. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 22:19, May 31, 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist

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

Someone (possibly Majorly (talk · contribs), who seems to hold a grudge against me) has created an account "Prima Facist" and used it to support RfAs that I have opposed. There's nothing intrinsically wrong with that, but in this case the combination of the choice of username, signature, and contribution history ([70]) makes it clear that this is nothing more than a bad-faith attempt to parody and ridicule me, rather than a good-faith attempt to help Wikipedia. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've notified Prima Fascist about this thread. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I've notified Majorly, who may be interested as well... Fram (talk) 14:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...I was just getting ready to do so myself (I'm on dialup, and my connection died right after I posted the above) when I saw your posts. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 14:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am not Majorly, but I am an alternate account of a different Wikipedian, having been using ym primary account for ~3 years. I admit that the initial intention of this account was merely to "cancel" Kurts votes in RfA, because I percieve the statements he gives in opposes are personal attacks. This changed after the first edit I made, when I decided that maybe I could do some actual work from this account as well, lest something like this happened (alas, too late it seems). I had that signature for one edit and then decided it would be a bad idea and that it would be too close to a personal attack and would be quite hypocritical and so I changed it to what it is currently.

Once I get a chance to escape the pressures of every day life, studentism and such, I shall be doing a lot more substantial work on articles (which, I'm sure you'll agree, takes a lot more time than simply voting in an RfA or two) and I'm sure you'll see that this account is quite serious about wanting to improve the encyclopedia (even if its inital intentions were not so). Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I suggest that an admin removes Huggle from the user - a disruptive sock puppet should not be accessing such tools. EJF (talk) 14:42, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• I don't see any disruption yet. Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I can't use huggle anyway, not being an autoconfirmed user (yet) Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I should probably point out that I was one of the earliest users of huggle and have made thousands of edits on my other account. Prima Facist 15:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest that if and when the sockpuppet policy is breached, a post is made here and action is taken. Until then, nothing is being done wrong, I feel (though do enlighten me if I'm indeed incorrect). Martinp23 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Exactly, Martin. I will not be using this account to double-vote or do anything else in breach of the sockpuppet policy. Prima Facist 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Prima Facist/Aha! is, interesting... Carcharoth (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But there is still nothing that requires administrator action. Nor has there been any violation. seicer | talk | contribs 14:52, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting it may be, but no-one has yet voiced any opinions on the page... Prima Facist 14:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if I missed something, but Prima, are you admitting to having another account? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Prima Facist 15:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you ever participated in the same RFA with both of your accounts? · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No. And as stated above, I never will. I have been here for 3 years, I'm aware of sockpuppetry and am not partaking in such. Prima Facist 15:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course. · AndonicO ^Engage. 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, so it does like this the sockpuppet policy is being violated, per WP:Sockpuppet#Avoiding_scrutiny. Or do I misinterpret that? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Not unles you assume the account is going to be used disruptively. It would be better for the accounts to be linked in some way, but I don't think the policy requires it Fritzpoll (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale seems to think so. Prima Facist 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)Well, creating a new account in order to make certain types of opposes in an RfA could certainly be considered disruptive. This means we can't review a certain users voting history in an RfA, when said user wants to vote for a certain reason... they just log into another account. Also, I just don't see how this account is anything but trying to avoid scrutiny for the other account. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:35, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The user says they aren't going to use the other account for the same things, and there is not reason to disbelieve them. If the two accounts do demonstrate similar editing patterns, however, I'm sure this would be picked up in time - especially since the RfAs this user contributes to are likely to be watched carefully for patterns of support/oppose by other accounts. Fritzpoll (talk) 15:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But Fritz, I do doubt that Prima Fascist will ever be abusive as sock in regards to double-voting or messing with consensus. I'm not suggesting that is the problem, but rather this account was created in order to avoid scrutiny over certain types of votes in RfAs. It looks quite clear to me in policy linked above that this isn't allowed. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

My proposal, in the spirit of WP:AGF, would be to ban Prima Facist from participating in any RfAs for at least six months (to avoid the account becoming a point-driven SPA sock), tell him not to use the "Go Clots!" sig anymore (which he/she already agreed to), and move on, with the understanding that there will be zero tolerance for any disruption coming from this account. --Jaysweet (talk) 15:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The "Go Clots" signature went after one use, when I decided it was a bad idea. My other account does not vote in RfAs of users I don't know anyway and I have promised, several times to not sockpuppet by dual voting. If I wanted to do that, I'd be a lot more discrete about it (This is not a self-invocation of WP:BEANS, incidentally). Prima Facist 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

