Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents
This page is for urgent incidents or chronic, intractable behavioral problems. Before posting: Read these tips for dealing with incivility If the issue concerns a specific user, try discussing it with them on their talk page Try dispute resolution Just want an admin? Contact a recently active admin directly. Be brief and include diffs demonstrating the problem Do not report breaches of personal information on this highly visible page – instead go to Requests for oversight. When starting a discussion about an editor, you must leave a notice on their talk page; pinging is not enough. You may use {{subst:ANI-notice}} ~~~~ to do so. Closed discussions are usually not archived for at least 24 hours. Routine matters might be archived more quickly; complex or controversial matters should remain longer. Sections inactive for 72 hours are archived automatically by Lowercase sigmabot III. Editors unable to edit here are sent to the /Non-autoconfirmed posts subpage. (archives, search)
Start a new discussion

SqueakBox and Personal Attacks

FInally, I have got to ask for help on this. In spite of agreeing in the past to leave me alone and to cease personal attacks in general, SqueakBox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back, editing my talkpage (something I had requested he not do and I have agreed not to edit his...which I have abided by) multiple times, removing an obvious self-deprecating joke, and now is making his personal attacks on me again. This user, with a long, distinguished list of blocks and interventions, has been begging for a indef block forever. Granted, he's not calling people "Nazi scum" or even calling people "rude brat". Now it's these: "I would sum up your comments as trolling" "your foramtting is lousy and your refusal to fix it is typical of your arrogant behaviour". Can something be done? He has worked very, very hard to antagonize, vilify, harrass, and belittle many users on Wikipedia. Something has got to be done about this highly disruptive, verbally violent user. VigilancePrime (talk) 21:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC) if more links and diffs for history of attacks is needed, let me know... but they'd fill up an entire page.

I think it's safe to say that the patience of the community is wearing thin. I, for one, am very tired of seeing the same names appear at AN/I with issues. I recommend that both parties find a way to solve this on their own, because I have a feeling that if administrator action is required, it will be of a grave nature. - Philippe | Talk 22:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

We did, and he is reneging on it. I leave him alone, I do not edit his userpages, but I cannot get rid of his following and attacking. I have worked hard to not be involved with him. VigilancePrime (talk) 22:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through some history and at the risk of taking sides, I have to say it looks to me like SqueakBox is the short fuse in this dispute. He's very quick to use colorful adjectives to describe other people and their actions, in statements that could probably often be considered personal attacks. I think at the least, he could use a stern reminder about civility from an uninvolved admin. Equazcion •✗/C • 22:47, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak is a decent person. I blocked him in the past, and he impressed me with his ability to understand that a time out was right in that case. What SqueakBox doesn't like, being a decent person, is any hint of the promotion of pedophilia, racism and a number of other things that decent people don't like. Each time I've investigated an issue with Squeak recently, it's turned out that the problem was excess of decency. Make of that what you will. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Translating that into objective terms, he acts inappropriately but since he does so in accordance with your POV then it must be okay. In the interest of neutrality I don't think the cause he's fighting for, even if it's the majority POV, should be a determining factor. Considering blowing up at people as an "excess of decency" means little since "decency" is subjective, and even if his views were considered decent by matter of fact, you can be excessively decent and still conduct yourself appropriately. We don't judge people based on their views but on how they act, the two being mutually exclusive. Equazcion •✗/C • 23:44, 15 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Pro-pedophile advocacy brings the project into disreupte and has led to bans. Guy (Help!) 00:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

POV-pushing, not pro-pedophile advocacy or anti-pedophile advocacy in particular, leads to bans. And regardless of the reasons, inappropriate behavior is still inappropriate behavior. You can't justify it by saying you were acting for the good of Wikipedia. If you want to do good things, you do it the right way, or you leave it to someone else. Equazcion •✗/C • 01:00, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Squeak mainly does NPOV pushing, in my experience. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The history is perhaps more complex than you have seen, Equazcion, this is perhaps a case for dispute resolution (possibly arbcom) and I have initiated that while also resolving the current flame at VPs talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that Squeakbox has a long fuse, but that it's been re-lit over and over by a succession of POV warriors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

• Rules should be applied consistently - you get the same sentence for assaulting sinners as saints... oh, and assaulting a sinner makes a sinner of the assaulter. i.e. If you are on the side of the angels, then act like one! LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's a denial of human nature. Guy (Help!) 00:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• this is wikipedia, not the nsdap. its not the job of any editiors on here to attack verbalyl any users that he doesnt like just becuase he feels that they are "acist" "pedophilic" or any other pejorative. Smith Jones (talk) 00:52, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Spot on , as usual, Smith Jones. Thanks for cutting through the "acist" crap, again. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I just don't understand why it was necessary for Squeak to even edit Vigilance's page. I didn't see any attacks, I saw the (rather odd) addition of a template. How does that involve Squeak at all? Why even get involved? Frankly, if I were he, I think I'd have walked away from that, even if I thought it was incredibly offensive, because of previous involvement with Vigilance. Strikes me as an astonishingly bad choice to even engage there. - Philippe | Talk 00:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with SJ and other users. As demonstrated in a (now deleted) subpage of VP's, this user has a history of disruption and repeated harassment of editors on stigmatic, personal grounds. I would not personally support an indefinite block, but see the umbrella WP:PAW as a good dividing line when it comes to what articles this user should e allowed to edit. Lambton ^T/_C 01:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• VigilancePrime's deleted subpage was an attack page against Squeakbox that contained similar content to the material currently on VigilancePrime's user page. The subpage was deleted by MfD:
  • Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:VigilancePrime/Doc:SqueakBox

with comment from the closing admin that : " The subpage is serving no other purpuse besides serving as a attack page against another editor..." When content is deleted by MfD as an attack page, what is the policy on re-creating that content on a user page? --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He appears to be holding up a mirror on his talk page. It is not disruptive to simply list edits that you dislike. Lambton ^T/_C 03:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion. You brought up the deleted subpage, not me. So I provided the MfD link and the quote from the closing admin, who found that consensus in the discussion considered it an attack page. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 04:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I guess I should note, though I had hoped to stay out of this, that EVERYONE in that discussion saw it as an obvious keep except: SqueakBox (of course, as it quoted his poor word choices), you, Jack-A-Roe (always jumping to his defense and a partner with him in deleting content you don't like), Will Beback (same difference), and Pol64 (who was very soon after permablocked for the same type or aggregious personal attacks). As one user said, "Quite frankly, I just don't see how accurate quotations (supported by diffs, no less) constitute personal attacks." Other comments about the former page: "The piece is neutrally worded and consists almost exclusively of literal quotes with links.", "no apparent policy vio", "does not violate bad faith or civility", and finally "This is not an attack page; it makes no decisions or judgments about the comments themselves, merely puts them on display in a concise manner. There is no reason for this page NOT to exist, and quite frankly, looking at the diffs on display, it's a wonder such a page hasn't surfaced sooner. Clearly something needs to be done about SqueakBox's conduct." VigilancePrime (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-)

You're entitled to your opinion too, sure. In the situation with your user subpage attacking SqueakBox, the MfD consensus did not agree with your interpretation. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I brought it up because it demonstrated something (listed edits, just like his user page), not to discuss its creditability as a project, which I would have to look at in further detail. Lambton ^T/_C 04:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In point of fact, the MfD Jack refers to was closed against consensus, with comments 2:1 in favor of keeping the page. It went to DRV, and VP, in the kind of selfless act I'd like to see more of, agreed to withdraw their DRV request in exchange for SqueakBox's agreement to stay away from VP's userspace. It's not a matter of opinion; it's reading the MfD & DRV. I believe Jack-a-Roe's description above is inconsistent with the facts. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• That's the third opinion expressed here about the way that MfD was closed. Everyone is entitled to their opinions. The process of the MfD resulted in deletion of that page, and the closing admin described it as an attack page. That's the history, not an interpretation. If someone wants the facts they can view the archived page directly, and they can check the DRV too. They don't need me or anyone else to interpret it for them. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 03:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• I applied arithmetic to the situation; Referring to that as mere opinion is like saying that evolution is just a theory. A 2:1 ratio in favor of keeping is no demonstration of consensus to delete; Therefore, the MfD was closed against apparent consensus. The deletion review was tied 7:7 when VigilancePrime stepped up and ended the drama by agreeing to the deletion per user request, provided that Squeak were to leave VP alone. A consensus in support of the MfD closer's point of view has never been demonstrated, and was, in fact, explicitly opposed. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I feel I must say a few words here. I'm sure SqueakBox will believe I'm persecuting him but he still has not offered me (or anyone else he has unfairly stigmatized) any sort of decent apology for labelling me a passive supporter of pedophile activists (because of I speedy closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North American Man/Boy Love Association), repeatedly calling a now deleted Category:Rape victims "your beloved category" (because I asked him to nominate it for deletion rather than unilaterally depopulate it). He has unfairly accused Haemo (talk · contribs) of pedophile sympathies, during his RfA no less. This is the umpteenth ANI thread about his short fuse and while I understand that it's not always easy to deal with POV warriors and the typical sockpuppeting nonsense that surrounds many of the PAW-supervised articles, his behaviour cannot be tolerated. Guy, I've told you this before and you refused to listen [1]. Now all I can do is repeat it and you'll tell me again "ah, deep down SqueakBox is a good chap" and of course, I can't even disagree with that. But tell me: how many times can you say this before doubt starts creeping in that maybe a good chap can sometimes go overboard, way overboard. If need be, I'll go back and dig out all the diffs that have popped up in the numerous ANI threads and User talk threads where SqueakBox's behaviour has been utterly unacceptable. There are many people who have the courage and patience to work with PAW but somehow, SqueakBox is the one that keeps generating ANI threads. Where does it stop? Fighting the good fight doesn't buy you a get out of jail card. SqueakBox has got to stop or leave. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS for Guy. It had been a while since I got involved in that crap. But I just looked back at the details of our last conversation about SqueakBox. I was trying to explain that SqueakBox was not a good idea to mentor Pol64 (talk · contribs). As far as I can see, that experiment did not work out so well. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 06:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop editing altogether or be blocked from editing PAW? For me, based on his disruption and its rather narrow focus, a modest and workable solution would be a permanent curfew on PAW. I have saved quite a few of his mistakes, and would be happy to set up an e.mail so that I can communicate them to you off wiki. digitalemotion 06:43, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Pedophilia Article Watch needs more good-faith editors like SqueakBox, not less. Those topics are difficult areas for Wikipedia. More editors participating can help air out what otherwise might be a dark corner. Concerns about those topics affect the whole community, so the community is best served by more people becoming involved. It doesn't matter what POV editors bring, more participation is better in highly polarized situations. With more editors, it's less likely that discussions devolve into POV-pushing arguments. With more editors, it becomes easier to find actual community consensus, because there's less chance of getting sidetracked into arguments between indivudals or small groups.
• Whatever else comes of this AN/I report, I hope that more administrators and other editors visit the WP:PAW project and bring their skills to the various articles involved with those topics. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Jack should probably specify that he/they only want editors that will edit to their liking. NPOV is not the goal, "SPOV" or their POV is. Fair warning: If you have even the slightest disagreement, you'll be labeled a pedophile, vilified, harrassed, personally attacked, and listed at Wikisposure. Contribute at your own risk, as this phenomenon has been widely documented (though much of it has also managed to have been deleted). VigilancePrime (talk) 07:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Don't twist my words. Your opinions and ideas are yours, not mine. I wrote what I intended to write. All POVs are welcome - a wide cross-section is preferable, to avoid POV-pushing - the editing must be NPOV of course. Broader attention on these topics can only be a positive thing for Wikipedia. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 07:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that it comes across as assuming bad faith. Beyond that, I made it clear to VigilancePrime that the Arbitration Committee is willing to provisionally open any^[2] related case put before them, but that such a case needs to be submitted privately via email. VigilancePrime, however, does not wish to disclose his email address to the Arbitration Committee.^[3] Which is his right. I, for example, refused to disclose my real identity to the OTRS (a condition to joining), therefore, I don't do OTRS (although, it isn't as if VigilancePrime disclosing an email account amounts to the same thing, privacy-wise). But there's no way around this: arbcom-l is the venue for complaints about these topics (and, yes, it being a private procedure is not optional), so, VigilancePrime may wish to avoid editing that set of articles, because the constant public complaints are becoming increasingly disruptive. Thx. El_C 07:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

1. I twisted nobody's words. I added my own. Stop the false-issue whining.
2. How is this complaining? Oh, "I was asking for it", eh? And reporting abuse is wrong now?
3. I have stopped contributing to those after being driven off those articles by Squeak, Jack, Will, now-perbablocked Pol, and the admin Herostratus. This choice was made after all the above actually happened to me and a couple other editors. If we don't edit to their satisfaction (meaning their bias rather than to actual neutrality), WP:STEAM and WP:PA become the license of the day.

If you want the littany of diffs that demonstrate the longstanding harrassment and name-calling and personal attacks (getting back to the issue at hand, from which many seem to be trying to distract), let me know and I'll post them all right here.

VigilancePrime (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd gladly act as a go-between: If VP wants to make any submissions to ArbCom, they can email me and I'll pass them on. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

In one edit to my talk page, Squeak described me as a troll, an idiot, hysterical, uncivil, a liar, disgusting, intolerable, rude, and a brat. In his defense, he did end his comments by saying thanks. I could cite multiple examples of similar commentary and worse, either in edits or edit summaries. Part of that history is hidden by deleted edits, however. I've tried very hard to assume good faith in Squeak's conduct, since it's motivated by pure motives. But, at some point, even the most ardent and righteous zealot must forswear zealotry in favor of harmonious editing. I sympathize with SqueakBox's frustration, but not with how he expresses it. In my view, he doesn't understand that his approach to these conflicts creates a vicious cycle whereby his sharp comments don't get him the outcome he seeks, which frustrates him more, so that his next round of comments is even more strongly worded, and so on. His ArbCom case and his history of warnings and blocks bear out my concerns about his conduct.

There's another side to SqueakBox, however. He's got a significant contribution history (41,415 edits), largely undeniable improvements to the encyclopedia. Similarly, he's undeniably passionate about the topics he covers, and about this project. One example that springs to mind is when he & I worked out our differences on the inclusion of a photo in a biographical article. We started on opposite sides of the question, but we maintained open communications and worked things out. Over the time we've collaborated here, I've had several thoroughly enjoyable interactions with him, and, aside from Wikipedia work, he's been patient enough to help me with my Spanish.

I'm honestly in a quandry . He's made multiple contributions to the encyclopedia and I have a good deal of respect for him. Conversely, he's engaged in the same pattern & practice of contentious commentary and tendentious editing on multiple occasions over multiple subject areas. He's been warned; he's been blocked; he's been to ArbCom. None of these have worked to modify his behavior. No matter how good the reason, we all have to play nicely if we're going to play in the same sandbox. SqueakBox does that, for the most part. But, when he breaks from that, he does so spectacularly. --SSBohio 18:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Amen to that SSB. There's no denying that Squeak can be a positive force. It's also clear that one can only sympathize with the frustration that comes with editing and policing delicate articles. But random insults and accusations don't help, they make things worse. SqueakBox tends to get away with it because powerful admins like Guy protect him as a useful guardian of these delicate articles. Similarly, ArbCom doesn't want to intervene (I did ask), lest they be accused of supporting pedophile activists. It's just oh so easy to look the other way. But many have demonstrated that it's entirely possible to counter extremism on Wikipedia without resorting to insults, accusations, blatant contempt for Wikipedia processes, etc. It's not too much to ask of SqueakBox. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Pascal, I've been tarred with that brush too. It's perhaps the most personally painful accusation I've ever had leveled against me, in any forum. I give no quarter to any harm inflicted upon a child. Those that know my personal history know why. A friend of mine, raped as a child, survived two unsuccessful suicide attempts, but did not survive his third. I've assisted SNAP in my own small way in investigating and bringing to justice Catholic priests who had abused children, including schoolmates of mine. Accusations of pro-pedophile activism against you, me, and others has been part of the problem, to be sure. --SSBohio 19:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow... that's interesting. I admit until now I had you pegged as a PPA, and I don't even edit in the area - had just watched contribs, the kinds of editors (including now-indefinitely-banned ones) and proposals you supported and opposed etc. :/ Certainly says something for assumptions that can be made (and also how important it is to be careful in a place like this what impressions one gives off). Orderinchaos 03:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my view, one of the big problems with discussions around this topic is that any perspective other than absolute deletionism is tarred as PPA. I find it disgusting that I even have to assert that I oppose the sexual abuse of children. For the record, I oppose murder, arson, and jaywalking, but I never need to assure anyone of that. I've faced repeated intemperate remarks from Squeak and others, and been forced to defend my commitment to child safety more than once.

I think that the pro-pedophile viewpoint is notable, and I see zero chance that someone would read an article that neutrally covers that view and come away thinking that child sexual abuse is a good idea. We've been shooting mosquitoes with an elephant gun in this topic area, largely initiated by Squeak and editors in league with him, and enabled by sympathetic admins and editors swayed by pejoratives. That all of these are well-intentioned is beside the point. Well-intentioned people have done some pretty unwise things throughout history. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

VigilancePrime has been canvassing around this, as around so many issues [4] [5] [6], hardly the act of a good faith editor. I am extremely unhappy to not only have to put up with VPs abuse but also his canvassing his friends. This kind of behaviour is not acceptable, will an admin do something about it or will people just allow him to troll me off the site. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Having been on the receiving end of some of your comments, I'd view VP's action more as a case of victim notification than canvassing. Despite your insinuation, VP & I are not "friends;" However, I'm glad VP let me know about this because, while I don't agree with VP's methods, I agree that your actions have been problematic. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll tell you one thing I find rather irritating right now, no offense, but it's that damn "thanks" in your signature. It's like, dude, what are you thanking me for? If you say "thanks" at the end of each one of your comments during a heated argument with a person, it makes it sound as if you think you've "won" something with each comment you make. Believe it or not, and some might disagree with me, but removing that "thanks" would really help ease some tension in your exchanges with people. Thanks, Equazcion •✗/C • 18:44, 16 Feb 2008 (UTC) (see what I mean?)

I agree. To thoroughly insult me, then thank me doesn't come across as polite, but rather as rubbing salt into the wound. I'd recommend saying thanks only when it appears not to be meant sarcastically. --SSBohio 19:16, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Not only that, but where does Squeak get off saying people are behaving hysterical. As far as I know, he can't see me on his monitor. How does he know one is hysterical, without seeing the person's face. Thanks :) Fighting for Justice (talk) 22:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone start an RfC on this? —Whig (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nobody wants to start an RfC because it's not really an effective process to resolve this kind of problem. It's not like SqueakBox just suddenly started having problems controlling his temper. There was an arbitration process a while back that resulted in him being on civility parole for a year. He was blocked 3 times for violating that parole. After he told me and I quote, "if you think there is anything frivolous about propmoting pedophilia perhaps you would care to explain it", he was asked by arbitrator Morven (talk · contribs) to get a grip and tone it down. A few weeks later there was the Haemo incident, Morven asked him to tone it down. A few weeks later, Guy assigned him as Pol64's mentor. The result was SqueakBox encouraging Pol64 to have SSB desysopped. And that's just the incidents I remember hearing about. There have been countless threads on his behaviour here and they always end up dying out because no admin has the guts to say "enough is enough". I can tell you exactly how an RfC will end up: the two conclusions will be "SqueakBox is unacceptably rude and uncivil. He should get a grip" and "deep down SqueakBox is a good chap and he often faces trolls and sockpuppets". And then nothing will happen and new ANI threads will appear periodically. Bottom line is that as long as we continue to tolerate crusaders which are fighting the good fight through unacceptable means, no ANI thread, RfC and I even suspect arbitration case will really make much of a difference. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 20:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not an admin (though I'm open to being drafted). I think that Squeak was intending to encourage the desysopping of SGGH or Gonzo fan2007, but I'm not sure since it's 100% based on my recollections. Squeak has successfully advocated the banning of certain users based on their supposed status as pedophiles, pro-pedophile activists, or sockpuppets. At least one of these accusations has been erroneous, based on my investigation. I wonder how many other contributors have been driven away by the civility and abuse issues raised here. --SSBohio 07:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, my bad. It was SSGH indeed. The thing is: there's nothing wrong with identifying pedophile activists trying to impose themselves in relevant articles and there's nothing wrong with advocating a ban for them. Of course, if you work on PAW articles and you label everyone you're in disagreement with a pedophile activist, well, you're gonna be right quite often. You'll also be wrong quite often and really these accusations are extremely hurtful for the victims. That pattern of behaviour participates in the toxic paranoia on these talk pages and they scare away a lot of editors who would be willing to try and arbitrate disputes but (not so surprisingly) are quick to give up in the face of the "you're either with us or with them" attitude. Pascal.Tesson (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Userbox!

This thread is being considered for deletion by those guilty of discriminatory anti-dramatism.

No, not that sort of drama. Just a userbox for all you guys.

User:Dihydrogen Monoxide/Wikidrama
Cheers, dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 03:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Ooooooooooooooooooooooh that one's for me! Thanks :) Merkinsmum 03:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Me plz. Will ^(talk) 03:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

The real question is, can we put this on other users' pages as needed? :) MastCell ^Talk 04:02, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Adding it to my userpage now :-) Wildthing61476 (talk) 04:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That is just awesome. VigilancePrime (talk) 04:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC) :-D

Agreed. To my subpage! Malinaccier (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sweet, I was looking for the right place to advertise my userboxes. Now I know that it's Wikipedia:ANI 72.193.12.47 (talk) 16:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Works for me!

This user is tired of hearing about "lieking Mudkipz".^[sic]

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you make one for the opposite point of view as well?  :) Antandrus (talk) 21:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What, you mean for people who AREN'T tired of lieking Mudkipz?? Didn't know there WAS such a point of view! >: Gladys J Cortez 20:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I know this is sad, but I can see a range of T-shirts being made lol Merkinsmum 00:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• This userbox should immediately be deleted as it is extremely offensive. I suffer from lovidus exemptulus, a rare syndrome denying one the emotion of love, and am therefore unable to love, like, or know the wikidrama. This is both offensive personally and generally, and is considered racist since I am not only of race, but of a disabled race. Failure to immediately delete this template will result not only in a TfD, MfD of the TfD, AN/I thread, MfD of the AN/I thread, RfC, MfD for the RfC, etc., and an MfD for the etc. Let us please not turn this into one drawn out wikidrama and just stop the nonsense now; please delete this dreadful userbox to avoid any further wikidrama. --12 Noon ^2¢ 20:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Rofl! I find that the alternate statement, 'ignore all dramas' is deeply offensive to me, because I have a recognised disability, a personality disorder that leads me to be dramatic and call endless attention to myself (I believe there to be an epidemic of it on wiki and ANI) as such, to ignore all dramas would be to ignore me and my deepest needs, and be discrimination on grounds of disability. This disability has also been found to be genetic and hereditary and yes, racial, I am shocked at the high levels of anti-dramaism I see on wiki, all other racism seems to be fought to some extent, but it's fashionable for people to say that the dramatic, should be ignored and even killed. Shocking. I may have to write to that friendly journalist at The Register. Merkinsmum 23:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, just a bit disturbing.

Resolved. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across IP 72.130.32.142 making some death threats during their vandalism, as seen in their contributions. I have blocked them for 48 hours for the time being, and come here to ANI as I honestly do not come across these everyday, and am unsure of where else to turn/go. What is the next step (if any) in this situation? Jmlk17 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 99% chance it's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If you feel like reporting it to the authorities, go ahead, but there's almost no chance it's serious, and the authorities might not be able to do much anyway. Then again, I might be biased; my friends and I used to joke around all the time in high school that we'd kill each other, and my one time best-friend got caught doing so on a webpage and was hauled before a judge... The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any death threat that names a specific individual should probably be reported. Reporting to the ISP is easy enough, but can anyone narrow that IP's location down further than all of southern California? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Narrowed it down some to Orange, California. 33.7949, -117.8410. I think that is specific enough. The same search came up with "Is proxy: false" and a Certainty rate of 99%. Regards, — Save_Us † 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, you're referring to the city and not the county? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the search resulted in the parameter "city: Orange". — Save_Us † 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've contacted the police and the ISP's abuse address. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, we should have coordinated our timing, I've done the same. — Save_Us † 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: where did you get this place information? It isn't on the WHOIS and it gives a probability (I would like to have that, as I know WHOIS is often wrong). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Geobytes. I've found it mostly reliable for static IP addresses, but Geobytes is mostly useless for open proxies or dynamic IP addresses, which results will be misleading. — Save_Us † 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(slightly offtopic) I just tried Geobytes with a static IP and it got the country right, but the city was way off. Ros0709 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? hmm... awkward, maybe something changed with the IP? — Save_Us † 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one erroneous result does condemn the service. FWIW, the country is England and the cited city was London - which could well be a "default". I have had the same static IP assigned to me by my ISP for the last six years and neither myself or my ISP are in London. Ros0709 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Meatpuppeting on WP:LAYOUT

SlimVirgin has been edit warring on the layout guideline page. She wants an expansive view of "see also" sections. She started nitpicking the section in December. Earlier this week she made an undiscussed change [7] and it was reverted. Today she inserted disputed text.[8] The text she proposed two days earlier on the talk page had ZERO positive remarks before she edited the page. Two editors told her this was disputed text.[9], [10]. Her text was removed, and she reverted.[11]. She was called out for edit warring and inserting non-consensus text again [12]. When it was removed again, she made a disruptive WP:POINT removal of the admonition not to make see also into a link farm.[13]. This material has, in one form or another, been in the guideline for nearly two and a half years.[14] When this edit was reverted as POINTy, rather than go through another revert, she had Crum375 come by and perform the edit for her.[15].

This pattern of gaming revert wars by SlimVirgin and Crum375 is well known. Crum375 has never edited this page. Crum375 has never edited this talk page. Quite simply, Crum375 has no dog in that fight and is there to act as a warring proxy so SlimVirgin doesn't cross 3RR. This behavior is the definition of meatpuppetry. This behavior is deliberately gaming 3RR to make a disruptive pointy edit.

Something needs to be done to break up this tag team meatpuppetry. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) 08:29, February 17, 2008 (UTC)

Admin action suggested? Any misuse of admin powers? Do you seriously want them blocked for meatpuppetry? (I strongly object to the removal of the section that represents a long-standing consensus as well, as would most people, I think, but seriously - meatpuppetry?) Relata refero (talk) 10:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly no abuse of admin powers, but I have to say I'm curious about the pattern of editing you describe. I've seen other similar reports about these editors; I'd be interested to know what the story is here. -- ChrisO (talk) 11:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have that page, along with most policies and guidelines, on my watchlist, and have been following the issues there. I happen to believe that "See also" contents depend on editor discretion and talk page consensus, not on rigid rules. I made an edit to that effect, noting my opinion in my edit summary. This was not based on any communication or coordination with anyone. If Schmucky has a problem with my edit, the article's talk page is a better place to address it than here. Crum375 (talk) 13:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SchmuckyTheCat is in fact saying he has a problem with what he perceives as meat-puppetry, rather than merely a problem with that specific page. The problem is that shared interests leads to the appearance of meat-puppetry among people who agree and the appearance of wiki-stalking among those who disagree. One must AGF as much as possible or one will see conspiracies everywhere. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification, Crum. -- ChrisO (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There are (at least) three issues here. First, as an experienced editor, SlimVirgin must know that WP:3RR doesn't allow her to revert three times, particularly without consensus. (In this spirit the rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique.) After SV reached three reverts, Crum375 appeared. Second, SV often claims "stalking" whenever someone else edits an article for the first time;[16][17] Crum375 had never edited WP:GTL before. Third, this type of editing is occurring on other guideline and policy pages, for example WP:CITE,[18] where SV even started a section heading naming another editor to discuss sockpuppetry (subsequently changed when I pointed out SV's violation of WP:AGF and WP:TALK [19]). There appears to be a double standard; the WP:3RR violations and SV's accusations of "wikistalking" and sockpuppetry should stop, and extra eyes are needed on these policy and guideline pages, where ownership tendencies are apparent (reference the numerous past similar issues at WP:V, WP:RS and others). Policy and guideline pages benefit from stability, yet SV edit wars on them to instate her preferred versions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Crum375 and SlimVirgin have established this pattern dozens of times before. Edit wars are bad. Meatpuppetry, even the appearance of it, is bad. I don't think it is out of line for administrator intervention to tell these two to stay out of each others edit wars. If one sees the other in "trouble", they can use the talk page to gain consensus rather than continue the poor behavior of edit warring. Two simple and well established rules: 1. Don't edit war. 2. Don't edit war for your friends. Why should this pair be immune to that? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I think we should assume good faith here, the Crum375 and SlimVirgin accounts do overlap a lot in their editing interests, and invariably back each other up in editing disputes. However, these accounts are probably just two close friends who talk to each other, not the same person. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Tim, I'm not alleging they are the same person. Close friends who talk to each other and whose interests overlap should not be tag team edit warring. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Ah, sorry, I misread your post. I agree that since Crum375 has never made an edit to that page or its talkpage before intervening in this current dispute to revert for his friend, the claim that he "had it on his watchlist" is highly unlikely. I believe that he either followed another editor's contributions to this page, or was contacted directly and asked to intervene. Any other hypothesis is pushing AGF to the point of credulity. Therefore if revert-warring on this guideline continues, SlimVirgin and Crum375 should be regarded as a single account. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Great. Here's witchhunt #3141529. Will ^(talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Requiring editors to play fair isn't a witch hunt. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

That Crum is Slim's meatpuppet most of the time, I think has been said by various people, many times before. Good luck getting anything done about it, though :) 'Meatpuppet' is a controversial word if you think about it, and it's usually used towards new users or those who work on a very limited type of articles. Merkinsmum 21:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Slim's postings are far more subtle, cogent, and bright than Crum's, so I just can't imagine they're the same person. There's too much stylistic difference. The duckling editing is obvious—Crum will show up whenever she does, on disputes. I basically agree with Merkinsmum and earlier comments: most everybody knows he follows her around, and that they must communicate off-site (which isn't disallowed).

But what to do? Admit they have a six-revert rule, and...? *Shrugs.* I mean, really, what can you do? You can't police that stuff.

I think it more important that people know Crum's signature. Slim remains herself: an intelligent, informed, and sometimes maddening presence on policy. Crum is a duckling—ignore his edits, because it's always "per her." That's my policy. Marskell (talk) 22:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

"what can you do? You can't police that stuff." If this behavior is recognized and it's bad, then it's blockable. It's disruptive, it's pointy, it's 3RR, it's gaming. 3RR is an electric fence, not an entitlement. If Crum and Slim are acting together and they go over 3RR, collectively, then block one or both. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Are you an admin? Want to watch their edits together? Block on the first breach of 3RR? Feel free. Marskell (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a recent example from Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard - Animal Liberation Front references, Crum375's sole contribution to the discussion was a post that began with - "I think SV is right" Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess my point was lost in the shuffle; even without Crum's additions, SlimVirgin edit wars on policy and guideline pages. WP:3RR is not an invitation for SV to revert three times; talk page discussion was underway, and there was no consensus for her version. The double standard troubles regular editors like me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The solution is aptly described in User:Dmcdevit/On edit warring: "Block for edit warring, not 3RR." The double standard troubles me too. Kla’quot (talk | contribs) 03:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack, and somewhat ironic given the claims of meatpuppetry. Sandy, I thought you and I had agreed to stay out of each other's way. There were 11 editors on that guideline's talk page wanting a change; just because you didn't get your own way doesn't mean there was a conspiracy to deprive you of it. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nice dodge SV. You're defending yourself by putting Sandy on offense based on the content dispute. What is at issue here is the behavior of serial tag-team edit-warring. Care to comment on the behavior? SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

Schmucky, if anyone's behavior needs correction it's yours: you start an ANI thread about me for having posted an edit expressing my view to an article on my watchlist, with an appropriate edit summary. If you don't like my edit, the proper place to address it is on the article's talk page, not here. Crum375 (talk) 05:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not taking your bait to defend myself Crum. You didn't use the talk page. You dived straight into an edit war to defend SV. This is a pattern that has occurred dozens of times, and I'm calling you on it. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

I wasn't "defending" anyone, and I didn't see a need to add anything to the talk page, as my edit summary said all that was needed to explain my view. You, on the other hand, attacked me for my edit, with no evidence to back your assertions, and a complete lack of good faith. That is behavior that requires correction. Crum375 (talk) 06:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me try and defuse this.

'No evidence' is absolutely correct, it was just a single example. However, I fancy it's happened to most people who've disagreed with SV on something. I am not currently in a dispute with her, and I certainly know I wouldn't win a dispute that descended to reverts, so it doesn't affect me; but it is true that it appears to be a pattern of behaviour on your part. If that is a mistaken impression, as it well may be, since I haven't studied your behaviour, only noticed it a half-dozen times, I apologise. However, I would be very careful about demanding evidence; I imagine it might be possible to check over a six month period what percentage of times SV reverted to the limit you've turned up to take it over the limit. (There are several alternative methods I can vagely think of.)

You have four options: deny you have a tendency to do that, throwing around accusations of bad faith and demanding evidence; say you're concerned that this is generally believed, and say you'll look out for signs of it happening; admit that you have this tendency, and that its because you trust SV to find difficult situations, to make the right calls in those situations, and what's wrong with that; or to just not comment any more, because there's nothing anyone could do. I would strongly recommend the third or fourth options, rather than the first, which might just madden people enough to start thinking about evidence.

Now, I go, because there really is nothing to be done here. I knew I should have closed this earlier. Relata refero (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Schmucky, you made 3 reverts of your own in about 10 hours. Takes two to tango. Gimmetrow 06:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, in this case it took 3. But this is a single instance where I am involved with those two. What I pointed out, and what several others have agreed with, is that this is pattern behavior by SV and Crum. That's why it's an incident needing community attention, and not just a one-off dispute. SchmuckyTheCat (talk)

And I'm saying that you have your own reversion issues in this very dispute, and you were the only one reverting SV. Gimmetrow 07:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this going anywhere? Everyone knows that Crum follows SV around, everyone knows that SV tends to over-revert because she never "loses" editwars while Crum's around, everyone, apparently except Schmucky, knows that nothing's ever going to be done about it, because its not technically illegal, and because SV's paid dues. Can I close this before people begin snapping at each other worse than they are already? Relata refero (talk) 08:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(od) As he contacted me, I must admit that I came down rather hard on Crum. I don't suggest ignoring the sum of his contributions here and I don't mean to denigrate mainspace contributions he has made independent of Slim. But there is zero daylight between these two editors on policy, and when they do run up to more than three reverts in tandem, it should be called out. (Gimme does point out the obvious: you can't have an edit war alone, Schmucky. My own record, admittedly, is not umblemished on P&Gs.)

"It's rather unfortunate to see SandyGeorgia, TimVickers, and Marskell join forces yet again for another attack." I must address this. TimV and I rarely interact and it would be hard to construct an argument that we conspire. I do, often, wind up on discussion pages with Sandy. But I never, ever follow her to revert disputes. I have never gone to the medical articles she works on, for instance, even when I know she's having difficulty. I make a point of not doing so, precisely because people view us as friends. I've actually been watching the LAYOUT dispute unfold on my watchlist, and haven't commented for this reason. It would be wise, Crum, to adopt a similar strategy. Marskell (talk) 09:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Marskell for your partial retraction. I believe that editing Wikipedia should be a fun process — I can't see another good reason for investing a lot of effort over a long time for free. If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. I do agree that canvassing of others for help, e.g. by putting out a call on IRC or elsewhere, is wrong, especially if the others have no particular interest in the issue. I don't see a problem with like-minded editors working on a given entry, however, if this is something they are interested in and enjoy doing. Crum375 (talk) 15:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem, Crum, is that you seem to suddenly have a strong opinion whenever Slim gets into a revert dispute. Schmucky is right, no doubt: a look at your contribs would turn up dozens of examples of this sort. Between you, she, and Jayjg, there's likely hundreds. A reasonable person is going to call this gaming of 3RR.

Simply offering an opinion in support of a wiki-friend is not something I have a problem with, as far as it goes. It's what human beings tend to do. But reverting has specific policy implications. I'd advise, bland as it sounds, that you pause and ask yourself whether you should revert to Slim the next time you notice something like this (or have it pointed out). Maybe, instead, you should just move along and leave it. As I've just discussed with you off-site, I don't think you're insensible to the fact that people view you and Slim as tandem reverters, and I don't think you're unconcerned. Marskell (talk) 19:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Marskell, you need to stop the poison. This is one of several poisonous threads you've either started about me or gleefully joined in. It has been going on ever since I opposed you changing the content policies many months ago. Since then I've had nothing but the drip, drip, drip of toxicity from you, SandyGeorgia, and Tim, and from one or two other of your friends, but especially from you and SG. I would say there's much less harm in following someone's edits to articles than turning up, as you do, to attack people simply because your friend disagrees with them about a content issue or admin action. If I'm wrong about this, I hope you'll prove me wrong in future.

That's hopefully all I have to say about this. Crum is a good editor, and a kind, decent, and intelligent human being, who does not deserve the abuse you've heaped on him in this thread. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not start this thread and I'm not participating gleefully. Schmucky raised a specific concern: gaming 3RR. It's valid, in this case. My first comment re Crum was obviously intemperate, and I did retract in part.