But Prima, the actions you are taking in this account are being done because you didn't want to do it in your main account, correct? Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't creating an account that directly mocks a user who himself creates drama... thereby leading to the creation of additional drama, an act of disruption? Hiberniantears (talk) 15:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think disruption would rather much end the sweeping assumption of good faith needed to get by the poilcy against undisclosed multiple accounts. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

As a general rule, we should encourage people to give their honest opinions without having to hide behind some special purpose account. Honesty helps people work together better (as long as they're mature enough to handle it.) Friday (talk) 15:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I thought my proposal to simply ban PF from RfAs and let him go was very generous, and the fact that Prima Facist is intent on using this account for RfAs is not encouraging. PF, could you please explain precisely why you want a WP:SPA for RfA participation? --Jaysweet (talk) 15:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't want it purely for RfA participation. I intend on using this account for a substantial amount of article work independent from my other account. Prima Facist 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have basically the same issue. PF has admitted to creating the account for the porpuse of SPA socking. Isn't that, in itself, enough to PermBan the username? I appreciate his candor in revealing his intentions and have no reason to doubt his sincerity but the fact remains that he did create the account to oppose Kurt Weber in RfA's - that's a banning offense, no? Padillah (talk) 16:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree, using an SPA to vote in an RfA would tend to skirt most of the need for responsibility, accountability and trust. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Starting with the username and there on out, the sole purpose of this account appear to be to launch a personal attack against Kmweber. Unless someone can present some compelling reason why socking to engage in personal attacks is acceptable, seems like an automatic indef block. WilyD 16:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocks aren't punishment; I just wanted it to stop. If he says he'll stop, give him the benefit of the doubt. That said, I think it would be appropriate to know his true identity, so we have a starting point should he try to circumvent this by creating another SPA to do it again. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 16:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting punishment. The guy (or lady) already has another account - let them use that. WilyD 16:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have another account. I also edit anonymously sometimes. I will never double-vote so there should be no problem... Prima Facist 16:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between admitting that an undeclared sockpuppet who does nothing wrong is unlikely to be recognized, and supporting the sockpuppet account once it is recognized. The general intent was wrong, because one is responsible for ones votes at AfD, and it is only fair for someone to know where any opposition comes from. The specific intent was to engage is a possibly dubious voting pattern without having the regular WP identity be compromised by it. I think we should give amnesty to the sockpuppeter in appreciation of the honesty of his confession, but block any admitted undeclared sockpuppet account. PF, would you consider making it easier for us and agree to this? DGG (talk) 16:10, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in favor of amnesty if PF stays away from RfAs for a set period of time. Otherwise, it is too hard to police whether the account is still being used for its original nefarious purpose. Another possibility would be if PF provided an excellent reason for using the account for RfA participation, but I don't see that happening. If he wants to participate in RfAs, he can do it using his established account, or he can rack up a few months of solid contributions on this account to prove the account is no longer operating with the sole intention of undermining Kurt Weber. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I posted a trout on Prima Facists talkpage asking him to retire. I strongly believe the account should be indefblocked as disruptive, pointy, and most importantly, as a really really really stupid idea. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The name is having a go at KurtWeber's use of "prima facie" in his replies on RfAs. It is sort of having a go at that and almost saying KW's a fascist. The account should at least be renamed, IMHO. Sticky Parkin 16:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, that was not clear, at least not to me.