Anyway, if you're concerned about people dealing in poison, I'd start at home. Marskell (talk) 19:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If I see an issue that I have a strong opinion about, anywhere on this site, I believe I should be able to contribute, regardless of who else has reverted or edited the entry previously. Thank you for that clarification, Crum, as I may have misunderstood your position previously on other pages, where I have plenty to contribute. Since SlimVirgin has left inappropriate and threatening warnings on my talk page about "personal attacks" (which have never occurred),[20] it appears that this discussion is very upsetting to her and would best be wrapped up. It's surprising that an admin considers discussion initiated by someone else on ANI of her three reverts in three hours as a personal attack. I've reviewed this thread and am unable to find any instance of a personal attack by me, but do find examples of failure to assume good faith in SlimVirgin's false accusations. I hope admins reading this will consider the double standard the next time they're inclined to block another editor for edit warring, and I'm dismayed to see that SlimVirgin has continued unfounded accusations on other policy talk pages. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

SV accused someone who didn't let her get her way of committing a personal attack? I'd say these tactics by SV and Crum are getting old. Yes, this is an implied warning that this behavior of theirs needs to stop. Cla68 (talk) 11:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia needs a "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" policy. I've seen rank and file editors summarily banned for the sort of behavior that gets explained away when people higher up the pecking order do it. --Marvin Diode (talk) 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My concern here was not so much the meatpuppetry that was raised originally by Schmucky as the double standard tolerated wrt edit warring. The change to WP:LAYOUT arose out of a content dispute SlimVirgin was having at Keith Mann;[21] expressing concern about an admin edit warring to change guideline/policy when engaged in a content dispute is not WP:LAME.[22] The false accusations of a "personal attack" on my talk page are a new concern; I'd like to see SV use diffs more often to back her allegations. That another policy change is proposed at WP:V because of content disputes arising in other Animal Liberation Front-related articles is also a concern. Repeating, more eyes needed on policy and guidelines pages, to help avoid edit warring and ownership issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia, there is absolutely a double standard regarding the edit warring of olde-tyme-valued-contributers. As a community we need to either decide that's what we want or decide that's what we don't want. Right now it's not entirely clear (consensus may be changing). --Rocksanddirt (talk) 22:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, how dare you continue this extreme bad faith? As you know very well, the proposal for change at LAYOUT was not started by me. It was started by Sean's Potato Business supported by CrZTgR and Boracay Bill. [23] All I did was agree with them, because I had seen Threeafterthree a few weeks earlier go systematically through a bunch of articles removing See also links for no reason. He was even removing links that weren't in the article, but that he thought ought to be -- though he didn't add them; he just removed them from See also, citing LAYOUT in the edit summaries. Altogether about 11 editors on that page wanted that change.

This is exactly what you did to Zeraeph. Constant needling and personal comments about her to other editors until you got her into a position where she was so upset, she started lashing out at you. Then you used that to get her banned. If you want yet another ArbCom case, Sandy, you're heading in the right direction. I hope instead you'll accept my proposal of yesterday that we simply try to avoid each other instead. It's a big encyclopedia.

I've also changed the attack header to this thread. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Reviewing diffs may help refresh memory. Here is the talk page where you started the discussion at WP:GTL about the long-standing guideline during a dispute at Keith Mann. Please stop the personal attacks on me and repeating the tale that I got Zeraeph banned. Remember, I didn't want the ArbCom, I didn't want her banned, I wanted escalating sanctions; you put up roadblocks to sanctions, and right after I put up a very generous compromise and then announced I would be busy with my family for several hours, the ANI thread was closed (I believe that was supported by Crum and the thread was closed by Jossi) and the issue went to Arbcom, against my wishes and better judgment, as I knew the evidence and what would ensue.[24] I'm sure when you write these things, you believe them to be true; please review history and diffs before making unfounded allegations and attacks on me, as the community tires of rehashing old history. Had you supported or allowed reasonable sanctions, that whole situation might have been avoided. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai

User:Mikkalai has been leaving rude remarks and accusing of be a sockpuppet at my talk page. This was after a Wikiquette alert was filed by User:Hux. I proceeded to become a mediator in the situation by leaving calm warnings at both of their talk pages. User:Cheeser1 suggested bringing the incident here. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note that I have not, nor will I, endorse either side of this dispute. I simply suggested that since SISKYWARN wanted administrator attention, and was in a dispute with an administrator, that he bring his complaints here. The WQA isn't the place to hash out issues that (at least in his opinion) require admin-on-admin intervention. --Cheeser1 (talk) 20:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I tried to stay neutral initially, but when User:Mikkalai left the messages on my talk page, I stated that on the WQA page and left the user a kind warning. Also at that point, I asked for administrator intervention. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

As Southern Illinois SKYWARN says, I was the one who opened up the original WQA. When I first saw that this ANI had been opened, I was going to post to say that I didn't think it was necessary at this point. However, having seen Mikkalai's reaction to that WQA (which I described here), I concede that this ANI probably is necessary after all. Hopefully we can resolve this issue to everyone's satisfaction. I really hope it doesn't escalate any further. :( -- Hux (talk) 21:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Mikka knows what he's doing, and he's (wisely) decided to take a break until things cool down. I think you guys got what you wanted. --Haemo (talk) 22:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, I don't think you're right at all. His response to this ANI and the original WQA is indicated by what he posted to his user and talk pages: "Taking a break until wikilawyers move onto other victims. Have fun with cangaroo courts." This is not the actions of a person who recognizes that he is in any way at fault. As such, there is every reason to believe that if this just silently blows over he will continue attacking people and abusing WP:OWN. -- Hux (talk) 02:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am trying to stay cool, but I find the above response outrageous. I was initially a mediator in this case. I left calm warnings on Mikka's talk page, and he responded by attacking me on my talk page. His comments are illustrated here. He accuses me of being a sockpuppet, and calls WQA "Cangaroo courts". Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 22:30, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring to repeatedly add templated warnings to the Talk page of an admin (after he has acknowledged the templated warnings by removing them from his Talk page) is not the way to go about winning friends and influencing people. Corvus cornix_talk 23:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no edit warring here. Southern Illinois SKYWARN left two separate warnings on Mikkalai's talk page and Mikkalai reverted them both (as he's entitled to do, although imo doing so while the dispute is ongoing tends to look pretty bad, as if the reverter is trying to hide something). But the more important issue is the incivility and the WP:OWN stuff. Perhaps you could comment on that? (Details at the WQA link above, if you need them.) - Hux (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I left two warnings on Mikkah's talk page (one of them for ownership, the other for personal attacks). I added my own words to the first warning in addition to the template. I believe that warnings should be left on talk pages unless they have been rectified in some way so other editors are aware of infractions. If anyone has a problem, please say so, but also back up your argument. Thank you, Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You may believe that, but Wikipedia:USER#Removal_of_comments.2C_warnings disagrees. Corvus cornix_talk 01:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I had never seen that essay. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 01:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to repeat that I was initially an outside mediator in this case. I knew that I should have never gotten involved with dispute resolution even though it usually does not turn out like this. Also note that this was my first mediation ever. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 02:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mikkalai has had trouble with civility before. Given the number of long-term users who are having real trouble with civility, I'm beginning to think our current policy on this is completely broken. Relata refero (talk) 17:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would agree. --Iamunknown 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Relata refero: I found this comment of yours further down the current page quite eye-opening (emphasis mine):

if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits."

I don't tend to pay much attention to this or similar pages, so I'm not well aware of the history, but if what you imply is true - that long-term established users are basically being allowed to get away with being grossly uncivil because they're long-term, established users then that's a big problem. It goes dead against the whole point of Wikipedia as a fair, welcoming place for people to contribute, and is inevitably going to make large amounts of users lose all respect for the disciplinary processes that have developed here as a means to make the site a better place. That can't possibly be a good thing. -- Hux (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I suspect it might be a case of "Yeah, we know these people tend to mouth off and treat people badly, but they also do a lot of really great stuff on the wiki - if we alienate them by making them play by the rules, we'll lose their services." I'm not saying I condone this line of thinking, but if it happens to be the line of thinking, I can sorta understand it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 03:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outside comment: I left a message on the WQA page as well, explaining that when a user removes warnings from his own talk page, it's taken as a sign that he has read and acknowledges the warnings (even if, in fact, he hasn't) - the warnings are acknowledged for purposes of admin action. However, with all due respect, I'm disappointed with the initial responses to this report. I found the initial response of "Mikkalai has (wisely) decided to take a break" to be overly trivial, and the further responses of "edit warring on Mikkalai's talk page" to be rather dismissive of the original complaint. It came across as justifying Mikkalai's actions by way of pointing out how Hux's/Skywarn's actions were less than perfect.

I don't believe it's right to condone an admin breaking established policies under any circumstances without consensus, and I further do not believe it's right to dismiss a user's complaints about an admin's actions via procedural technicalities. And, more personally, I agree with Skywarn's assessment that Mikkalai's "kangaroo court" comment about WQA indicates a disdain for WP's dispute resolution process and an unwillingness to acknowledge or change his behavior. I've reviewed some of Mikkalai's edit history and agree that his behavior has been out of line, especially for an admin. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Tasc0/Payne2thamaxx

Resolved

 – All involved have been blocked.

Payne2thamaxx (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Payne2thamax (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Tasc0 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

This whole thing is one big mess. Tasc0 was a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor. My only two encounters with him ever were at recent AN3 reports. He was indefinitely blocked by Ronnotel (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) following this death threat against Ronnotel's family. A quick glance at this evening's history of User talk:Tasc0 will show you what blew up, but basically, Payne2thamaxx made a trolling comment [25], Tasc0 responded in kind [26], Ronnotel blocked Tasc0 for the personal attack [27], the unblock was declined, and Tasc0 left the aforementioned parting shot prompting the indefblock.

Tasc0 has been in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx going back at least to October 2007 [28].

It seems at least possible that Payne2thamaxx and Same As It Ever Was are one in the same. Payne2thamaxx admits at [29] that he follows the edits of SAIEW. At [30], 12 days after registering, SAIEW is familiar with a dispute between Kemor (talk · contribs) and Payne2thamax from some time before.

Payne2thamax (of whom Payne2thamaxx is an admitted reincarnation) was indefblocked for making a death threat. Payne2thamaxx was indefblocked for harassment, then later (September 2007) unblocked after he promised to reform. I see no evidence whatsoever of reform and have therefore reinstated that block.

I have filed a checkuser request at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Payne2thamaxx to confirm whether Same As It Ever Was (talk · contribs) is related.

For now, pending the results of that check, I would like to ask for a review my block of Payne2thamaxx. Thank you. --B (talk) 02:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't in a long-term dispute with Payne2thamaxx, he just wanted to make false accusations of me attacking another user, which I clearly did not do it. It was a NY IP address, that can be seen here.

I also would like to ask my e-mail feature back, I can't e-mail nobody. I don't think that's very fare.

I sent an e-mail to my blocking admin apologizing for the threats and seconds after, he blocked my e-mail feature. I did not harass him over the message and I didn't get any response.

I have to admint that I don't even knew who Payne2thamaxx was before this situation. Now that I see, it's clear he's a sock of Same As It Ever Was. B's proves this with the diffs.

Note, yes: this is my IP address. It's the only way I have to comunicate. Tasc0 07:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just check my edits and you people will see how vandal am I. I enjoy vandalazing Wikipedia so much. Tasc0 07:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.172.186.126 (talk)

Tasc0, I've responded to your remark at my talk page, too, but I'm going to make a couple of the same points here:

• I don't think anybody's saying that you were a vandal. In fact, User:B says the opposite, calling you "a good faith albeit somewhat short tempered editor". I would agree that I never saw any evidence of bad faith or vandalism from you; in fact, you did some good work fighting vandals.
• That said, if any editor - you, me, B, Jimbo, anybody - posts the kind of thing you did directed at User:Ronnotel, that user should expect to be blocked. That sort of comment is - and this shouldn't even need to be said - totally unacceptable, no matter what the circumstance.
• You should be aware that what you're doing here is technically abusive sock-puppetry, since you're evading your block. That said, I do agree that if you haven't abused the e-mail function, that should be restored. I won't do so unless I hear from Ronnotel, though. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser results are now in - Alison ^❤ 10:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I remember thinking there was something fishy with Payne2thamaxx. His most recent contribs against Tasc0 came after long inactivity. I think 166.109.97.107, 166.109.0.247, and 166.109.97.168 (IPs which pretended to be Tasc0 on User talk:Real Compton G) could've been used by Payne2thamaxx. The IPs lead to New York, where he says he lives. And Tasc0, it's unfortunate this happened considering you're a productive editor. No matter what personal attacks you get, you have to keep your cool. I'd support an unblock, but first you really owe an apology to User:Ronnotel. SAIEW was also productive, but it's unfortunate he used abusive socks. I guess personal vendettas bring out the worst in people. Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I very strongly oppose an unblock. Maybe a lift on the e-mail block, so he can plead his case, but death / rape threats (directed at children!) do not warrant a drop of consideration from me, and they shouldn't from anyone else either. - Revolving Bugbear 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'm willing to apologize, but how I'm supposed to do it when my talk page is salted and the e-mail feature it's disabled? I'm not asking for an immediately unblock. 190.172.139.246 (talk) 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There should be an unblock if there's consensus for it. Considering most admins who've commented endorse the block, there's no consensus to unblock yet. Although you were productive for a year, those attacks put a permanent stain on your image. I mean, who would want to continue editing and be known as "the guy who made threats to a family" (even if it wasn't a literal threat)? If the comments were less severe, you'd probably be unblocked. Like B suggested on your talk page, you could appeal to arbcom. Spellcast (talk) 17:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User refuses to communicate, continues to introduce possible copyvio images and mos issues.

I've reported this twice already, but as of yet, nothing has been done and the user continues to cause issues Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive363#Problem_User_follow-up. This is the last report with a link to the first. I first took this to village pump but a suggestion was made for me to take it to AN/I. Marcopolis (talk · contribs) has uploaded many copies and parts of an image which I'm sure are a copyvio (can't find the original, but another editor also agreed these were likely not his own work) yet he's claimed them as his own work. He continues to insert them in to the Seoul Metropolitan Subway which also introduces some formatting issues in addition to the questionable origin of these images. Links to several copies of this image are to be found in the first report. User claims to speak English, but I cannot continue to assume good faith at this point. I've continually used edit summaries, made posts on the article talk page, and made comments on his talk page, but he hasn't responded to a single one of them. Nor does he use edit summaries to do anything except label the photos he uploads. Another editor had previously asked him a question in English but I can find no evidence that he ever answered them. It seems the ONLY conversation he's engaged in, has been in Korean with another Korean editor. He claims to be going to school in Montreal and a native french speaker. Someone who can speak either Korean or French well enough needs to get through to this editor, or he has to prevented from continuing to edit wikipedia since he either refuses to or can't communicate over issues he's creating.--Crossmr (talk) 03:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

These two edits on the same day seem extremely questionable. In one article he tries to introduce improper formatting [31], and yet in another article he removes it [32]--Crossmr (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I speak neither Korean nor French, but I wanted to suggest that we might find somebody who does at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Korea. I have previously had to hunt down translators to help with editors who do not speak English, and I've found the WikiProjects a helpful way to do so. Elsewhere, I see these individuals are listed as willing translators from Korean. Most active among them seem to be User:Styrofoam1994 and User:PC78. Perhaps if we approached one of them, they might be able to help you open a dialog with this user to clear up questions about his image use. I'd be happy to approach one of them about it, if you'd like, or you can try it yourself. Alternatively, perhaps a French/Korean speaking administrator will come along who can handle things without the need of a go-between. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like PC78 just has a page for holding templates, I'm not sure he actually speaks korean. The other fellow has a notice up about being tied up for a couple weeks. I'll try asking to get started though.--Crossmr (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I saw the notice on the other fellow's page, but his contribution history suggests he's doing stuff anyway. I hope he has the time to help out. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm a Korean editor and don't see any big problem on the mentioned user. The format looks not good, but I think he intended to put more contents in the spaces. Some of his pictures don't look like professional photos. Admin, BorgQueen can speak Korean. --Appletrees (talk) 16:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue with the formatting is that he's changing it away from what's recommended in the MOS as well as what is already established in the article. The problem with the image in question is he claims it as his own work, but the logos from the lines are way too perfect to be his own creation, and he keeps uploading it, both in complete form and cropped sections of it. The bigger issue is that he can't or won't communicate and just continues to insert these things over and over even though they're being removed with explanation.--Crossmr (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In addition when a map he uploaded as his own was deleted as a copyvio Image:Seoulsubway.jpg instead of discussing it or realizing the problem he just uploaded it under a new name which was once again speeded as a copyvio Image:Submapvers.jpg. I'm not denying that he's adding lots of great images to the project that aren't a problem, the problem is when he does something against guidelines or policy, he just keeps doing it over and over no matter how many times someone tries to communicate with him or undoes the edit.--Crossmr (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'am just asking him, in french, to be more precise on the origins of his pictures. Wait and see .... Yves-Laurent (talk) 17:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Its specifically the images in this section. My second post outlines all the various copies and crop jobs on this one questionable image he's claiming as his own work: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive358#Problem_user.--Crossmr (talk) 20:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I translated Crossmr's comment on his talk page to Korean. I hope that works. I'll keep an eye on his talk page. --Memming (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I know enough french to see he says he made them in illustrator and photoshop. Exactly how did he make them? Did he just cut the logos from another source, or did he perfectly reproduce them? There is still an issue here whether they're cut and pasted or whether or not he perfectly reproduced them by hand, it amounts to the same thing. There is also a formatting issue with the image he keeps trying to insert in to the article. Someone may want to kindly suggest to him that he remove English from his user page as its becoming very apparent at this point that he doesn't speak enough English to communicate effectively in it.--Crossmr (talk) 01:42, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, i'am askink him for the pictures. Each thing in its time. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly tell him to relax on adding the image to the article? There are more issues than just copyright here. This is where the problem comes in. He can't communicate in english, another editor has an obvious issue with what he's doing, but he just keeps doing it over and over.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've stumbled through some french to try and get through to him again. Even though you were explaining what the problem was, and it appears asked him for further detail he just kind of ignored what you said and added the image yet again.--Crossmr (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As well does anyone know if there is an equivalent section for the MOS in french or Korean which explains how to properly format section headers so we can also get him to stop trying to format them with HTML?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Have a look to the interwiki : fr:Wikipédia:Conventions de style#Comment structurer un article ? give the basic structure of an article and fr:Projet:Aide/Recommandation/Code HTML told that it's better to use the wiki syntax but it's not an official rule. Yves-Laurent (talk) 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No but we have the same encouragement here, and really its a standard. And its already set up with wikiformatting in every article.--Crossmr (talk) 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Slow Motion Vandalism IP 70.185.238.178

IP 70.185.238.178's sole contributions are slow motion vandalism. The IP has targeted Josh Cobb 2nd and 3rd over the last two days. ClueBot got his Legacy Five vandalism and then he moved to my own user page as I'd been the one to create the original re-directs. Have had no contact with this IP but am trying to avoid 3R and don't want to spent a week reverting clear nonsense. Apparently AIV is not the place as it's slow-mo vandalism. Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped now but have left a warning & will monitor this IP's activity. Reverting clear vandalism does not invoke WP:3RR, so you're OK on that one.--Rodhullandemu (Talk) 04:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Travellingcari (talk) 04:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP is at it again. My personal favorite, Jossi and ClueBot have been busy reverting it this evening. Just another heads up. Travellingcari (talk) 04:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New IP, same fascination with Josh Cobb. I requested semi-protection since there's nothing constructive. Thanks all for your help so far. Travellingcari (talk) 17:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sunray

This user is reverting material at Yi Ching claiming it is sourced.[33]. I have tried to explain on the talkpage[34] but he keeps reverting. He claims the source is at the end of the paragraph. When this is checked it does not support his inclusions. Grateful for help. Mccready (talk) 06:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've given him a 3RR warning. Its a content dispute. Use WP:DR or if he continues file a report at the 3RR noticeboard.--Crossmr (talk) 06:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Crossmr, I cannot see why you have given me a 3RR warning and not Mccready. He has reverted exactly the same number of times as I have. Actually, though, neither of us has violated 3RR. However, if you read the talk page carefully, you will see that he has been acting alone and I have been working with other editors on the talk page.