Yeah, I would say a soft-block and if whoever PF is wants to create a different account, so be it. I see no legitimate reason for him/her to continue using this account. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Article work seperate from my main account (which I have stated in several places is my plan for this account). Prima Facist 16:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think one of these two options are probably the best: either PF is indefblocked, and he/she goes back to his main account, or PF is renamed and agrees not to participate in RFAs. · AndonicO ^Engage. 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, to those who say I will sok on RfAs and double vote: There are several users who know the identity of my main account. If they are happy with it, I am prepared to list them here and they can "monitor" my voting if it will make people happier. Prima Facist 16:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You are missing the point. I don't care if you double-vote. The concern is that you are socking so that you can participate in RfAs without accountability. You have not explained why. If you really want to separate your article work from your main account, that is fine -- the Prima Facist account can remain (albeit perhaps with a different username), it can work on articles separate from your main account, and it is banned from RfAs. What is the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 16:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm more than prepared to be accountable (on this account) for my voting (from this account). I really have little interest in RfAs save for editors I know personally (for which I will vote from my main account). I have an issue with Kurt's personal attack way of opposing people and I will vote solely to counter that. It is a given that he will oppose every self-nom, yes? What, then, is wrong with me supporting every self-nom? Prima Facist 17:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you feel if someone created an SPA to only vote to oppose self-noms? Kurt's opposition is at least logical. Yours is pointy. Indeed, your actions are genuine WP:POINT, whereas Kurt's (despite some people thinking them WP:POINTy) are not. In some ways, you are teaching people what the real meaning of WP:POINT is, and that could be good in some ways, especially if it helps you to understand WP:POINT a bit better. Carcharoth (talk) 17:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Prima facist has been indef blocked by Gwen Gale. Out of fairness to Prima Facist who can no longer post here, closing the thread.Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:24, 29 May 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.

CheckUser?

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

---

This may be a little moot now that Prima Facist (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked, however, there may be a very good faith admin behind this, and it would shocken me for an admin to go and get away with, quite frankly, gross misconduct in sockpuppetry. I strongly believe a CheckUser should take place so that we can find out who it is. If it is an admin, then they maybe should be desynsopped. Does anyone else think a CheckUser should take place so we can find out the culprit? D.M.N. (talk) 19:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• The account is not an admin, is in good standing, and is an otherwise unremarkable, non-controversial and productive editor. Thatcher 19:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
  • OK, the person's not an admin. But surely this (what the good standing editor is done) is disruption, isn't it? The fact that only a small group actually know who the other account is needs to be addressed, I think we all deserve to know just who is behind the "Prima Facist" account. And in my view, the good-faith editor should be blocked for a short time for sockpuppetry and evidently creating disruption. I think the rest of us deserve to know who it is. D.M.N. (talk) 20:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Please also reveal his home phone number, employer and SSN, so that we may harass him more. Thanks! LegitAltAccount (talk) 20:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • So "bad hand" accounts are to be tolerated now? And no-one ever asked for anything but an account name; that's not personal information or private at all according to the long-standing official interpretation of the privacy policy. --Random832 (contribs) 20:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
      • Agreed. We've had too much abuse of bad hand accounts in the past. The main account needs to be revealed and sanctioned. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 20:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
        • We won't be able to burn him without his personal identification. LegitAltAccount (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

If there's no reason to believe the user is going to operate other bad hand accounts in the future, and this really is an isolated offense, I think forgive-and-forget should apply. Remember, blocks are preventative, not punitive. PF was blocked because he made it known the account would be used for bad faith RfA contributions. If Thatcher strongly believes that the user in question is not going to use their account for malicious wrongdoings and not going to open another bad hand account, what is the point of blocking them? Heh, after all, unless you are going to hard block their IP (assuming it's even static), the user could just create another good hand account.

It's appropriate that somebody did a CU, and I imagine the user in question is on a sort of Double Secret Probation right now. But unless there is reason to suspect future disruption, what is the purpose of publicly disclosing the account? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

That aside, who is "LegitAltAccount", which was just created to troll in this thread? Is this the same person? --Random832 (contribs) 21:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh, geez, I didn't even notice the username. We need a CU here If that is the same person, then it's not an isolated incident and we have a serious problem. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Please. Although this IP nettle cracked me up I'm starting to wonder if the soft block is enough. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I think we definitely need a CheckUser here now that a third account has popped up. I'm confused at the message on his userpage. D.M.N. (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The name of the editor's master account can be quickly found by looking at the IP's contributions – is a CheckUser really necessary? EJF (talk) 21:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is. Besides, I can't tell anything about the master account from looking at the last 5 to 6 edits (unless I've misread something). D.M.N. (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious Prima Facist, be already know that. The question now is, what is the good hand account? Because, sadly, that needs blocked too (very sad to see a good faith editor go down because they are obsessed with making a WP:POINT, which is why I advocated leniency earlier, but at this point I don't think that's any longer an option) --Jaysweet (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with this guy is that he still thinks he did nothing wrong. After 3 years here, he should not only know better, he should know that he's lucky he didn't get banished for it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've raised it to a hard block. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

And I'm drafting up a request for checkuser now. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser request filed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Prima_Facist. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 22:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is a hard block really necessary? --Conti|✉ 22:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

• Don't bother. LegitAltAccount is not Prima Facist. I can't identify a main account, and he may in fact just be an IP editor who registered that name for trolling purposes. But he is on a different continent than Prima Facist. I am also not vouching for the future behavior of Prima Facist's other account, I was simply verifying that he is not an admin and has a clean record. Thatcher 22:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Astral has shown up asking for the hard block on PF to be lowered to soft. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I have softened the block. Martinp23 22:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, I feel I need to say something here. WTF? LegitAltAccount was nothing to do with me. I have no idea who the fuck it was (Although my suspicions say it was Kurt trying to cause trouble). Raising the block to a hard block based on that and my comment on Gwen's talk page was, IMO, completely out of line on Gwen's part. If you read the rest of the conversation aside from the diff Gwen posted, you'll see that she blanked an edit I made and then protected the page. When I asked her simply to revert that edit she did so but also unprotected the page, against my original request (which was a simple locking). Using the admin tools to be heavy handed with someone you've disagreed with is completely out of line. There was a good reason I wasn't forthcoming in revealing I was behind Prima Facist. I knew that the two accounts could be linked quite easily, given a little research, expecially after I posted from my IP. Even after Thatcher gave his staement above, the block stayed in place. Gwen should be desysoped for this level of abuse, she was way out of line. All that said, I'm done with enwiki now. There is so much bullshit and drama here and a lto of the admins need to learn what is and isn't appropriate behaviour for them. For once, I agree with Kurt, ironically enough, when he as said that admins need to remember that they are servants, not masters.

I was quite prepared to carry on and try and do something productive for this project, but I refuse to do so as long as Gwen has admin tools. Goodbye Astral (talk) 23:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

'There is so much bullshit and drama here...' Ah, for a rolling-eye smiley... HalfShadow 23:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, ironic, right? Recently we've had the whole fiasco over NYB, the drama about the_undertow and LaraLove and all sorts of other shit. If I had any faith left in the community, I'd start a RfC about Gwen's conduct, but I don't think it would get me anywhere. My thanks are extended to MArtinp23, Thatcher and Conti, who appear to have been the only voices of reason here. Until next time, Astral (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Weren't you leaving? Or was that drama, too? HalfShadow 23:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Kettle, meet the pot. One user alone is not a master either. Plus, for the record, the checkuser results have come back. Although you aren't LegitAltAccount, the results speak for themselves. Would you care to explain? Nwwaew (Talk Page)

(Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:28, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I freely admit to being Prima Facist. It's not hard to work out why I did it. Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Was that a dig there? Leaving is not an immediate thing. I have stuff to sort out over the next few days, editors to thank, pages to be tidied up, etc. When I leave, I will do what I did with Prima Facist; remove the email address and type gibberish for the password so I can't login or retrieve the password again. Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The disheartening parts are that (1) a user on here for 3 years thinks sockpuppetry of this nature is no big deal; and (2) there's an admin who also thinks it's no big deal. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I never said it was no big deal. I intended to use the account as a true alternate, but never got the chance... Astral (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your own words indicate that you intended to use it to counter the votes of another user while keeping your normal ID distanced from that. As a 3-year veteran, you should know that's a bad thing to be doing. FYI, I don't much care for admin self-nominations either. But when I happen to get involved in those discussions, I don't hide behind a different user ID. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh my! Have you actually read anything I've said? I said it was intended as an alternate account and that I would also use it to vote on some RfAs, due to believing that what Kurt does is a personal attack and also unfair but having a policy of not voting on RfAs of editors I don't know using this account. Astral (talk) 23:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You're right, I had it switched around. Either way, what you did is wrong. Why the need for a second account? Why hide? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec)As I stated, it was going to be a legitimate alternate account because sometimes I like to escape the pressures of an account where a lot of people know me. I also decided to use it to "fight" an issue I feel strongly about. It was a bad choice of username, really (although I thought it vaguely amusing at the time). Had I done it under any other username, no-one would've noticed... Astral (talk) 23:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