Some background: I re-wrote the text in that paragraph [35] in accordance with long-standing concerns raised on the talk page here and here. The text I added contains the quotation from Needham that he likes but provides an online source and gives it context (per discussion on the talk page referenced above). My addition is a paraphrase of an article, which I cited. Mccready reverted me here, [36], but kept my citation, calling my addition "original research" (it is not, as I and another editor have explained to him on the talk page [37]. He reverted a second time [38], as did I [39]. I make that two reverts.

In addition, I reverted his insertion of a neutrality tag [40]. I did that because Mccready failed to give policy-based reasons for placement of the tag. I make that three reverts. However, following further discussion, I restored the tag [41]. Thus, no 3RR violation by my count. [But maybe I've lost my mind.] Sunray (talk) 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Quite simply because you performed 3 reverts in a 24 hour period on the same article. [42], [43], [44]. As for McCready I didn't notice that his first edit was to restore a tag that had been removed a few days prior so I didn't realize it was a revert.--Crossmr (talk) 15:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is what I said: three reverts. And, since in five years of editing, I've never broken the WP:3RR and Mccready has many times, I am still unsure why you gave only me a warning. Sunray (talk) 16:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I said, I didn't realize at the time that his first edit was a revert. Nor did I delve in to both of your extensive editing histories. For completenesses sake I've gone and left one on his talk page as well.--Crossmr (talk) 01:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your understanding. Sunray (talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[45]. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 07:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Misuse of Privledges

Hi, I started discussion on Talk:Muhammad/images and User:Jmlk17 removed that discussion, claiming it was general which most of muslims would not agree on, when I reverted his edit and placed {{Uw-tpv1}} on my talk page, he issued me a warning that I will be blocked. If I get blocked, It will most definately be misusage of his priveledges. Are my actions eligible to get blocked? Thank you XubayrMA ^Talk 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• It would probably have been a good idea to read the huge pink box at the top of that page, before starting a new thread which has been said hundreds of times already. Black Kite 10:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Yeah sure, you complain about censorship on the article page, but are censoring the talk page yourself. There is no reason to stop the discussion. Those huge pink box is illegitimate as it hinders consensus building and violates WP:NBD. --Raphael1 10:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Dozens of people turning up and starting the same thread over and over again is not furthering the discussion - it just clogs up the page and obscures the useful material. That's why the warning box is at the top of the page. Black Kite 11:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
      • Sure. And big censors like you decide what is useful material, aren't you? If you are not interested in improving the article go somewhere else, but let those who want to improve that mess discuss their issues.--Raphael1 17:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that the thead was repeat of older discussions. I must have missed the pink box. XubayrMA ^Talk 12:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There used to be a subpage there recently for newcomers to the article to talk about their opinions on that issue. Don't know if it's still there. The thing is the debate was taking up all the space on the talk page so it was hard for it to be used for article changes to be worked out. Merkinsmum 12:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't checked in for a couple of days but all mo stuff about the images was being moved to the sub-page intended for that purpose, all general chat that wasn't about the improvement of the article was being removed on sight in accordance with policy (a bit more quickly than on a normal page because of the need to stop it being swamped with crap). --Fredrick day (talk) 15:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is still there. It's still swamped with crap (demands for image removal, censorship, threats, etc.), and I've been trying (often in vain) to keep it organized, as well as trying to avoid a [{WP:FORUM|forum]] from erupting. Jmlk17 21:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Betacommand's use of bot on MickMacNee's talk page

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Edits by Betacommand to MickMacNee talkpage. 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Summary of issue: Betacommand used Betacommandbot to make 46 edits to an editor's page in six minutes, following that user's making of a page questioning BCBot's handling of NFCC 10 c. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 19:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that this incident report is only a few hours old, and there is disagreement over whether it should have been moved to the subpage. Also, for some reason, the other report below, also about Betacommand and his bot, was not moved. Carcharoth (talk) 15:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia want David Shankbone or should we just tell him to leave?

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

I think that's the question that needs to be answered.

I really appreciate the words of support above and on my Talk page, but I'm at the end of my rope on this website, and to be honest, on Wikinews as well. The last few weeks have been a bit too much for me. I started to edit Wikipedia and contribute to it because I can't stand the narrative that is force-fed the public in the mainstream media. In addition to scoring in the 95th percentile on the LSAT and going through law school, I also have a lot of energy, talent and creativity. I felt I brought a lot to the Wikipedia table. Two years ago today I did not own a camera until my sister bought one for my birthday, a cheap 2.1 megapixel Fuji camera. Some of you may not remember that back in 2006 there were very few photos on Wikipedia, and I thought I could contribute that way. Since that time, I have purchased PhotoShop, new camera equipment, new lenses, audio equipment. I have kept track of how much I have spent contributing to Wikipedia and Wikinews, and it is just under $5,000 (I can PDF you the receipts). Yes, I put my WIKIPEDIA name (everyone from the Wikipedia Review to Wikinews knows that's not my birth name) in the files - you spend the money, effort and time I put into it, you can name files the way you want as well.

With over 3,000 photographs on Wikipedia. 10 to 20 have been controversial. And this is a mark of a spammer? Of a COI? Of someone who routinely inserts POV? I dunnno - the Anger photo has now been twice removed by User:Nandesuka, who is perhaps still upset that few people agreed with him over on Talk:Pubic hair about my photo.

Since August 2006 I have taken over 3,000 photographs that illustrate articles in almost every language. I don't "hold back" in what I give this site. You aren't getting 100KB-size photos while I keep the 7MB versions in case I want to sell them. Indeed, when the brother of the kid on my Bong photo wanted to buy it from me, I told him he could have it for free. Additionally, when better photos that are superior to mine are put up, not only am I okay with it, but I at times congratulate the photographer. (See Catwalk, Sean Combs, Kerry Washington, John Waters (director), Michael Stipe (I actually liked the other photo better, but someone liked mine better and re-replaced it), et. al.)

In the last few weeks I had User:Georgewilliamherbert and User:Mangojuice block me on a whim when I violated no policy, simply because I allowed a page owner on Guy Fawkes to get me in a revert war over a title in the Talk page (even though he had been blocked for that behavior just a few days ago, and the non-3RR revert war was over a Talk page heading the disparaged me, I still got blocked). When the Israeli government invited me to their country specifically to take pictures for Wikipedia to improve how Israeli articles look, I had someone raising COI, ANI, BLP and writing all over my Talk page and on article talk pages that I was getting fucked up the ass by a porn star. Few admins took notice or even cared. Same thing with the Guy Fawkes issue, where it raised it on ANI and nobody did a thing (and then I got blocked by Georgewilliamherbert, who by the way, wanted me blocked for a few months back at ArbCom when nobody else thought that was an insane suggestion). I had User:WAS 4.250 (who thinks he is Jimmy Wales) threaten to 'punish' me on User:Jimbo's page, saying that you all "let" me contribute (essentially).

I don't get involved in the politics on this site (you notice I'm rarely involved in voting or any of the other drama), so when I need help I don't have a "network" I can turn to. I apparently am one of the few contributors left that if you look at my contributions, they are almost all content and not talk page arguments. Then when a handful of my photos out of thousands become become an issue, suddenly I'm tarred.

I have over 3,000 photos on this site that illustrate major concepts, people, places and things. I don't have my own website; everything I have done has been for this site.

But seriously, I have a lot of talent, I have a lot of intelligence, and I have been offered to be paid for everything I do on this site (but I make too much money on my day job). So, you guys should maybe figure out if you want to find someone else in New York City, who has the access I have, and is willing to spend 20 to 40 hours a week (every week, since I started) trying to build this site up because they believe in the Free culture movement. I don't know about anybody else on this site, but I have other things I can do with my time, and that would be more lucrative. I just happen to believe in the principles of this project; but I'm beginning to feel like human nature may doom it. I know I feel too battered from the last few weeks to want to continue. Really - some of the attitude toward me, some of the vile things that have been said about, and some of the ridiculous reasoning against work I put a lot of thought, time and money into, is not worth it. So vote away and let me know the results. Because the last few weeks working on Wiki have been about the shittiest, kick me in my teeth.

Seriously, I'm at the end of my rope on this site. If there is a cabal, I wish I was part of it, because the only way to work on Wikipedia is to form tribes of people who actually care about the project so that they can get past the nonsense, such as "I don't like protest photos - find somewhere else people get angry." And that Fury statute on the page doesn't even look like anger, it looks like Despair.

So, you all can have this site. I have better things to do with my time instead of giving away my time, energy, money, creativity and intelligence away for free. I've given enough to the free culture movement, and I'm tired of being smacked around for it.

--David Shankbone 15:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed a couple userlinks -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not surprised. I am going to refrain from saying what I think of User:Aminz and the other editors that have contributed towards pissing off our best image contributor. Neıl ☎ 15:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, you're fine - anyone who has a sysop flag anywhere on a Wikimedia project automatically gains my trust unless something happens otherwise. Will ^(talk) 15:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is quite sad and disappointing; malgré the brief dispute I had with him the other week about the Mike Farrell picture, I admire and respect David, and consider him to be (doesn't feel right to say "to have been") a definite asset to the project. David, I sincerely hope that at some point you reconsider your decision to walk away. DS (talk) 15:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David, I don't know how other to say this but if anybody has actually suggested we would be better off if you left us, they are a fucking idiot. Three thousand free photos. Wow. Just wow. Please don't quit. — CharlotteWebb 15:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I must agree. I haven't had more than a moment's interaction with Mr. Shankbone but I know him to be a tireless and dedicated contributor of excellent images and common sense. He is the kind of editor of whom we need more, not fewer. I'll add my voice to those who ask him to reconsider his decision. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Charlotte Webb on this one. Your contributions are incredibly valuable and I do hope that anybody who suggests you leave is prepared for a brush with a cluestick. Nick (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You are an excellent contributor of images. I don't know enough about your conflicts with other editors to comment, but the quality of your images speak volumes. English peasant 16:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was going to expound forcefully on this one but I think CharlotteWebb nailed it. I hope you can think again about this. Black Kite 16:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ECx6)(!)Support per above. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 16:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, Charlotte nailed it indeed. -- Hoary (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with CharlotteWebb, too. Your work here has been excellent, and I still remember those great images you got for the Daniel Rodriguez article. 3,000 free images from a single contributor...that's amazing. Acalamari 21:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David, you are an asset to Wikipedia. Please stay. But let's rename those images so "David Shankbone" is not part of the name, if you really really are not promoting yourself. (But you are promoting yourself, and we don't mind, so long as its kept within reason.) WAS 4.250 (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be implying above that "David Shankbone" is just a pseudonym that he uses on Wikimedia projects. Maybe using this name, which apparently isn't his real one, in the titles of his photos would fall under a very, very broad definition of "self-promotion", I really don't know and really don't care as no photo credit or watermark is visible in the image itself (and even if this was the case, the creative commons license used would permit us to remove it). When I see an image title like "Drew Barrymore by David Shankbone" I think of it as a disambiguation scheme more than anything, an alternative to simply numbering the titles when we have multiple photos of the same subject. Harmless, seriously. — CharlotteWebb 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

His name is not Shankbone by birth, but seeing as he got a trip to Israel, while telling the press that this was his name, I'm not sure how that much it matters. He appears to be using it as a kind of photography name, which is sensible enough because his birth name is dirt common.

And David, you should stay. And I'm saying this as someone you consider (one of?) your archenemies. But stop threatening to leave every time you're not getting your way. You did this over citing your own Wikinews work on Wikipedia as well (which you continue to do, incidentally). You're cool. Please stay. Cool Hand Luke 17:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I hope David stays, and I appreciate the work he does. But even when supporting someone at a difficult time, using rhetorical labels like "Our best image contributor" and "our best article writer" (a label applied to someone else recently) insults the other people who contribute images and articles. We all contribute and we should all work together. It is very dangerous for individuals to ever think they are indispensable, or for others to state that they think someone is indispensable. Certain types of photos (even if difficult to obtain) shouldn't be lauded over others. 3,000 photos is amazing, but a drop in the ocean compared to the 2,000,000+ at Commons. I could take 3,000 free photos over the next few years (admittedly not at 7MB file sizes), but I chose not to. This is a long-term project involving thousands and thousands of volunteers. People come and go at their own time and with their own money. No single person is indispensable. When people feel they are getting upset, it is best to take a break. The encyclopedia will still be here when you get back. Carcharoth (talk) 16:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would have voiced support for David Shankbone here, but Carcharoth makes it clear that any such support would be biased, and he will push for a block of anyone who does so. So see ya later, David Shankbone. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Where on earth did that come from? Thuran, are you attacking me here? Carcharoth (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No offense Carcharoth, but that is the impression you tend to give off. When I read what you write about many established contributors, the attitude that comes across basically is "get the hell out we don't need you". You might want to reexamine your way of interacting with your fellow editors here, Sir. We are not all "dogs" you know.--Filll (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not attacking you any more than you're attacking David Shankbone, or Betacommand. Filll hit it on the nose. Your comment makes it impossible to support David Shankbone without obviously admitting bias as a "Pro-Shankbone" editor, and thus, once bias is admitted, such editors as voice said support are disregardable, as they are obviously biased. the only editors who 'understand' the problem are the ones who agree with you. As such, I re-iterate: goodbye, David Shankbone. ThuranX (talk) 17:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What I don't understand is where you get "he will push for a block of anyone who does so" from? Is this going back further to something else before all this happened? Carcharoth (talk) 18:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's what you do when an editor disagrees with you, and you don't like their side of things. you're currently pushing for a block on Betacommand, and you're pushing David Shankbone out the door fast as you can. That said, I'm abiding by your instructions, as an admin, to not compliment one user and not all users, because is shows undue favoritism. that's your point above. I am supporting you in throwing David Shankbone's ass out the door as fast as possible, so I'm confused by your hostility to me. ThuranX (talk) 18:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is what I wanted to say originally. I'm sure there's a block comign, but here it is: Wikipedia wants david Shankbone. (but not in a dirty way.) David, you need to stick around. In the recent Betacommand and BetacommandBot threads, I've held you up as a model Uploader, one who creates and fully labels his content. Your work is almost always visually engaging, well thought out material, which adds to the subjects. (Sorry, Pubic hair might be a useful picture, but your junk isn't visually stimulating.) It would be a huge loss to the project to see you go. If peopel are getting on your back about images, please bring the problem here faster. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. I quote charlotte Webb - "Fucking idiot"s. Don't let them chase you off. ThuranX (talk) 16:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And if you must know, my argument is that I've seen this cycle repeat many times on Wikipedia. Editor digs themselves in deep, thinks they are indispensable, something goes wrong, editor gets upset, community supports them, cycle repeats. That may not be what has happened here, but it is a vicious circle that is best broken, in my opinion, with a break and a refocusing when the editor returns. Carcharoth (talk) 16:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

hi david, just to say that if you look at the thread Aminz started about the anger pic, hardly anyone has agreed with him particularly :) On the other hand, the amount of time you put into wikipedia is up to you, you can't expect people to fawn over you over it (though of course, some will appreciate it greatly), nor should you feel like a martyr over it. Remember that this is just a hobby. This is just the internets at the end of the day. Only you are responsible for putting your hobbies in perspective and the nature of the friendships built on the internet is pretty transient. Merkinsmum 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what Thuran is saying exactly, but your comment is a touch curmudgeonly. David should be applauded not just for his photos but his many interesting interviews. Marskell (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming you mean Thuran, not I :) Merkinsmum 16:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think he meant me, actually, as I was questioning Thuran's comment. Still, my comments below were a general response. Carcharoth (talk) 16:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(Responding to Marskell) I agree, but my point is that you need to strike a balance between supporting people and making sure they get their contributions in perspective. Too much support at the wrong time can lead to even more angst further down the road and a departure at that point instead of now. Supporting someone can be as much about helping them keep things in perspective as it is about offering uncritical support. David's contributions are immense and valued, but he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense? Carcharoth (talk) 16:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

he should know that without having to ask here. Does that make sense? should he? after the giant timewasting exercise we saw this morning (well morning where I am), I'm surprised more GF editors don't just pack it in on account of the complete shite that is allowed to carry on here at AN/I. --Fredrick day (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If this doesn't shut the people driving him away to shut the hell up then I don't know what to do. David's more valuable to the project than them so we can deal accordingly. John Reaves 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

series of comments removed by mutual agreement

I can see David made lots of good contributions here, tirelessly. We all suffer from disagreements, human nature, squabbles, spammers, vengeful (or just plain off-kilter) behavior, occasional bad administrative actions, and on and on. The more you participate the more you are exposed, perhaps even more so if you are prominent and stick your neck out. You may suffer sometimes from not playing the political game in a certain way, but those who live by that game die by that game. It's safer to stay neutral and fair than join a faction. Anyway, Wikipedia has very little politics as compared to other endeavors this big and important. Because it is a participatory project, no matter how productive and uncontroversial you are, by the odds you will occasionally find someone who misunderstands, doesn't get it, has their own agenda, is having a bad day, you just have an online personality conflict with, etc. That is the way of the world. Plus, people are free to simply disagree, and because this is a meritocracy, each person's opinion starts out with equal weight and is judged on its merits, not whose opinion it is. If you take 2,999 great photos, one is still free to say the 3,000th photo doesn't belong. David has earned the right to complain but I do think there is more drama here than necessary. Maybe that's not the intent, but when people support David to the point of singling each other out to the point of bitterness and calling names for having upset him, that's unhealthy. Wikidemo (talk) 16:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you serious? He didn't cause the drama. Aminz did. John Reaves 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I'm serious. You might want to take my comments to heart too. Wikidemo (talk) 16:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that the consensus here is that David's contributions to the project have been extremely helpful over the years, and that he will be welcomed back in the future should he find that his values, lifestyle, and outlook so permit him.

Carcharoth raises the legitimate points that we shouldn't take our other contributors for granted in their time for us; that we should be proud of the project that we have all built; and that as both individuals and the project grow, mature and change, partings of ways – temporary or permanent – are inevitable from time to time.