What "pressures"? Editing here is voluntary. Any pressure is self-imposed. And if you feel strongly about an issue, such as an RFA, you should be a stand-up guy and say what you think - under ONE account. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Unlikely. We'd be suspicious of your behavior. And if you believe what Kurt does is a personal attack, why not start an RFC against him? Why not use the legit channels already set up? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 23:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

How would you know? If I had a good history of solid edits, I could easily "negate" Kurt's RfA votes without giving a reason for my vote and no-one woul ever know. (Please remember, I'm talking about *had* I done this, not "if I do this now"). As for RfC, it's been done. People have complained about Kurt often enough and nothing has been done. Astral (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's because she knows that Kurt has a right to make the contributions he does as has been validated numerous times on ANI/RFC/Arbcom. Creating disruptive accounts, has never been tolerated. I have ZERO problem with the block and would have no problem with sanctions against Astral as well?Balloonman (talk) 00:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I said. I was asking how you'd find the account. I know for a fact there are at least two other editors who only vote in RfAs to cancel Kurt's votes. I defy you to tell me who they are. Astral (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Assuming it's true that he's already being outvoted 2-1 by others countering his votes, you didn't even need to be voting in those RFA's. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:20, 30 May 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.

Things seem to have got somewhat out of hand here. People need a break over it. I'm archiving the above section and expect it to remain as such for the next 9 hours at least, to give everyone a change to have a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Anyone who ignores my doing this will be "in trouble" (don't ask me how! just AGF for now). Why am I doing this? Because I'd rather see people listening to eachother than posting blind comments - and I don't want to see this project lose another good contributor. If I have to, I'll delete the section from this page until a fair time period has passed. Thanks, Martinp23 00:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Conti|✉ 00:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. Thanks Martin. Remind me to buy you a pint if we ever meet IRL. Astral (talk) 00:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thank you, Martinp23. Personally, I think ANI has been having a bad week all round. A previously unsuspected effect of global warming, perhaps? Deor (talk) 01:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying global warming is responsible for people ignoring the sock puppetry rule? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm simply saying that there are several threads currently on this board in which a number of normally rational admins seem to have lost all sense of perspective. And that's all I have to say. Deor (talk) 02:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The rules are important and must be supported by all admins. As an ordinary editor and an observer here for awhile, I expect users to make excuses for their behavior. And I expect admins to do their jobs. Mostly, they do. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me like the user in question admits to violating the Wikipedia:Sock puppetry rules. And it seems to me like violating those rules should be considered important by every admin in this discussion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Admins are volunteers, just like everyone else - it isn't a job. Neıl 龱 09:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

For sure. But they do have a responsibility that goes along with that volunteering. And I don't think it's fair to characterize my calm and reasoned questions as "drama". Here's an example of "drama" (with apologies to the user whose page I borrowed it from): [71] Now, compare that with the comments in the above section. For real drama, you need lots of capital letters and exclamation points. There's hardly any of that here. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Wait a minute...Martinp23 not only refuses to condemn, actively condones and defends a clearly unacceptable act, and then when someone calls him out on it he takes that person to task and threatens anyone else who might point it out? Something's seriously not right here. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Martin's comments on my talk page indicate he was just playing with our heads a bit. I recommnend we just leave this be for now, as the sockpuppeteer has indicated he is done with wikipedia in any case. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

? Martinp23 17:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

That's terrible logic Baseball Bugs. You don't "leave it be" when someone robs another, just because they say they won't do it again. Some sort of action needs to take place for this atrocity. Monobi (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

"Atrocity"???? Dude. It's a WEB SITE. Somebody made up a character to tweak somebody on a WEB SITE. Against policy? Yup. Dumb? Probably, yeah. An ATROCITY? Sure. Whatever. Overdramatize much? (/disgusted rant)Gladys J Cortez 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's a tad overstating things. The sockpuppeteer claims that both his accounts, Astral and Prima Fascist, are done. At one point he was advised that if he was to do "legal" sockpuppetry, he should do it in a quiet way. My guess is that if he comes back, under a different ID, he will stay low-key. If not, he'll be spotted. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have been unblocked, so I have to come here to say a few things.

First off, I think the checkuser was completely uncalled for and I'm upset at how it came about but ho-hum, that's all water under the bridge now so no moint worrying about it.