In the meantime, personal messages to David are probably best placed on User talk:David Shankbone, both because this matter seems to be well beyond the scope of AN/I, and because David is more likely to see your comments there. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 16:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying he should leave? John Reaves 16:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do get the impression some think he should leave. But this is common among a certain "in group". Established contributors are of minimal value. I do not blame him for taking a break, either temporary or permanent. I have had 3 friends leave in the last 2 months because of the same attitude. Others can see some of the discussion on a related topic at [46]--Filll (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A better question should be: 'Does Dave want a cookie'? Seriously, Dave, get over yourself. HalfShadow (talk) 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What an idiotic thing to say, David is infinitely more valuable than you. John Reaves 17:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? Because someone who goes through the trouble of telling us how great they are sort of defeats the purpose. HalfShadow (talk) 17:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Wikipedia wants David Shankbone. I know I do. Enigma ^msg! 17:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good conclusion. How about we just answer the question that Wikipedia can use David Shankbone, we hope he doesn't leave, we all get down sometimes, and if he ever needs help or support he can write any of us a message and we're there for him? That kind of celebrates the positive. Wikidemo (talk) 17:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I will be glad to support him, but I certainly understand his frustration. Particularly when someone who has 3000 mainspace edits in 2.5 years, with the largest contribution being 161 edits to a list of Backardigans episodes feels sufficiently superior to suggest that David's contribution pales in comparison to this editor's documentation of the Backyardigans, King (TV series), Fraggle Rock, and Miss Spider's Sunny Patch Friends. This really is uncalled for. We should be encouraging people like David, not chasing him away.--Filll (talk) 17:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point. HalfShadow (talk) 18:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's ok HS. You keep telling yourself how wonderful you are and how you have every right to kick other editors savagely. Wow what a nice example of civility.--Filll (talk) 20:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Gah, David, I hope this is a Wikibreak rather than a departure. I know what you went through with that bio article and now I'm sorry to have backed away from the anger image dispute. Durova^Charge! 19:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to see David leaving and I hope he comes back. I think our dispute over addition of those pictures was a mild dispute. It was about addition of certain pictures to several articles. That's all. It didn't matter for me if they were uploaded by David or someone else. And I honestly think (and still think) they were not appropriate for the reason I stated above. If the community disagrees, I would of course follow the majority.

I find some of the above comments against myself as an editor, rather than against my opinion. So, they are inappropriate (e.g. User:Neil's comment). This particular dispute was a genuine disagreement of opinions, and was mild compared to the typical wikipedia disputes that continue for a long long time and are about the content of the central articles of Wikipedia. --Be happy!! (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Shankbone has a right to be a bit upset. He's invested time and energy in making Wikipedia better, and some ass-clowns working off a different sort of memo than the rest of us decide he's useless or in dire need of some tough love and they push him out. A lot of the comments (refactored and otherwise) should serve as a relative gauge as to how respected Shankbone is in Wikipedia. As for the asinine suggestion that if we respond to his frustration at the block-headed thinking he feels he's encountered, we are only perpetuating a childish tantrum I say this - yes, there are editors who are self-important. There are definitely editors and admins who are legends in their own minds. Yes, we should limit the terms of sys-ops to about a year or two max, with a year of actual editing in-between.

However, David's contributions are important. It isn't an opinion - it's a friggin' fact. He is the benchmark that a lot of image-uploaders use to verify the usefulness of their contributions. How on earth could that be considered a bad thing. At the very least, Shankbone should be applauded for his contributions; at least he doesn't lie about his background, unlike some.

Clearly, there is some direction in the steering here at Wikipedia. While most of the editors seem to have their shoes tied correctly, there is a growing number who simply fail to get the point. Maybe calling for some de-sys-opping might serve to get the point across. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've been watching this go on for a few hours now, and figured I'd bring something to the table. While everyone is grateful for the images, I'm of the opinion that some tend to get slightly overused possibly. For example this version of index finger with one of the disputed images, which is already in three other articles. It's hardly a matter of life and death if it gets removed is it? Let's use the images where they are most appropriate, not attempt to shoehorn them into every article possible. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 21:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I tend to concur. Just as everyone's text gets mercilessly edited, so too do images. Nandesuka (talk) 22:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out something. If I posted something here saying "I've written dozens of FA and GAs, I'm invaluable, but people are holding me back," would that really be any better than what David's doing? I can sympathize to an extent, but the whole "I'm important, look at me" attitude which pervades his writing troubles me. I'm not casting any sort of shadow on his contributions; I barely know the guy, but I'm sure his contributions have been very helpful. But we're all just cogs, and shouldn't get some inflated sense of self over an online encyclopedia. David Fuchs ^(talk) 21:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

See? At least one of you gets it. HalfShadow (talk) 22:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, any admin is free to review my comments at Guy Fawlkes. Frankly I knew nothing about this fella until I saw the ANI thread rearding the content dispute, and gave my input in good faith. Alas it seems some seem to want to elevate certain contributors above the rest, as this guy is being likened to Betacommand, to whom we are all supposed to bow to. Wikipedia is not an editcountocracy. MickMacNee (talk) 21:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your statements are nonsense, and wrong. There is a reason why new editors aren't allowed the same editing capabilities as more established editors -they have proven themselves via edit-counts and quality of edits. While mere editcount is not a worthy in and of itself, the quality of those edits is indeed worthy of merit. Wikipedia seems a bit like a meritocracy - do good work and make positive contributions, and you get kudos for it. Do bad work (vandalism, edit-warring, etc) and your activity within the community is severely hampered. If an editor does good work, shut the hell up and listen to him/her, and stop throwing an infantile tantrum about why they get celebrated and you don't. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but that is complete nonsense. What has kudos got to do with anything, how does that affect the application of policies? If you upload 3,000 images then your opinion on a specific content dispute overides someone who has uploaded 10? Patent nonsense and absolutely counter Wikipedia ethos. And how can you construe what I wrote as a tantrum for crying out loud, he has cited me in a complaint, I am entitled to respond. MickMacNee (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David, if you didn't own a camera until you started on wikipedia, well you have also benefitted greatly from working ont he project. I wouldn't dream of staying around if it weren't for those personal benefits that the work here gives us and surely your decision to stay or go should be based on your own selfish interests of how much you gain fromt he work you do on the project. Thanks, SqueakBox 21:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So, we have a prolific editor with much-needed talents that he is bringing to us for free, offering us expensive pictures that are not only free but completely free within our mandate as a free encyclopedia. We give him shit for it. He gets sick of the shit. So what do we do? Tell him to not mention his name at all, coz it's promotion. Because the world would come to a fucking stop if a good editor should be mentioned somewhere, somehow, for it. We say "it is best to take a break" like he's nothing in particular. "based on your own selfish interests" as if that's entirely what he's here for like some common spammer. "Seriously, Dave, get over yourself" and "Considering I'm not the one jumping up and down shouting 'Look at me! Oh gosh, look at all the things I've done!', yes. Yes I do. Thanks ever so for proving my point". You people - and the latter person in particular - disgust me. What part of "collaborative editing" don't you get? It means working together. I'm appalled. I really am. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 21:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, congrats. If he's sick of the shit, no one is compelling him to stay. But flagrant self promotion in his "retirement" speech only proves others points that he's thinking of himself too highly. I don't think anyone is complaining about his contributions; his form, yes. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Lovely. I only hope someone somewhere values you as much as you value him. I only hope nobody values you as much as I now value you. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)No, David Fuchs, you're wrong. Yes, Redvers is right. When you David Fuchs get to be as prolific an editor (and yes, it does matter if you've contributed 3000 vs. 10), I would expect that your "going away speecy" would be as drawn out as this one. Mr. Shankbone is welcome here, as are you, David Fuchs, as is Redvers. I hope he stays because I like looking at articles with nice pictures. I couldn't care less if it said "drew barrymore" or "drew barrymore by david shankbone". What a joke. 'Nuff said. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The implication being you should think twice before contributing to any discussion lest you fail to meet the required number of kudos points. Take a look at guy fawkes and tell me why my opinion is worth less than his? MickMacNee (talk) 22:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No implications. Simple facts. When you, MickMacNee, have made 3000 image uploads, and are then treated the same way as DS, I would think that you would have a similar post as DS. If not, well then you are truly a saint. Can you honestly say that your contributions are equal in quality, quantity, profile, and length of time as DS's? And you think he is being "self-congratulatory?" Are you really that high on yourself and your own meager contribs? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Diet. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 22:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is your problem? What allegation are you making here? I was mentioned, I gave my opinion. Just because you are not interested in it for reasons that are your own, you do not have the right to stalk me accusing me of trolling. MickMacNee (talk) 22:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any reason why this thread is still open? What administrator intervention is required here? The conversation seems to have degraded a bit... --Onorem♠Dil 22:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Personal attack by User:Jayjg

Resolved

 – No administrative action necessary.

I had a problem with the Khazars article. Although reliably sourced material, I believed a section to be irrelevant to the article as it had almost nothing to do with Khazars which I explained in Talk. I had agreement from several editors with one of them (User:Slrubinstein) deleting the section. It then became a very minor edit war reverting the sections deletion without comments. Instead of continuing the revert war I added a cited qualifier sentence to the section which started another revert war to get rid of that. I again gave up and took it to Talk which was suddenly flooded by editors supporting the revert, however none of these editors would explain relevance instead arguing the section had to stay for NPOV without any explanation of why despite my asking.

User:Jayjg, who had not taken part in this discussion then posted and in effect accused me of anti-Semitism despite the “debate” being up to this point relatively civil and gave "examples" of my edits that proved it. This accusation was extremely upsetting to me. The edits he gave as examples actually not only did not support his claim but several were even favourable to Israel so I asked for an apology, instead Jayjg replied and told me to accept the consensus that it was relevant (without any reason required for relevance).

I started a WP:ANI here to get an apology for the accusation but it was archived without resolution. I resubmitted the ANI but was told that as an Israel/Palestine article dispute was already being worked out in Arbcom the admins had put my case on hold pending a resolution to that Arbcom so that the result could give a guideline on how to handle my case. That Arbcom was resolved I believe but I let the apology go and hoped to get on with editing.

Then this edit was made (diff) on the Khazar page. Distortion of history is a particular pet peeve of mine so I admit it annoyed me so I reverted (diff) the edit and was in turn reverted by User:Briangotts (diff) with the comment that the sources given backed the new version. This started a minor edit war with myself, User: Schlcoh who also backed the old version and Briangotts. After Schlcoh also checked the sources (which were not online) he also found they actually supported the original version not the new one. The talk history for this is here and here.In the interests of peace (Briangotts would not accept his own sources wording) we let his version stand and I added a note to the sentence (diff) to qualify it which was apparently accepted by all involved.

Now Jayjg came along and deleted the note (diff) claiming in the summary it was OR and my own personal commentary. In fact the note was copy/pasted complete with cites from a section in another Wikipedia article History of the Jews in Turkey which I explained in my summary when adding the note. This has led to another edit war with Briangotts now trying to modify the note so it confirms more with his view. Obviously I’m not getting any respect as an editor and along with Jayjg’s previous accusation not being withdrawn and now with another vieled personal attack on my credibility in a summary he made, I fear I could end up permanently labelled as an anti semite.

I request this issue be resolved and Jayjg be made to apologise for his original accusation. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WLRoss (talk • contribs) 16:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a misuse of this board. How many times are you going to demand an apology (longwindedly)? El_C 16:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why shouldn't he demand an apology? Relata refero (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with requesting an apology, so long as he does so civilly - which he has. However, I have to concur that this is not the proper forum. If discussion with the editor directly has been unfruitful, then a user conduct Request for Comment would be in order. There is no relevant admin action to be requested here. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, well, if you've seen RFC/U recently, you'll see why I think its broken. And why is there no relevant admin action? Are blocks for incivility no longer handed out? (Not that I'm saying I support one in this case, but why is discussing incivility considered irrelevant?) Relata refero (talk) 18:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I note, there is nothing wrong with requesting an apology, particularly when it is done as clearly and civilly as WLRoss has done here. However, I'm looking at the diff that generated this report, (here). Jayjg looks to have made what amounts to a good faith removal of material that he thought constituted personal commentary (which is, by definition, OR). Sure, he probably could have noted "Source doesn't support assertion" or "Synthesis" or some similar term, but he did not. The proper course would be for WLRoss to leave a note on Jayjg's talk saying "Hey, you reverted this, it isn't actually OR, I cite this source that says this, this source that says that, etc." If the edit summary was indeed a personal attack, then a note saying "Please refrain from personal attacks, as that is how I interpreted your edit summary at this diff" would be sufficient to convey WLRoss's displeasure. My concern was that the first impulse in this event was to run to ANI, which is unresonable. Jayjg was also not notified about this thread to defend himself, so I'm posting a note to his talk so informing him. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 20:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, but see below. I am growing impatient with a growing culture that marks stuff like this "resolved" on sight and says things "nobody cares". Relata refero (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we can just basically say "nobody cares". Seriously, ANI has had so many troll complaints about him it isn't funny any more. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me make it clear: this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving. That being said, if you look up and down this board and think about what tends to happen, there are usually dozens of complaints about civility, most of them against long-term, established users. Half of them are against the same small set of people - and we all know that Guy, Mikka and Betacommand top the list and Jay and a couple of others usually aren't too far behind. This system is broken, people, until somebody has the good sense and/or courage to stand up and say "Listen, I don't care if X deals with trolls on a regular basis, these last questions weren't trolling/insensitive/necessarily bad faith, and I'm blocking this established user for being grossly uncivil just as I would if he had 250 edits." Until that happens, the complaints will continue, and if you, Will, don't like it, try and fix the problem instead of complaining that it isn't funny. Relata refero (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The way to fix the problem is for more people to help damping down the trolls and fewer to spend time enabling them. In case you hadn't noticed, Wikipedia is now the number one most important place to get your conspiracy theory or fringe view promoted. Look at the vitriol Judd Bagley unleashed when he was prevented from promoting his holy jihad against naked shorting. Look at freepers like Bryan from Palatine. Look at the level of disruption from JB196 because we wouldn't let him promote his book. And these people set up shop off-wiki and recruit allies, and undermine the people who protected Wikipedia against their flagrant and unambiguous abuse, because it is really really really important to them to get their POV on Wikipedia. Morgellons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Homeopathy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The Troubles. Israel-Palestine. This is not the good-natured laughter at the silly and inept wars over Gdanzig any more, there are genuine concerted campaigns to make Wikipedia not neutral on important subjects. So please OPEN YOUR EYES, people. We need to find a much much better and quicker way of dealing with obvious POV-pushers, because the old way does not work with the aggressive high-stakes POV-pushing we now get. Frankly I don't care who deals with it, but if nobody else is going to then it falls to the same burned-out surly old bastards every time. All hands to the pumps, lads, the ship's taking on water fast. Guy (Help!) 22:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And you have no idea how strongly I agree with that. But the problem is that when rudeness becomes a weapon being used all round, it becomes very hard to figure out who's doing the right thing, and it becomes totally bloody impossible to get anyone else to weigh in. I disagree with you completely about Bagley/Weiss, though the problem was that if it hadn't been such a cesspool of incivility, other people might have waded in there and fixed it by now. I don't want to touch half the things Jay or IZak or Humus or Nishidani edit because they can be a little free with the insinuations. Somewhere on this page right now is part of an interminable war about issues which nobody outside certain parts of India would understand at the first go and nobody's touching that either because of the snappiness on display. Do you see the connection?

So yes, ArbCom needs to take a tougher line, no more blasted lets-all-get-along amnesties, and someone had better start handing out blocks to POV-pushers. And as for the rest of us who plug along in low-attention high-intensity warzones, it tends to undermine requests for civilized editing when the defenders of the blasted pedia are misbehaving in their own way.

Which is why I'll back Guy in particular, because at least he's an equal opportunity offender. What's Jay's excuse? Or Mikka's? Relata refero (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not a weapon, not in any sense. It's a natural human response to frustration. I have the ability to assume good faith of the most unlikely candidate given the slightest glimmer of light; a lot of people right now seem intent on a Blitz-grade blackout in that respect. I suggest that every single question be brought back to the same question: what will improve the encyclopaedia. In many case,s the encyclopaedia will be best served by someone with patience and tact explaining to the problem editor what they need to do to satisfy the community that they can be a net positive - and not arguing for an unblock until the user has demonstrated that they understand the problem. I know I am out of step here, but I don't see blocking as that big a deal, it's just one of many ways we protect the project. Maybe the block messages need to be more explanatory. Sorry, we had to block you this is not a big deal, we just need to get your attention and be sure you're here for the right reasons. And, you know, a lot of people aren't. That's not to say they are evil, but they are in the wrong place. We'd do better if people from specific wikis - alt medicine, paranormal and so on - picked up these folks who are here to spread the word and helped them to learn their craft on another site where advocacy is OK, and in the mean time teach them that on WP it isn't. Hell, I think people know what I mean, and if they don't them I'm likely wasting my time explaining. Bottom line: if Mantanmoreland is Weiss, I want him gone (but I don't see it being proven right now). We don't need crusaders. Experts, yes, but not crusaders after WP:TRUTH. And we get far too bloody many of them. Oh, plus there's an inevitable tension between teenagers, and people who are parents of teenagers. I guess everyone knows which group I'm in.

Incidentally, Mikka's excuse is probably user:Bonaparte, or at least in part. Mikka is a surly old bastard like me, but fundamentally sound and a decent fellow. Try talking to him some time. Guy (Help!) 23:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, I think that's fair enough, though I maintain you'd get a lot more done if you could keep your temper in check about 25% more. And to refocus this thread ever so slightly, I will make excuses for you or for Dab or even for Squeakbox, because all of you are indeed trying to keep the cruft out. Unfortunately, however, when they ask us all to make a list of those whose agenda is keeping WP clean of that stuff, Jay, inspite of the laurels with which this community in its wisdom has covered him, will not be on most people's top 100 list. (To put it as mildly and unexcitingly as possible.) So he doesn't get cut the same slack, even if some deserve it. Relata refero (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know User:WLRoss's work, but I do know Jay's, and there are reasons beyond troll vendettas that his name comes up so often on AN/I boards, dispute resolution fora, RfArbs, and so on, and why so many intelligent, erudite, good-faith editors simply despair of trying to collaborate meaningfully with him. He does not approach core content policies like WP:NPOV, WP:RS, and WP:NOR (the apparent locus of the present dispute) as goods in themselves, as higher principles, as guides to editorial self-discipline – the way, say, an ideal Supreme Court judge would approach constitutional law. Rather he approaches them the way a lawyer approaches legal precedent, as a means to a frankly partisan end, as rhetorical tools useful for retaining content he agrees with and expunging content he disagrees with, and if need be, as sharp weapons to be used against rival editors. He would no more submit his own work to the principles he cites against the work of others than he would grab hold of a scimitar by the blade end instead of the handle. Take for example his two back-to-back interventions today, on Benny Morris and Israel Shahak, the latter being a vociferous critic of Israeli policies, the former an equally vociferous advocate of same. The policy issue in both cases is identical – WP:BLP, and how it specifically requires especially good sources for negative material about living persons. Look at the Benny Morris edit and its corresponding talk-page justification: Jay removes the following paragraph –

According to Ilan Pappé, Morris is biased in his use of sources (he uses mainly Israeli sources), and is contemptuous of Arabs and Arabic sources, which Morris, furthermore, cannot read. Pappé accused Morris of having racist views about the Arabs in general and the Palestinians in particular[11]. He also attributes Morris's work, critical and historical, to a wish to be popular in mainstream Zionist circles.

– on the grounds that the source, Electronicintifada, does not meet the BLP clause for sources of negative commentary. Jay goes on to delete a better-written (and more temperate) version of the same material from Ilan Pappé, where its context was clearer: it's a response to Morris's own vociferous attack on Pappé, which begins, '"Unfortunately much of what Pappe tries to sell his readers is complete fabrication."' Jay leaves the Morris attack and deletes the Pappé attack, citing BLP. Now look at Jay's edit over on Israel Shahak, where he restores the following paragraph, which had been removed citing the same BLP clause:

According to Paul Bogdanor, Shahak "regaled his audience with a stream of outrageous libels, ludicrous fabrications, and transparent hoaxes. As each successive allegation was exposed and discredited, he would simply proceed to a new invention."

– which is cited to FrontPageMagazine (!). On the talk page, Jay explains that this attack on Shahak – which is unprovoked (i.e. not a rebuttal to a Shahak attack on Bogdanor) and considerably more incendiary and potentially libelous – "seems well and reliably enough sourced." Front Page F'ing Magazine, are you kidding me? Jay's edit also restores the following sentence – "Shahak's works also found a receptive audience among neo-Nazis, antisemites and Holocaust deniers, and his articles and the full texts of his works can be found on websites such as Radio Islam, Bible Believers, Jew Watch, CODOH, and "Historical Review Press" – which is sourced to CAMERA, WorldNetDaily, and some other junk.

Now, whatever one may think of Shahak, Pappé, and Morris, it should be clear that for Jay, WP:BLP represents a strategic weapon and not an editorial principle. Edits like this are the meat and potatoes of his work here, and quite naturally they infuriate less powerful – but more intellectually serious – Wikipedians and would-be collaborators.--G-Dett (talk) 00:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

All due respect, G-Dett, but... Electronicintifada calls itself "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction". Can we really take that as a neutral sources of information? As to Front Page Magazine, It hardly seems little better than a Right Wing political opinion blog, and thus probably no better. Both sections should be removed per BLP and the RS writings on the uses of Blogs. I would like to see Jayjg explain why one source is so much better than the other. ThuranX (talk) 00:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have been clearer. I do not personally think ElectronicIntifada, CAMERA, or WorldNetDaily should be used as sources for potentially defamatory material. Removal of information cited to EI citing BLP is absolutely justifiable. In the present context – where the quote is one scholar's rebuttal to criticism from another, and both criticisms are comparably heated/negative, and the initial criticism is included in the article – then you could also make a case for its retention. Removal would be justified by a very firm, strict application of BLP, and one could reasonably expect the removing editor to apply an equally firm hand elsewhere. In this case, Jay's firm hand is waving its middle finger at his interlocutors, as is clear from his adjacent edits to the other articles.

What in the world does WP:BLP have to do with Israel Shahak, who is dead? Nandesuka (talk) 19:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

EI is doubtless a partisan source, somewhat like CAMERA, but it isn't an outright laughable source like FrontPageMagazine or WorldNetDaily. It's run by Ali Abunimah, a relatively respected writer if not quite an academic heavy-hitter, and it's a sort of clearing-house for pro-Palestinian articles of all kinds, many from other sources. And in this case, remember, the source is Pappé himself, and his response to a potentially defamatory criticism.

Incidentally, where do you find EI describing itself as "Palestine's Weapon of Mass Destruction"? I can find only reference to EI in those terms, by an obscure blogger unaffiliated with EI. Is this what you're referring to? At any rate, here is what EI's site mission statement says: "The Electronic Intifada (EI), found at electronicIntifada.net, publishes news, commentary, analysis, and reference materials about the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict from a Palestinian perspective. EI is the leading Palestinian portal for information about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and its depiction in the media."--G-Dett (talk) 00:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's how the site lists itself on Google. Check it out. ThuranX (talk) 03:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Instruction, Thuranx.--G-Dett (talk) 03:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hrmm, so it is. Still not much better, really. It's still just as clearly a biased site and source, and the play on words doesn't do much to distance it from the more violent biases of its readership. I still say both should go. ThuranX (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a pretty offensive statement, ThuranX, but at least we are agreed that both should go.--G-Dett (talk) 16:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"this guy who's complaining doesn't sound like the most reliable complainant, and I'm not going to stick my neck out about Jay calling somebody anti-semitic who's edit-warring at David Irving." This type of comment is exactly why I ask for an apology. Although I accept that writers GF opinion I'm still automatically labelled by the original accusation. Why am I not a reliable complainant? I've never been blocked for my actions, this is the first time I've lodged a complaint and I've never had problems with any other users or on any other articles despite averaging far more than 100 edits a month. And why does edit warring David Irving justify a personal attack? Has anyone even looked to see what was edit warred there? Although it was a year ago I think it was about his credibility on subjects not involving Jews which had nothing to do with Irvings anti semitism. Before this I have had (as far as I can recall) only one dispute with Jayjg. When I first started editing WP I deleted a dead reference in the Hamas article which he reverted. I asked him why and he told me policy allows dead links because they worked when first used. This led to me being ridiculed by other editors when I used that same explanation later for replacing a dead link in another article (one was MONGO so if you know him you know he doesn't beat around the bush when giving an opinion on someone). This incident is why I did't deal with Jayjg again after his first refusal to apologise. To address other points brought up that this ANI is not appropriate I would also point out that I was originally told to lodge the complaint here. It was archived twice on the basis that it would be dealt with later. I never informed Jayjg of this ANI as I posted it at 3am and forgot so i apologise for that (I did however inform him of the previous ANI and he chose not to take part). I also apologise for being "longwinded". Not being experienced with complaining I have no idea how much detail is required. It was Jayjg's comment that reminded me to bring it up again and the ANI is not actually for that comment, it's for the original unjustified personal attack. I believe this ANI is more important than me, too many editors are getting away with too much because they have a high profile or a large group of friends. Unless they are made to be responsible for their actions everyone suffers. Wayne (talk) 06:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I apologise. Relata refero (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm marking this resolved, because it is not at all clear why this is an issue for AN/I. As near as I can tell, this is a dispute over content and a series of unfortunate user interactions. I suggest that you and JayJg try to work things out civilly on a talk page or, failing that, seek dispute resolution via mediation or an RFC. Nandesuka (talk) 23:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks by Bleek25

I've just about reached the end of my rope. Bleek25 (talk · contribs) has gone to other users talk pages and made personal attacks after the filing of a (dismissed) sockpuppet case against me failed and has also filed false 3RR reports against me. I don't mind the 3RR and the sock, they were both disproven, but the repeated personal attacks which I tried to simply remove but he puts back three times, is over the line. This [47] and this [48] where he returned it and called my removal vandalism, and then again [49]. I asked for help from an administrator who helped with a 3RR issue but he continues to do this and it's gotten out of hand. I just ask he leave me alone and now he's bringing other editors in to this grudge he seems to have because he violated policy and I reported him. Could someone just warn him to stop?KellyAna (talk) 16:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please note, I asked him to stop before bringing this here, but he removed the request as "vandalism." He has a gross misconception of vandalism. Apparently even removing a personal attack is vandalism according to him. KellyAna (talk) 16:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Kellyana must think that she is an adminstrator.she has gotten in to it with me and User:Randy Jaiyan.randy even tried to make a truce and she just slapped him in the face see here.Bleek25 (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a gal, but I think his comments to you would be very offensive to women and they are offensive to me. I also agree you removing a personal attack is not vandalism, see [50]. He posted at least three of these. Someone just final warned him. If he makes personal attacks again, please report here. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is obviously offensive to a woman [51] and this is harassment [52].-- Ѕandahl 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Unblock range

Hi, I seldom edit en.wiki just to add interwiki to my local wiki .
Starting from some weeks ago, in most cases, I'm unable to edit en.wiki because my IP is blocked. The page says User:Ryulong blocked the entire range 79.6.0.0/16 for a very long time (a month or even more). I don't know if this is the standard procedure in en.wiki, but seems to me that blocking thousands people just to stop a single vandal it's not the best choice... the vandal probably changed his IP the same day you blocked him, and instead I'm a good (blocked) guy ;) Regards. --87.13.52.49 (talk) 17:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(relevant block log) Thanks for your message. I can understand the frustration. User:Ryulong is probably more able than I am to answer you, but apparently the vandal is especially annoying since the range has been blocked twice because of him. The good news is that if you register an account, you will be able to edit even when your IP falls within this range. I know this is not optimal, but there are other benefits from creating an account! ;) -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer Lucasbfr. Well, I've seen the log, so the range is blocked since January 4! 65000 IPs for two month to stop a vandal who can change IP, and probably he can get also an unblocked IP (like I can). ::You're right, I should create an account, but it's not just my problem... in 2 months, how many people gets one of those 65000 IPs? --62.211.134.26 (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The range described is of an abusive user who I had been attempting to reconcile with until he continually exhausted my patience and the patience of other administrators from which I sought assistance. The user in question is Tenkasei Ryo (talk · contribs). I am terribly sorry for the inconvenience, but I have not been able to narrow down that block (a semi-full list of his activities is here), and as soon as the first range block expired, the user in question came back. As I stated in the block log, you can seek assistance from the Unblock Mailing list. And if you would like to prevent this from happening on March 4 (which may very well happen as this user is persistent, despite my attempts), any assistance you could provide me in stemming this abuse and helping me file an abuse report with your ISP concerning this individual's actions.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 08:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP User who refuses to use Talk pages

For about a month now, an IP user who posts from addresses in the range 156.61.xx.xx has been attempting to impose his views on the nature of Roman leap days and leap years in articles related to the Roman calendar: Julian calendar, Roman calendar, Mercedonius and as of today Leap year.

This user absolutely refuses to debate on Talk pages, he just edits the articles. He only communicates his "justifications" via the Edit Summary line. The reason I have listed so many articles is that semi-protecting an article only causes him to find another one, even when the semi-protection notice clearly states that it is being applied to force discussion to the Talk page.

His POV represents outdated scholarship. He does not respond to attempts to point out contrary data or contrary argument, he just reasserts his own views. He also does not respond to proposals to change the text to say "the ancient sources aren't explicit. The current consensus is...", which would change the text to an accurate statement of fact that does not conflict with his views.

He used to insert long rants inside the articles, mostly against me, but final warnings for disruptive editing caused him to stop doing that. He now mostly confines his edits to statements that should keep him below the radar on that. I had hoped that his toning down the edits might mean we were getting somewhere, but this is not the case. His behaviour, though low key, is very persistent and is still disruptive. It's also the kind of activity that seriously undermines any reputation WP might hope for as an authoritative source.

Please follow through on the final warnings and block this user.

Thanks. --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked a couple of IPs (the only two, as far as I know, he's used more than once). Unfortunately, blocking can only achieve so much here since he changes IP frequently, and a /16 range (156.61.xx.xx) is a bit too large to give a block of significant duration too. Assuming those four pages are the only ones he's interested in, semi-protection should work fine. – Steel 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Based on past behaviour, I wouldn't assume that. I'm sure he'll find another page to carry on with. Also, a week's semi-protection has already been tried on Julian calendar and Roman calendar, and has proven useless. He just waits for it to expire and then circles back. Perhaps a semi-protect duration of 2 months on all of these pages might have an effect.

I understand that asking for a range of addresses to be blocked is a serious step. I think I've been very patient with this guy, and I didn't make the request lightly. I honestly can't see any other way to get him to behave. --Chris Bennett (talk) 18:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bellwether BC seems to object to this unblock.

User talk:Thepokeratlas has created a user account and was blocked, presumably for having a corporate name and a user name that was similar.

I led a WP:AN discussion here. [53] which said this (see below).

I notified the blocking administrator. He did not object or say anything. About 3 days have passed and still no objection.

The user has been advised on what not to edit. They have complied and not caused trouble. Should we be bitey and block the person again like Bellwether BC and Friday seem to suggest? Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'll thank you to stop opening threads about me without proper notification, and to quit misrepresenting my positions. I think you shouldn't be using your tools at ALL during your mentorship, per the RfC. This also appears to be Friday's position. It's not about this case, it's about your use of tools, AT. Please stop obfuscating. Bellwether ^B_C 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

=== Usernames being blocked, is this according to policy? ===

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Usernames#Company.2Fgroup_names

"Use of a company or group name as a username is not explicitly prohibited, but it is not recommended..."

The policy states that use of a company name as a user name is not recommended but it is not prohibited. I used to think that all corporate names are prohibited and are to be blocked but I see this is not the case.

Should we stop blocking people for this reason? Or should we just ask that users certify that they are not a group account. Archtransit (talk) 17:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

My personal rule on this is I block only if the user is using Wikipedia for advertising their group, business, what have you. If a user like "KevinsShoeWarehouse" created the article Kevin's Shoe Warehouse or adds the business to an article like List of shoe stores, that deserves a block. And really, unless they're using WP to advertise, it's pretty tough to tell if a username is a business, group, etc. Of course, if a user chooses the name of a very well known business or group, it is my opinion that they should be blocked, as this invites potential lawsuits, e.g. if a user named "Microsoft" vandalizes Steve Jobs. Cheers, faithless (^speak) 17:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The way I come by most company usernames is as faithless says above, they post ana d for their company. More generally, I think we assume that if its a group name, then its a shared account. Also, for major corps, there is of course the trademark issue. Even if User:Miramax didn't edit movie articles, there would still be the concern of trademark dilution. MBisanz ^talk 17:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This came up recently. We assume it's a role account unless we get confirmation (somehow, OTRS I guess) that it's used by only one user. I'm not sure what the relevant policy page is. Luigi30 (Taλk) 18:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

The other problem is that of people believing the account represents the company in some official capacity, either to push a certain view point or to vandalise. The question aside from advertising, is the username likely to be confusing or misleading? --81.104.39.63 (talk) 19:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments and opinions

• I think this unblock, after discussion, along with counseling to the new user is the correct thing to do. I think that trying to create controversy about this non-controversial action is being disruptive and trolling. Others have been indefinitely blocked for trolling before.Archtransit (talk) 18:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Where was your discussion about the specific name with the blocking admin or on AN/I? The post you made was a general statement about company usernames, it was far from a specific block review. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are unhappy, continue the discussion here about why this user should be blocked. Is it to prevent disruption? If so, what disruption has the user done in the past 3 days since unblock (None). What disruption has the user ever done? (None). What punishment should this user get for using a user name similar to his corporate name? (Severe punishment? If so, isn't blocking not supposed to be used as punishment?) Discussion on proposed re-blocking welcomed; that's why I put the topic up for ANI discussion. Archtransit (talk) 18:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The implied suggestion to always list the user name in question will be followed in the future. If someone is unhappy, how would the discussion have changed if a specific user name was listed? Is it that someone has an anti-gambling agenda or anti-American agenda so they would act harshly in that case but not harshly in other cases? I hope this is not the case. Archtransit (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Archtransit, on your talk page, Ryan has said that unless you stop using the unblock button, he's going to take the matter to arbcom. Other than agreeing with Ryan, my only comment is that you don't appear to understand that nobody prevented the person behind the account from editing - the block merely required him /her to create a new user name. Addhoc (talk) 18:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Addhoc! Blocks should follow policy. It would not be following policy if you were blocked on the reason "Addhoc's name is mis-spelt, this is disruptive, he can edit under 'Ad hoc' but the Addhoc name is blocked". Archtransit (talk) 18:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I'm going to leave mentoring you to Ryan and Riana, however I'm concerned about your lack of understanding. Addhoc (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You say above, Archtransit, that Three days have passed and still no objection, yet you unblocked only one hour after your talkpage message to the blocking admin and your ambiguous post to ANI that was not even close to a consensus to unblock (or block, or anything else since you didn't name the user). Curious. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 22:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If you are mad, block the user and see what happens (I don't advise this but you seem to be mad that this user was unblocked.Archtransit (talk) 22:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope. Not mad. You've misread my post. I don't get mad at Wikipedia, but instead I rather like the place. It's not about the blocking or unblocking. You have to know that Arch. I've been an ardent supporter of you in the past, but everytime I read a post here, or at your RfC, or on your user talk, I continue to be baffled by your responses. Simply baffled. It's not about the tools. It's about your communication style, your wikilawyering.. this isn't the place for this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 23:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm being quoted. I took that conversation as a broad, hypothetical, "what if"/"why" scenario. It certainly was not a block review/unblock check to me. MBisanz ^talk 23:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please help me!

Resolved

 – see below

I reported user:Prester John at Wikiquette alerts (take a look). For his removal of legitimate warnings, his discreetly racist edits and other things. He has since edited my report on several occasions to misrepresent my comments http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AWikiquette_alerts&diff=192345406&oldid=192197739 - He then threatens a Checkuser request against me without suggesting which user he believes I am and why. I believe that PJ is attacking me in order to divert attention from the report I have filed against him and am now of the opinion that PJ's threats warrant harder action than a mere discussion at Wikiquette. It is grossly innapropriate for a user to threaten another just because they have asked for comment on the user's conduct! Help me out here! (Also per WP:RFCU "checkuser is not for fishing") --Capitana (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop forum shopping; so far, it's made its rounds at WQA and at two user talk pages. You made one complaint which contains a lot of 2006 and 2007 vios. which Prester John was blocked for in 2007. You were unsatisfied with the reply I gave at WQA, which you removed and I have restored, given that it is material of your current possible bad faith nominations and possible wikistalking. As a side note, Capitana user also has a current CheckUser request open. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You were correct to take this to WP:ANI. I'm sure an admin can intervene somehow as an objective party and warn the user. My advice would be to warn the user about WP:NPA first, and if it continues, report him/her to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I checked into it, and it appears that the WP:RCU was done in bad faith (none of the requirements or criteria for it have been met) after the filed report to wikiquiette alerts. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 19:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's my point. Where are the admins to help here! PJ is going to get away with this corrupt request! --Capitana (talk) 19:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No, the WP:RCU is legitimate, No bad faith at all. Prester John (talk) 19:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe it will be closed (if not already) because many of the users you claim are Capitana are just so old. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Interesting to note is this diff here. which seemed to confirm that Capitana is Lancastria. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, User:Capitana appears to have been indef blocked. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

By a checkuser, no less. I think we can mark this one resolved. Black Kite 00:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is it okay to use my real name?