Secondly, I'd like to publicly apologise to Gwen for some of the things I said; specifically that I wouldn't re-edit until she had been desysopped.

See you around, Prima Facist 02:23, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

New user mass-editing templates

Resolved

 – Problematic edits have ceased. Anthøny 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:MadeForMe has created a new account, and a few minutes later he has edited +200 TV templates in half an hour, and is still going, see his contributions. He's mass-replacing a list of other local TV stations on the same region with a list of TV stations on the whole USA like here, including templates that haven't been edited for months, and he hasn't posted on any wikiproject or talk page or village pump page before doing so. --Enric Naval (talk) 18:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

user has been warned, and I have posted at WP:TV wikiproject --Enric Naval (talk) 18:22, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also notified Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Television Stations of the discussion here. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia says be bold, but common sense is also a guideline. This was waaay too bold and is going to upset a lot of people. The links to the different network templates for each state is there for a reason, and has been there by consensus; deleting them without prior discussion is a very bad idea. Linking each state's template for each particular network has merit, but replacing the existing template links does not. I recommend a revert until consensus is reached. dhett ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:59, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The problematic contributions from MadeForMe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) have ceased; tagging as resolved, under the assumption the matter is no longer current, further to the recent warnings. Anthøny 19:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Do all the edits need to be rollbacked? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Maaaaybe I would wait first for input from those two wikiprojects, altought I'm very tempted to mass-revert them tomorrow if nobody has still answered, normal undo with an explanation will probably do, since for most pages he made only one edit. And then I would nom all his new templates for TfD, with warning on the wiiprojects so they can comment on whether we should keep them for something --Enric Naval (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm rollbacking those changes. I tried to use a tool that adds a sumary to the rollbacks, but I couldn't get it to work. I'll use rollback anyways because a) the changes are not good b) there seems to be consensus that there is no consensus to make the changes c) doing 300 undos by hand is not my idea of a funny saturday night, even if I'm bored at home. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC) Disregard that, I got the tool to work (FYI, the tool is User:Mr.Z-man/rollbackSummary) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:30, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

thecubanchef.com and askcuban.com blacklisted?

Why were these sites blacklisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.0.84.224 (talk) 00:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

These sites were spammed repeatedly. I recommend you take a look at Wikipedia's spam guidelines for more information on why links shouldn't just be added into external links sections without contributing to the article. --Rory096 01:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat

Resolved

I don't have much experience with this sort of thing, but I've seen action taken before for this sort of threat. Bringing to the administrator community's attention. Tan | 39 04:07, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeffed. Thanks for raising it here. --John (talk) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the non-notable content has been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:11, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mass "courtesy" blanking

An eye needs to be kept on Wiki11790 (talk · contribs), who is mass blanking, citing WP:BLP. He's been reverted twice and told twice it's not appropriate. Ty 04:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He has not edited in 1/2 an hour or so. If he starts up again, he should probably be blocked, but right now, it appears he has backed off. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Or gone to bed. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 04:37, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either way, he hasn't edited since his most recent warning, and blocking immediately after a warning is sorta unfair. Lets see where he goes before blocking. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Just a note: He's a newbie. Honey goes a lot farther than vinegar when getting people to change their behavior. I'd hate to run him off just because he got off to a bad start. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 05:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If he's genuinely new around here, he's a fast learner. You do make an important point, though. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 06:09, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I dispute that how I've edited is inappropriate. Consequently your reversions are inappropriate to me. Please take a step back and consider the harm to living people of using unverified information, even temporarily until proper references are made or even if the information is seemingly unimportant. If I were a living soccer player and someone was posting information about me, my career could depend on public opinion and assessment of my playing ability. If a fan sees information about me that is unverified and accepts it as true, they might believe that I was born in Portugal instead of Spain and might choose not to buy tickets to my games. A recruiter might read that I had 6 goals in 1999 instead of 7, and decided to offer me less money to play for his team. Every piece of information being put out there is important and potentially dangerous/harmful. Even if I actually did score 6 goals or was born in Portugal, the responsibilities of the WP community are to check first. We cannot assume good faith about editors who do not provide references (as they should) when they write about living people. And as for the use of mass in mass blanking, it's only a few articles that I've attempted to enforce policy on, I'm not a bot. Please see User talk:Wiki11790#WP:BLP  _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, please stop calling me "he". I have not chosen to identify my sex or gender. Please do not make assumptions about that, nor allow yourselves to fall into a damaging androcentric practice. _{Wiki11790  talk}  18:41, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Grawp