Hi,

I would like to know if it's okay with other editors if I use my real name to edit Wikipedia. Jason (talk) 18:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You can edit under any name you like, as long as it is not promotional or offensive. However, you cannot redirect your userpage to an article, and your signature really shouldn't point there either. - Revolving Bugbear 18:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead, I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just one reminder, that you can't uncork the genie. If you use your real name, and things go pear shaped somehow, you cannot magically take back the information about your real name. It's out there. SirFozzie (talk) 19:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Jason Smith, you need to fix your signature to avoid Cross-namespace redirects which are not allowed. Also, given that you claim to be Jason Smith, the actor, you should not edit that article, per Wikipedia's Conflict of Interest guidelines. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 19:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not OK to use your real name to edit Wikipedia if your real name is also the name of someone famous, unless you are willing to prove it by contacting the Wikimedia Foundation office. Try [email protected]. It is also not forbidden to edit an article about you but it is discouraged, please read the conflict of interest policy. Thatcher 19:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, It's not like everyone knows my name. I'm not a household name like Barry Bonds. I was only asking if you're allowed to edit Wikipedia if you have an article about yourself. Jason (talk, profile) 19:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone is allowed to edit, although you might want to steer clear of the article about yourself for various conflict of interests purposes. However, if for whatever reason you think that somehow having you appear by your name here might in the future potentially lead to trouble, as anyone can see anything you do on the internet at any time, you might want to follow Moscow Rules like some of the rest of us do and use a name other than your real one. That is a matter which apparently several other editors have encountered, and I can't know that the same thing might happen to you, but stranger things have happened. By the way, this isn't actually my name either, although "John" is actually my middle name. John Carter (talk) 19:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how true that is, Thatcher. Wikipedia:U#Real_names merely says You should not edit under the name of a well-known living person unless it is your real name, and you either are that person or you make it clear that you are not. I've always assumed the {{userpage otheruse}} on my userpage, making it clear that Tonywalton is not Tony Walton. suffices. If I'm incorrect there let me know and I'll be on to the Foundation straight away to prove my bona fides! Tonywalton ^Talk 09:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You also might want to avoid using your real name if it's anything similar to this name in an XKCD comic, or if you've changed your name to GoldenPalace.com. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 21:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

T-Rex has some words of wisdom on this. But many Wikipedians use their real names, I used to use my full real name as a signature. Haukur (talk) 12:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words of wisdom could equally be taken to mean either "don't use your real name online" or "don't shoot your mouth off online", of course ☺ Tonywalton ^Talk 14:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Seems to have a desired outcome, he restored the good revisions of his talk pages that weren't vandalism, etc., and that seemed to be the main issue. Lets move on. Regards, — Save_Us † 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

FCYTravis was asked by another user to restore the deleted history of his talk page, and refused. I asked him to do the same, as well as remove the indefinite semi-protection from his talk page, and he responded he'd only do it if ArbCom forced him to.[54] Now, he's threatening to leave the project if he isn't allowed to keep both his talk page history deleted and page semi-protected. Threatening to leave the project is not an acceptable reason to allow somebody to violate policy, so I'd like some comments on his behavior. I'm stepping away, as the discussion on his talk page was becoming less and less civil with each post. - auburnpilot talk 19:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Is there any particular revision that you think needs to be resurrected? --TS 19:40, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

All of them. We don't get to delete our talk pages simply because we are admins, then refuse the speedy deletion requests of non-admins. This is a basic policy/guideline issue he is refusing to follow, especially with the protection. - auburnpilot talk 19:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with User:AuburnPilot. User:FCYTravis can undo vandalism just the same as the rest of us and the history is there for all to see. Using admin privileges to actually delete stuff and semi-protect you own talk page looks like a WP:COI. Ros0709 (talk) 20:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It does seem unethical. Blanking ones page as 'archiving' is fine, but deleting it is clearly not the same, as only admins CAN see it, and only an admin who knows what they're looking for will even try to find it. ThuranX (talk) 20:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with AuburnPilot as well. This is particulary bad form on his part. Deleting of the talk page (even as rare as that is) should not be done unless the users aim was to leave Wikipedia for good. In addition to that the indefinite semi-protection is horribly assuming bad faith to IP's on his part, and in fact, not being willing to communicate is something that was brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jeffrey O. Gustafson in the proposed principles. I to request FCYTravis to undelete his talk page and unprotect it (until a legitimate protection is warrented). — Save_Us † 20:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick scan of his user talk page log [55] sees that his old method of archiving was moving the history to sub-pages (which if I'm not mistaken is a satisfactory way of archiving), but he hasn't done that since April of 2006. All history of his talk from then until December 2007 is lost. His talk page log also shows he has his talk page on an almost constant protection, having protected twice in December (the last December protection is still in effect). — Save_Us † 20:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that past revisions of user talk pages are only deleted if the revisions contain personal information, gross violations of WP:BLP, or other unpleasantness of that sort. Editors are welcome to blank their talk pages at any time at their own discretion, but we keep the history. Retaining a transparent history (as much as possible) is doubly important for admins. If an admin departs from Wikipedia, we will blank (and protect, if necessary) that individual's talk page upon request. In my experience, it is very rare for a request to delete a user's talk page history to be granted. Such pages are almost always retained, as it may sometimes be necessary to refer to old discussions in resolving future or ongoing disputes; talk pages contain the record of many editor's contributions, not just those of the nominal owner.

Semiprotection of user talk pages is relatively rare, but not unheard of. If FCYTravis has been the target of a particularly pernicious and persistent troll or vandal, extended semiprotection is a legitimate response. He is still reachable via email, and any concerns about his administrative actions can take place on AN/I.

I'd appreciate it if everyone here could step back from using words like 'unethical' until FCYTravis has a chance to comment. Turning up the drama unnecessarily tends to make people dig in rather than work to resolve an issue. He may well have a very good reason for wanting to clear those revisions from the history. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis already made comments on his talk page regarding this earlier today, some responses include "[unprotection of his talk is] Not going to happen unless ArbCom tells me to - and if that happens, I quit the project.", "I do not want anon IP crap on this page" and "Please go away." Something I must say TenOfAllTrades, is how are IP addresses supposed to e-mail him or know to go to WP:AN/I if they disagree with him. Adminsitrators should be open to comment on their actions, no matter who it is from. I think his intent is very obvious from his comments: "Every time I get anon IP shite here, I have to delete the page and start from scratch again. There's no way I'm going to go through and individually select eleventy squillion good edits to undelete. So the semi-protection that you're complaining about, keeps the talk page history problem that you're complaining about from being worse." That comment is counter-productive to communication that is required from administrators. — Save_Us † 20:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There's nothing 'dramatic' about using the word 'unethical' for his actions. They fit 'unethical' perfectly. He's using his admin buttons to stop contact, refusing to listen to others about it, and gives us a 'my way or i leave' ultimatum. I think someone today said, Users come and go, it's the nature of the project. So let him go. ThuranX (talk) 20:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What is this IP vandalism that he says is so egregious that he has to delete his talk page?! I've gotten plenty of user and talk page vandalism - swastikas and the whole bit - and have never felt the need to delete it. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I'm hoping that he'll offer an explanation. It's possible that there is an IP pestering him for something he doesn't want to discuss in detail because (for example) it's related to his OTRS work. I do hope that he'll be more forthcoming here than he was on his talk page, though. If he has misinterpreted community standards or expectations about administrators' talk pages, that should be hashed out here. If he's being harrassed or there's something else going on, we'd like to know that, too. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing both the deleted talk pages in question and existing policy, unfortunately I am forced to agree that this does indeed appear to be an unethical use of the mop. I also find it rather troubling that when FCYTravis was contacted about the issues presented here, his response was to threaten leaving the project. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, FCYTravis has just left a brief but polite note on my talk page indicating that he has been the victim of extensive off-wiki harrassment, and that he believes that the on-wiki vandalism is related. If that is the case, I can see why he might seem disproportionately troubled by apparently minor childish vandalism. He also mentioned that he is in class at the moment, but will offer a (presumably fuller) response here in a few hours. I urge patience and calm here in the meantime.

Should it be necessary to explore the specifics of Travis' situation, perhaps he and AuburnPilot could select some mutually-acceptable trustworthy individual; I can understand why he wouldn't want to discuss the full details of off-wiki harrassment in an open forum, though I urge him to be as forthcoming as is reasonably possible. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 21:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If immature vandals insist on targeting him I'd say using semi-protect is no problem at all. Undoing that type of vandalism just wastes everyones time. David D. (Talk) 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My full reply is here. I feel the essense of his talk page protection goes the core of the protection policy. The policy states specifically that user talk pages should not be semi-protected indefintely, and it goes on to say that the sole purpose of stopping anonymous editors' contributions with semi-protection when no vandalism occured, is a violation. Again, I sympathize with FCYTravis having trouble with anonymous IP editors comments, but pre-emptive protection when there are innocent IP addresses is wrong. — Save_Us † 22:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

When the preponderance are not innocent I see no issue. There are other talk pages they can interact with him if they are desperate. If in dispute, the article talk page, if they have been warned for something, their own talk page. It's not as if all their avenues for communication have been cut off. David D. (Talk) 22:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

To Save Us 229, we do make exceptions to policy where it is in the best interests of the project as a whole. While semiprotection should not be used "solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users", I would argue that this is not what is happening here. FCYTravis has suggested that the semiprotection is to prevent editing (attacks) by a specific individual who always uses an anonymous IP. The distinction is subtle but important—his intent is to prevent a specific individual from engaging in harrassment (a legitimate aim), that anonymous and newly registered users can't edit his talk page is an unintended and unwanted side effect.

I generally support the policy on semiprotection. I agree that there are strong, sound reasons for not semiprotecting user talk pages indefinitely. I also agree with editors who note that Travis' intemperate responses to unprotection requests have not helped matters here. However, I think that if FCYTravis is able to make a compelling case then there is room for flexibility in this policy. I sincerely hope that all the participants in this discussion can continue to keep cool heads—today seems a day where a lot of good-faith contributors are in a bit of a bad temper. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 22:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

FCYTravis has made a selective restore, so I believe this can be archived or marked resolved. - auburnpilot talk 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. — Save_Us † 00:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Template:X1

caveat - This is a copy and paste from WP:AN. Thought this might have been more appropriate: Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've closed the AN thread an pasted a couple of add'l comments that were there to this thread. --barneca (talk) 21:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A dumb, quick question: It seems templates Template:X1 thru Template:X9 are for people to experiment with. However, some editors (including me, and embarrassingly, including a block) are reverting edits to these templates, and warning the users doing so. The template itself says these templates are for experiementation. So,

• Am I correct in my newfound understanding that people can do whatever they want to these templates?
• Is there a way to make this fact more clear to clueless individuals like myself?
• Wouldn't it make sense for a bot to periodically restore them to their original state, as is done with the sandbox itself?
• An editor with multiple IP's has recently gone thru and blanked all 9 templates and their respective talk pages (my talk page too, but that's probably because I mistakenly blocked him). In spite of the templates' experimental nature, this seems vaguely disruptive to me. But semiprotecting would kind of defeat the purpose. Any ideas (beyond the bot I suggest above)?

Thanks. --barneca (talk) 20:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Wisdom89 has set me straight on some of this, but question about a bot, and question about whether to consider this disruption or not (i.e. blanking all of them), and blockable for repeated occurances, still open. --barneca (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since I became involved in this, I myself reverted the continuous blanking of these templates X1 - X9. It seems user's with a similar string of IPs (e.g [56] have a propensity for blanking the entire template purposefully, and then turning on the users who warn or undo their blanking. [57] What is the appropriate action here? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

My talk page contains two conversations about the disruption of these templates [58] Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) {{x1}} is like Wikipedia:Sandbox, but designed for testing templates. The templates used to have headers that were reset automatically by bots, but the bots seem to have gone missing. The standard practice would have been to revert the template to the version with the headers, but I can't even find it in the history so the bots must have been missing for a while. --ais523 21:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the bot that is supposed to reset those templates every 12 hours? Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 21:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Update This is kind of getting out of hand, several editors are now involved in reverting almost continuous blanking vandalism from multiple IP's on these templates and their talk pages. Does anyone think a rangeblock is needed, and if so, does anyone know how to do one? --barneca (talk) 21:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 151.49.0.0/16 for 3 hours. Let me know if IPs from that range continue vandalizing the templates after the rangeblock expires. Nakon 21:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have done the trick, thanks Nakon. --barneca (talk) 21:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, thanks Nakon - Every IP involved has had that string. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 23:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Trolling behavior by 12.39.2.83

The user in question is engaged largely in trolling or baiting. [59] His contributions to the NIU incident consist mostly of comments designed to confront, and not to further the article. Also, when he's warned about that, he deletes the warning, and goes to the user page to further his baiting. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Your initial characterization of the seige at Waco could possibly have been better worded, true - but I agree, the IP is not justified in editing anyone's remarks as he/she has. I've warned the editor, and further reverting should result in a block of 31 hours or more. I am leaving shortly, and won't have a chance to monitor. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 21:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind, blocked for 31 hours due to disruption and personal attacks. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 22:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I want to point out that I balanced the media-based flippant comment by characterizing the siege as a disaster. It was bad news all around. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's got either a buddy or a sockpuppet removing the warnings on his page. This one (71.229.80.58) has a similar attitude to the blocked one, in his very short list of edits. [60] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I posted a note on 71.229.80.58's talk page advising him that deleting stuff from "other peoples" user pages was against the rules. As expected, he deleted it without comment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"It's on his blood"

talk User:Taulant23 saying "It's on his blood" referring to meMegistias (talk) 22:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

NOw we know who wrote these on my page and many more [61],

[62], [63] [64] [65] Megistias (talk) 22:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what is wrong with my blood and why i am an inferior race person or whatever.Should i kill myself now? jump of the window?Megistias (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you could ask |Future Perfect to speak to Taulant about lack of civility in that post on FP's talkpage. Note however that all the anonymous edits you quote are from an ISP in Sweden, whereas Taulant23 claims to be in LA, California. Tonywalton ^Talk 22:56, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye.Megistias (talk) 22:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Bobby Robson

Um ... take a look at the (Main page featured) article, the penises aren't going away, I have no idea what to do, or where else to get the problem fixed. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Still there... AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also on Ronald Koeman, Jan Wouters, Guus Hiddink, Eric Gerets, George Hardwick, Franz Binder, Sef Vergoossen, Aad de Mos, Bram Appel, Hans Kraay, Kees Rijvers, Thijs Libregts, and it shows up in old versions of the pages. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 23:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine now. AlexiusHoratius (talk) 23:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wonder what happened? Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something about the PSV Eindhoven manager's template I think ... Neıl ☎ 23:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the only way so many articles were hit so quickly. Luckily, the template's been fixed and the user who did it has been blocked. NeoChaosX (talk, walk) 23:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes - see [66]. Fixed and the miscreant blocked by KurtShapedBox. I've protected the template. I thought someone was supposed to protect all the templates on main page articles. This was there for almost 30 minutes. Neıl ☎ 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I should have figured something like that. Thanks. Maximillion Pegasus (talk) 23:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the text of the article to my userspace and have protected with cascading enabled. This should stop any more vandalism to the article today. Also, you may want to check out the MediaWiki:Bad image list. Nakon 23:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Religion in China

Resolved

 – Article protected for two weeks to give everyone a chance to resolve the issues collaboratively. Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit war in the main article of Religion in China between pro-Buddhist and anti non-Christian religions/pro-Christian and pro-Secularist Saimdusan. If you don't mind, block this article for a week at least! Angelo De La Paz (talk) 23:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

No doubt I protected the wrong version, but it is at least secured. For future reference, please see WP:RFPP for these sorts of requests. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Omg... I'm not pro Christian! Saimdusan Talk|Contribs 06:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Cemal Gürsel needs more eyes

There are a number of questionable images located at Cemal Gürsel. However, there is a particularly mean and nasty user (different IP addresses but it's one guy) who refuses to discuss in any sensible manner what exactly they are doing. We just need more eyes there. I pointed out some images to User:Rettetast, which may have issues. He listed some at WP:PUI. So far, we'd had 81.131.50.14, 213.122.42.250, and 71.184.9.231 go after them (and then the user pages in response). Attempts to communicate have been less than fruitful, to be nice. More eyes would be helpful, as the last one decided to respond by tagging legitimate images for deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

IP Vandalism of userspace

Over the past few minutes, myself and others have been reverting similar and somewhat disgusting vandalism from a variety of IPs to User talk:Jack Merridew and User:Doctorfluffy Here are the diffs:

• 00:58, 19 February 2008
• 01:04, 19 February 2008
• 01:51, 19 February 2008
• 01:53, 19 February 2008
• 01:58, 19 February 2008
• 02:09, 19 February 2008
• 02:11, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008
• 02:13, 19 February 2008

Some of these contain threats. I think protections of the pages and blocks of the IPs may be helpful.

Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like others took care of it. What is it with these new mean and nasty vandals? I remember when the worst a vandal would do is write like "poop" on your page. Ah, for the good old days. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you've been here since October 2004 you must remember Mr. Treason (that's one of the few surviving archives). Always good for a chuckle, if you're easily amused. See you in Trenton.  :) Antandrus (talk) 02:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like another 4chan sweep. Seriously guys: suicide. Consider it. HalfShadow (talk) 02:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is more on this at Wikipedia:Abuse reports/8x Ranges. I expect that it is Grawp related. Cheers, Jack Merridew 09:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Knight (filmmaker)

A recent AfD discussion on Christopher Knight has gotten out of hand, with one editor repeating wild accusations about myself and another editor not even involved with this discussion - said allegations were originally posted by a WP:SPA. These accusations are provided without any kind of proof, although the editor in question claims that they come from the subject of the article in question. Regardless of the basis of the argument between the subject of the article and the editor in question (a Google search provides no verifiable evidence), this posting clearly violates the rules on no personal attacks, and I ask that the offending material be removed by an administrator and SChadwell84 be warned about posting similar material in the future. MikeWazowski (talk) 02:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Archtransit desysopped

See WP:AN#Archtransit desysopped.

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 02:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fixed link--Jac16888 (talk) 02:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Lilkunta unblock request

See past discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive354#Lilkunta requests unblock, promises better behavior.

Lilkunta (talk · contribs) has e-mailed me (directly, not via Wikipedia e-mail) asking for additional assistance. From the past AN/I discussion (a little less than a month ago) it was discussed why Lilkunta was blocked, but little to no discussion regarding a trial unblock. Behavior was the main reason, not the font mess, but even with that I would like to ask that this situation be reviewed and a trail unblock be granted. Given that blocking, let alone indefinite blocking, is a last resort, I believe a trail unblock after almost nine months is a reasonable request. -- Ned Scott 04:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why we can't give them another try, but if the behavior starts up again it will have the same result. DarthGriz98 05:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Attempted Outing of Wikipedia Editor User:Griot by Tawdry Tabloid Journalist

Comments on the Article

(this was posted by Griot as an additional subsection, originally copied from comments on User talk:Griot#Looks like you've been set up) —Random832 16:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was disappointed to read the article, having talked with her by phone and e-mail. I had nothing to tell her about you at all, nor any of the articles that she was interested in. —Whig (talk) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

We talked for awhile but she did not use anything that we discussed. I don't want to publish details inasmuch as I asked her to maintain the privacy of my real name and she has honored that. I have had no involvement in editing articles pertaining to Ralph Nader nor have I had any prior dealings with you. —Whig (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I exchanged some correspondence with her, but she lost interest when I wouldn't discuss any individual editors (in particular, Griot.) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Original post

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

Submitted by: User:Griot

Last week, I was the subject of a tabloid article in the SF Weekly called "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco" in which author Mary Spicuzza (Wikiname: Marynega) tried to “out” me and obtain my real name. The article explains how she employed her newspaper’s IT systems manager “to work some of his computer nerd magic,” presumably to link my IP address with my name. She then, on the basis of information from the IT manager, “hung out in Griot’s neighborhood” hoping to locate me. Was she trolling with a WIFI detection device looking for my IP address and home location? It’s hard to believe she would just walk around at random looking for me, because of course she doesn’t know what I look like.

Using the resources of a newspaper to unmask a person’s online identity is unconscionable, but there is even more to this tawdry episode. Mary Spicuzza subtitled her story “The Edit Wars of San Francisco.” However, Mary Spicuzza was moved to write her article not by disagreements at Wikipedia about San Francisco topics, but by something altogether more personal, as I will explain.

The cyber-vendetta. Mary Spicuzza wrote, “I first learned about (Griot) during a conversation with my sister, Jeanne... (He) seemed to be on a no-holds-barred campaign to delete her page after he blamed her for making dubious edits to Ralph Nader's page.” Mary Spicuzza doesn’t say that the “page” in question was in fact a Wikipedia article about Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. Another editor nominated this article for deletion on notability grounds; I was one of 16 editors (out of 19) who voted to remove the article from Wikipedia. An article about Spicuzza’s company, Seasons & a Muse, Inc., was also removed. Mary Spicuzza also doesn’t mention that her sister Jeanne was banned on two occasions from Wikipedia for sock-puppeteering at Ralph Nader articles, each time for six months.