Grawp, User:124.188.195.245. Attacked Ran (film). Phlegm Rooster (talk) 05:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Either him or a copycat. Might be worth running a CheckUser to see if any sleeper socks turn up. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 05:41, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Wait a second. The IP moved the page to "HAGGER?" without getting stopped at all by the titleblacklist. Why? GlobeGores (talk page | user page) 05:55, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

He didn't move it, just redirected it there. Kelly ^hi! 05:59, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

And only autoconfirmed users can move pages anyway. Anyway, he's been blocked for 48 hours. Hut 8.5 08:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal Attack on User:Wildhartlivie from User:Nyannrunning

I am reposting this incident because it was removed by MiszoBot II with no action or response given for it and I am sufficiently unhappy about it that I honestly feel some action needs to be taken by administrators because of it.

User:Nyannrunning (talk) posted a personal attack diff against me at 02:00, 30 May 2008, on the Jim Morrison talk page. I have never edited this page, nor participated in any discussion about the page. The attack grossly misrepresents any stance I have taken on Wikipedia regarding content, sources or references and makes no sense whatsoever, especially considering the subject of the content, removed by editor User:Faithlessthewonderboy, that Nyrannrunning had added to the article (specifically material from a book alleging that Morrison had a gay relationship when in college).

Later, when I logged on, I found this note left on my talk page by anonymous IP 69.234.176.245, which appeared to be an attempt to bait me into responding. Later, this bizarre note was left after the person who posted the original AN/I report, User:IP4240207xx, and I had exchanged discussion regarding the attack. At that point I investigated some editing history and discovered definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

A sock puppet case has been opened regarding User:Nyannrunning, two other usernames that evidence indicates are related, as well as the anonymous IP 69.234.176.245, at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning (2nd). Hopefully, the sock puppet case will resolve ongoing problems with this editor, but in the meanwhile, this unprovoked and offensive attack remains. User:Nyannrunning has had no action taken as a result of this attack, and I feel, given the gross rudeness and incivility of the attack, that at least a short block be given. This is unacceptable behavior. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:35, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I see that you have included the attack by Nyannrunning in the SSP report. I would be reluctant to block prior to any conclusions being reached in the sock case. I suggest that you issue a warning on the editors talkpage. Further infractions may justify a block independantly, and such a notice may influence the sanction imposed by any admin following the resolution of the sock case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I templated the user with a level 2 NPA notice. Bstone (talk) 14:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Forcing through changes

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (names and titles)#Simplifying titles: Removing "prince" from royals with substantive titles. Half of the ongoing discussion was cut of by User:Charles to try and force a change in the naming conventions. I was wondering is this sort of behaviour acceptable, the discussion is clearly still ongoing and Charles is still engaged in it. He suddenly archived half the discussion and then announced a consensus and said that a "new" discussion was taking place to change the conventions back! Is it possible to remove the archive (polltop, pollbottom) template as the discussion is still ongoing, I tried earlier but was reverted. - dwc lr (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It is (the substitution stops short right at the start of the discussion). Just clarify why you're removing the archival template. As to Charles, he claims that the proposed item was already being used; I would confirm that it is before removing the archive template. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 17:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

When I and others first contributed the discussion was open there was no archive template, but our objections to the change were completely disregarded. Though he is and was contributing to the discussion he suddenly archived half of the discussion (if you the look at the time stamps when he archived it there is whole load of discussion he completely missed out to effectively try and force a change). Then he announced that actually every thing under his Archive template is simply a "new" discussion. It's clearly the same discussion which is still ongoing so I'm asking if the Archive template can be removed as the discussion is still ongoing and was open when many contributed before half of it was shut to force a change. - dwc lr (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

DWC LR is telling a half-truth. Chronology of events: The change was proposed because the convention is problematic for a number of royals (Swedish princes, etc). It sat for almost two weeks with one person opposed and two people supporting. Then two more supported which brought it to 4 to 1. For WT:NC(NT), which is slow anyway, that is a very good outcome. It then went like this (these are all my local times): At 14:40, there was an 80% majority favouring changing the conventions. At 14:43, I changed the convention. The discussion was therefore closed even if I had forgotten the templates. I even made a move to the effect of the new conventions at 14:44. It was only later that someone objected, but too late at that, and soon enough DWC LR followed in (very unsurprising). Another editor who voiced his opinion in time, but didn't like the outcome, decided to revert the naming conventions although a new discussion would be needed to gain another consensus. A third party, uninvolved in the actual changes to the convention (but who had voted in time), amended the conventions to reflect both sides. I put in the archive box to separate the conversation which introduced the change to the conventions. Whether or not the dissenters agree or disagree, consensus was gained and the conventions were changed. Further arguments are very, very Anglocentric and have little or no evidence to back them up. This being pointed out, certain editors still want to remove the archive box. They are welcome to form a new discussion though. Charles 22:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

And at what time did you close half the discussion, hours after people expressed opinions but these were not taken into account. It's not because they opposed your proposal is it? What this is a case of is showing no respect for other editors and behaving like a Nazi dictator by only using half a discussion to try and force a change because the other half are opposed to a change. Disgusting. - dwc lr (talk) 22:52, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm saving this diff. I would suggest you keep your mouth shut from now on before you throw around comparisons to Nazism. Talk about disgusting. My German relations LEFT Germany and my living German relations at the time FOUGHT FOR CANADA. Nazism indeed. Don't you dare ever make such a comparison again. Charles 22:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations. - dwc lr (talk) 23:11, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• Charles's statements are completely misleading and I have again removed the archive template. Charles inserted this template only when the consensus began to go against him. His conduct is unworthy of such a long-standing contributor. Deb (talk) 23:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please state exactly which statements are misleading before you smear my name. Charles 23:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Charles you are correct when he says at 14:40 (19:40 my time) there was a 80% majority favouring changing the conventions. However you fail to mention when you actually ended the discussion there was clear no consensus. However these comments though clearly posted in an open an ongoing discussion were completely overlooked and not even taken into consideration. - dwc lr (talk) 23:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

• An admin seriously needs to intervene in this, Charles is basically wikilawyering, ignoring consensus, editing disruptively and being generally incivil. MickMacNee (talk) 23:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's funny how users point out the faults of those who disagree with them and totally ignore the actions of those who don't. Charles 23:19, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It's your actions I that do have a problem with, not others, I have no problem saying that. Other peoples actions have no bearing on whether an admin needs to intervene based on your behaviour or not. MickMacNee (talk) 23:26, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You should have a problem with others. Pick and choose, pick and choose. Charles 23:47, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned you are conducting yourself like a dictator by picking and choosing where to cut off an ongoing discussion to force through a change and showing no respect for the other editors (excluding myself). - dwc lr (talk) 23:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Several editors seem more interested in discussing the behaviour of other editors than in the actual content of the convention. Charles changed the convention after 12 days when there was a consensus (4 to 1). After he made the change other editors spoke out against it, and a revert battle ensued. Then Charles put an archive template on the early part of the discussion - perhaps not the best thing to do, but it did show that there was a consensus at the time he changed the convention. There clearly isn't a consensus now, and I have edited the convention to state that. But several editors just want to continue throwing rocks at each other. None of them are innocent in this, although calling somebody a Nazi goes way way over the line. Noel S McFerran (talk) 23:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I accused him of acting like a fascist dictator earlier in the discussion. Should I just keep my mouth shut from now on? - dwc lr (talk) 00:47, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The answer is YES if you intend to write in an uncivil manner. You are NEVER allowed to be uncivil on Wikipedia - even when you think others have been uncivil to you (e.g. by deleting your comments on their talk page and using the edit summary "Flushing the toilet"). If you want to be uncivil, there are probably better places to spend your time. Noel S McFerran (talk) 01:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

A gracious sorry I let things get out of hand; let's try to work together better might go a long way. Ideally with him; if not then with other observers. Incidentally the Wikimedia Foundation, which runs Wikipedia, employs Mike Godwin as its counsel, who coined Godwin's law. Small world, ain't it? Durova^Charge! 02:30, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes perhaps things got out of hand. And no Mcferran, I don't want to be uncivil I want to improve Wikipedia. - dwc lr (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Howabout we do the consensus discussion thingy, all over again. That way, nobody can be accused of any wrongdoing. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Mcferran is trying that, or at least to try and get the discussion back on track. - dwc lr (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2008 (UTC)