After Jeanne Marie Spicuzza’s “page” was removed from Wikipedia, another Spicuzza family member — she describes herself as “21 year old female,” where Jeanne Marie is nearly 40 — began keeping a MySpace blog about me. In her latest entry, she describes herself as “Accomplished,” gives a link to her aunt’s (sister’s?) SF Weekly article, and pronounces it “Awesome!” (The Wikip spamblock feature does not allow My Space links, but trust me.)

(In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister, it should be noted that Jeanne Marie claims to be unacquainted with Wikipedia. In the Comments section to her sister’s SF Weekly article she wrote, “I do not participate on Wikipedia, nor do I use it as a source” (see comment #10, dated Feb. 13, 2008). However, this statement contradicts author Mary Spicuzza’s claim to have heard about me first from her sister Jeanne; moreover, the quotes Mary Spicuzza used in her article show an understanding of my Wikipedia dealings with Jeanne Marie that Mary could not have acquired on her own.)

The hit is in. On Jan. 23 of this year, Mary Spicuzza joined Wikipedia under the name Marynega and wrote this invitation on my Talk page: “My name is Mary Spicuzza and I’m a reporter with the SF Weekly. I’m working on an article about Wikipedia and I’d love to speak with you. May I give you a call?” Given my history with the Spicuzza family, I let it slide. Next day, Mary Spicuzza wrote invitations to other Wikipedia editors, several of whom, I noticed, had had disagreements with me. She wrote six more times to my Talk page asking for an interview, five more than she wrote anyone else. Never did she mention her connection to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza. She was counting on me not recognizing her name. She only wanted my perspective, she said, “on how San Francisco is represented in the encyclopedia.”

The author clearly misrepresented herself, and it was easy to see why. Mary Spicuzza wanted to make me the subject of a tabloid article, something along the lines of: "At last I tracked down Griot. But should I tell him that I was Jeanne's sister? I pitied him, I really did. Still, he deserved what was coming to him. And I had tracked him this far. It would be a shame not to let him have it. But still, maybe I should wait a bit longer..." The author has trouble distinguishing between investigative journalism and theater.

False portrait of the encyclopedia. Wikipedia editors who manage to slog through “Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco” will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.” She holds these views because she sees Wikipedia through her sister’s eyes and because she deliberately sought out people like her sister who had had run-ins with me. If Mary Spicuzza had looked objectively at my work on Wikipedia, she would have seen that 99 percent of what I’ve done here consists of copy editing to make articles easier to read. But Mary Spicuzza had a cyber-vendetta to pursue; her sister’s cyber-honor was at stake.

It gets even weirder. In a very odd twist, Mary Spicuzza’s article quotes her own niece (sister?) SeeknDistroi, who wrote her by e-mail, "Yeah, Griot. ... You disagree with him, he harasses you, you get blocked." I know that SeeknDistroi is a Spicuzza because her Oct. 17 entry at the Matt Gonzalez Talk page is identical to her Oct. 17 entry on her MySpace blog (“Investigation of edit history and User:Griot contributions reveal bad faith. Documentary to follow (how's that for a B-movie, Griot? Or should I say Matt?”). Mary Spicuzza quoted SeeknDistroi, her own niece (sister?), for her tabloid article about me, the evil Griot. How’s that for keeping to journalism ethics and standards?

Right about the time Mary Spicuzza was “hanging out in my neighborhood” looking for me, she wrote my Talk page to tell me what I suspected all along: “Hey Griot, I just wanted to give you a heads up — my editor and I have decided to make you the main focus of my newspaper article. Best, Mary.” We exchanged several messages after that, with me asking “Why me?” I wanted her to come clean about her connection to Jeanne-Marie Spicuzza and the Spicuzza blogger who have been harassing me for six months, but she didn’t do it. Finally, I wrote her a longer message by e-mail explaining that I knew who she was. I copied this message to her editor and managing editor, believing they should know the true motive behind her story. I told her, “Next Christmas Santa Claus is going to put a large lump of coal in your cyberstalking.”

Now a disclosure: Last week I was banned for one week for sock-puppeteering. I would like to apologize to the Wikipedia community for this. I can tell you with complete certainty that it will never happen again because I am not going to edit at Wikipedia anymore. This place makes me tired.

Where to now? I don’t think it matters to user Marynega (Mary Spicuzza) if she is punished at Wikipedia; she joined only to research her article. It doesn’t matter to me either whether she is punished or banned. For me, the larger questions that remained to be answered are:

1. Mary Spicuzza mentions interviewing members of the Wikimedia Foundation (she doesn't, of course, report what they said, as Wikipedia wasn't the real subject of her article). Did they talk about me with her? And if they did, do they have some kind of policy for talking about editors?
2. How safe is a Wikipedian's online identity? Does Mary Spicuzza's "magical computer nerd" have a chance of finding anyone's identity?
3. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else pursuing an edit war off Wikipedia, in this case onto the pages of a print newspaper?
4. What are the ethics of a journalist or anyone else misrepresenting themselves on Wikipedia for their own purposes? For example, should someone researching a topic be discouraged from registering if his/her only goal is to conduct private research by interviewing editors?

Documents of interest to this matter:

• The article: "Wikipedia Idiots: The Edit Wars of San Francisco"
• Petition to delete the Jeanne Marie Spicuzza article from Wikipedia: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeanne Marie Spicuzza
• My Talk page (I'd like to get people's take on this): Griot's User Talk
• Tom Walsh and Will Harper: SF Weekly editors

Ummm - I'm not sure how this ties in here, but I just completed this checkuser request tonight - Alison ^❤ 07:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Wikipedia editors ...will not recognize the encyclopedia. In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Very recognisable. Sounds like accurate reporting to me. Relata refero (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Only if you have an axe to grind. did you actually read this hatchet-job, or are you simply projecting? --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I did. What's your point? Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

While I find the account above a little overheated, its basic facts are true and disturbing: a journalist decided to use her position and the resources of her paper to carry on an on-Wiki battle -- by stalking, personal attacks, and, in effect, the real-life equivalent of sockpuppeting by the quoting of a phony and misrepresented witness -- on behalf of her own sister. And it's hard to avoid the conclusion that it was done deliberately and with malice aforethought. This is a textbook lapse of basic journalistic ethics and conflict-of-interest guidelines, and her editors, perhaps looking for yet another gotcha story, fell for it.

In fairness to Jeanne Marie Spicuzza, author Mary Spicuzza’s sister... You don't need to bend over backwards to do that, given her long track regard of sockpuppetry -- which she's denied even when caught red-handed -- and ban evasions. Besides, given that she's posted at SF Weekly's website, she's left behind her IP number with them, and they can compare -- if the paper's management and editors have the slightest shred of intellectual honesty -- that IP number with edits made by the same IP number on Wikipedia. For their covenience, if they're reading this, they can just replace "XXX" with the IP number and see where it leads.

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/XXX
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:XXX

Betcha I know what they find. --Calton | Talk 09:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You seem to think that they'll care that their "investigative journalist" used a couple of sockpuppets to get a good story. Sometimes I wonder what happens to people's memories of RW ethical judgments once they spend enough time on here. Relata refero (talk) 09:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Having actual real-world experience of journalism, yeah, I do know that they'll care -- at least about the appearance -- of ethics, especially when the evidence in shoved in their faces, and I can easily dig up examples to back me up. Other than your content-free cynical affect of "the real world", what else do you wonder about? --Calton | Talk 10:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You missed the point, of course. The point was that standard journalistic ethics hardly cover the avoidance of sockpuppetry in order to get a story. (I can dig up examples of deception that are considerably worse. So much for "content-free".) Ours do, but we have different aims.

Other things I wonder about are available elsewhere on this board, particularly the persistence of incivility among some of our longer-term accounts. Relata refero (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue of whether the Foundation has a policy on talking about editors is worth asking them about. We've had a couple of cases that suggest they don't have one, and I think it's needed, not only when it comes to talking about editors but article subjects too. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 11:51, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again, Outing is highly dangerous and will get a wikipedian killed or seriously injured. Also the foundation has a moral duty to protect its editors and atleast in Europe a legal duty to do just that. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 15:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For reference see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Indefinite block of Griot David D. (Talk) 16:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating. Ex-user Griot writes "In Mary Spicuzza’s rendering, Wikipedia is a free-for-all of constant edit wars, where editors try to embarrass one another and “violations of Wikiquette are rampant.”" Which pretty accurately sums up what Griot and his dozen or more sock puppets' contribution to the project has been in the course of his residence here. Read through his talk page--he was playing the Mary Spicuzza bit for all he could, blowing it into a major drama, writing volumes when a simple "I don't wish to speak with you" message to Spicuzzacould have ended it nicely. But noooooooooo, he has to turn his user page into an extended onanistic rant, providing ample fuel for Spicuzzi's fires all by himself. All the while lashing out at others rather than take responsibility for what his own bad behavior brought upon his own self. Outed? He outed himself. Well at least we won't be hearing his misogynistic rants anymore; "tawdry journalist"--how mid-20th century! Although in his latest email to me he informed me "It's been a long time since you got laid" and was kind enough to call me "a dried up [bleep]" (ohh, I'm sorry, is that "outing the poor little fella?") Boodlesthecat (talk) 16:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

"Outed? He outed himself" No he didn't, but again i to am not going to defend his appalling behavior. What i want you and this journalist to understand that not every wikipedia editor lives in a nice safe western democracy. Other editors like me edit very controversial topics like Terrorism or Democracy, both which could lead an editor getting hurt if shes in the wrong part of the world. I'm glad this Griot is perm banned, sounds like hes been very disruptive, but there is a bigger issue at stake here. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 21:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hypno, I agree entirely with your sentiment. However, I don't think it applies to this case, in which the purported victim is just a boy behaving badly crying wolf and hiding behind a charge of "outing." In fact, from what I recall of the article, all of the info about Griot was gleaned from the public Wiki archives of Griot's own seemingly uncontrollable compulsion to engage in bombast; and I assume the SFN's own bombastic claim of sleuthery via IP address was itself gleaned from Wiki edit histories. Yes of course there are important issues here, but in this case, methinks the "outed" [sic] editor protesteth too much. Was it an unethical use of journalistic resources? I'll leave that for the paper to worry over; the article provided full disclosure in the article itself, and the authors trickiness in getting griot's attention is as old as the journalism game and pretty tame. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm hardly going to stick my neck out to defend Griot as a constructive encylopedist, given his recently uncovered farm of sockpuppets and his long history of combativeness. Still, the most rational explanation of events here is that someone carried a Wikipedia-based grudge against him to the point of using the resources of a major publication to try to belittle and "out" him. Does anyone, anywhere, still have a sense of perspective? The fact that the editors of SF Weekly went along with this is puzzling, at best. Two conclusions: while anyone is free to say anything to the press, it might be worthwhile to have some sort of common-sense policy about what the Foundation will say about specific editors. Secondly, I used to wonder which was the lamer free paper: SF Weekly or the Bay Guardian (formerly a neck-in-neck race). Now there's a clear winner. MastCell ^Talk 18:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Black history daily

66.174.79.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and Special:Linksearch/*.blackhistorydaily.com. Do we care? Guy (Help!) 07:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

For context, the BBC's linked, and also the NYT and the Globe and Mail. I don't think we need any more North American ones.

About a single user adding it to all those months, yes, assume its spamming. Relata refero (talk) 08:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also sympatico.ca, whihc I think is unnecessary - the others at least attempt to be global in scope; do we need "January 1 in Uzbekistan" style external links added for every country and every date? I'd say not. Guy (Help!) 12:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• See also 66.174.79.234 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Guy (Help!) 09:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There might be some more IPs. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also Bradhemmings (talk · contribs). Suggest blacklisting the site. • Anakin ^(talk) 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Lemmey

Resolved

 – no action required

There are some facts about this user.

1. He/she is continuously removing non English sources from from the article International reaction to the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence despite opposition from other editors.
2. He/she is blanking his/her talk page after anyone posts a message with a edit summary "welcomes". When he/she was told not to blank non-English sources in his/her talk page, he/she blankes talk page[67], then I undid his/her edit[68], he/she again blanked the page[69]. I again reverted[70], this time he used the edit summary "Kun üstünlüğü ile evrensel insan haklar"[71]. At present he/she is blocked by User:Nick for edit-warring. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• There's absolutely nothing wrong with blanking warning messages off a talk page - it is assumed that the user has therefore read them. It is how they act upon the warnings that is important. No admin action is required here. Black Kite 10:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hammerandclaw

I need some newbie admin advice on my first potential block for incivility rather than simple vandalism. Yesterday, User:Hammerandclaw was deleting portions of user talk pages at User talk:Tony Sidaway and User talk:Carcharoth, in theory due to some issue with his broadband service. User:Nh.jg‎ warned him about this, and Hammerandclaw reacted poorly, being rather uncivil on User talk:Nh.jg, vandalizing User:Carcharoth, and claiming that User:Nh.jg has made now-deleted racist comments on someone's talk page. I've looked, admittedly not at every single edit, and have found nothing of the sort. I noticed this while watching recent changes, and left a message asking him to stop, and that further disruption would be met with a block. His reply to me wasn't very civil, but I don't care. He later emailed me, explaining the supposed technical difficulties, and I replied on his talk page. Meanwhile, Nh.jg had evidently had enough, and has retired. Hammerandclaw's response was this: [72]. My questions:

• That final hahahahahaha seems over the top after his warning yesterday, and I consider it worth a 24 hr block. Yes? No?
• I'm unclear whether, due to being the subject of some of his incivility, I've somehow become "involved", and in a bad position to issue a block. I don't think so, but better safe than sorry.
• I'm unclear on whether, in addition, to somehow push for a retraction (or I suppose, verification) of his comments about Nh.jg before lifting the block, but that seems heavy-handed. Still, at this point he appears to have driven someone off the project.

Any and all advice appreciated. I will notify him of this thread. --barneca (talk) 11:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I refuse to accept this, User: Nh.jg made several racist comments on the user page of an IP user, and has shown poor conduct towards me in an e-mail he sent, hugely insulting. There is no way you can block me without blocking him, but then he's retired, too scared to face the consequences for his actions, because he knows he will be blocked. Honestly check his edits. It's a disgrace.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not an admin, but I suggest based on what you say above, barneca, including a "hahaha.." posted about 4 hours ago on the page of a retired user, that a 24 hour block would be reasonable. On the other hand, without having read every word of your comments on the user's talk page, perhaps your previous warning had not been sufficiently strongly worded, and perhaps the user has stopped the incivilities after receiving notice of the existence of this AN/I thread, so unless you consider some of the subsequent remarks by the user to still be sufficiently out of line to warrant blocking, (some of them look rather angry; I'd have to study the context) perhaps it may also be reasonable not to block at this time but to keep an eye on the user and block if they do anything else out of line. I would suggest choosing a length of time for the block and letting the block expire after that length of time, or possibly earlier if the user shows remorse etc.; not blocking indefinitely until a specific behaviour is exhibited. I believe that's the usual procedure and that this is not an unusual case. Re when you start to count as being involved: difficult to say, but people should not be allowed to disqualify admins by swearing at them. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)"Remorse" doesn't matter - refraining from unconstructive behaviour does. And blocks are not punitive, they're to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. If there were any evidence that Hammerandclaw's (apparently) completely spurious allegations had caused Nh.jg to retire then I would say an immediate block would be warranted, however there isn't. I'd agree that keeping a close eye on Hammerandclaw's interations with other editors would be good, with the possibility of mandatory mentoring if incivility of this nature continues. Tonywalton ^Talk 14:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I looked at NH.jg's edits and failed to see any evidence whatsoever of what you claim. Diffs, please. I can, however, see a good deal of evidence that you have but a passing familiarity with WP:CIV (diffs above, by Barneca) Tonywalton ^Talk 14:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Reply to Hammerandclaw: Incivilities against yourself are not an excuse for incivilities you commit. (I.e. "two wrongs don't make a right.") You might want to provide diff links here, showing the alleged incivilities by the other user; but that would probably be pointless anyway, since as I said they would not be an excuse for your behaviour, and I doubt anybody is going to block a retired user. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, buddy, I didn't swear at him did I? No, I didn't. Nh.jg's retirement is completely fake, he's just operating under sockpuppets, and will continue his racism in no time at all. Besides you can't do squat, you have no more powers that I do, so if yoou think I'm gonna keel to you...get real.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

With the additional clue that this "racist comment" was on an IP talk page, I've now gone to the trouble of reviewed every single one of hn.jg's contribs to IP talk pages, and all of them are simple standardized templates. This is a blatantly false allegation, and I can't imagine how it could be a good faith mistake. The civility is a concern, but I find nasty allegations of racism completely beyond acceptable behavior. 24 hours now seems quite short, especially considering the fact that the false allegations are continuing to be made. --barneca (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So you're gonna block me are you? I've had it with you Barneca, go get a job, and help out your racist buddy boy.--Hammerandclaw (talk) 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked for 48 hours. Completely unacceptable. Black Kite 14:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you, Black Kite, I was still hesitant to do it myself. I'm curious though, in your opinion, it would have been OK for me to have done the blocking, right? Otherwise, you just curse at all the admins and you're immune from blocking... --barneca (talk) 14:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think so. Obvious failure of NPA and CIV towards you isn't the same as blocking someone who you've been in conflict with over an article, especially when it's as blatant and public as that. Black Kite 14:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Barneca, you showed remarkable patience and good judgment here. I would certainly have supported you blocking Hammerandclaw, and wa about to block him myself, but Black Kite got there first. Gwernol 14:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Off the record: You don't have to take that shit. On the record: You DON'T have to take that shit. Seriously, no one is going to overturn a block you give if someone attacks you personally. Once it degrades to what this guy did, you are completely free to block them yourself. You don't have to wait for another admin to notice. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to Tonywalton down here so it doesn't get lost; yes, it appears Nh.jg left specifically because of this: [73]. I've left a note on his talk page and hope he chooses to return, and in retrospect, wish I'd noticed the racism allegation sooner. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well spotted! I'd missed that one. Well handled, Barneca. Agreed 100% with Jayron32, by the way. Once H&C came up with the slaggngs off and "nyah nyah you can't touch me" here, of all places, where you are guaranteed to find admins, I was reaching for the block button myself but Black Kite beat me to it. 86.153.31.90 (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)Tonywalton ^Talk 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Replying to everyone else: Thanks much for the advice. I thought I wasn't "in conflict", but doesn't hurt to check. --barneca (talk) 14:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't think the "legal threat" was intended as such, the phrase used "report you for harassment" can mean reporting to (for example) this noticeboard, rather than to the police. —Random832 16:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hammerandclaw seems to me to be a new and unacculturated user. I don't think anything he has done is unreasonable, although it has tripped some wires here and I don't think that is unreasonable either. I ask for patience. He and I are engaged in a dialog and if I give up I'll let you know.

I would like those who have blocked him to consider their reasons. In particular, the claim that he has made any kind of legal threat seems to me quite inexplicable. --TS 17:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

As I stated on my talk page, I would not consider it wheel-warring if TS lifted my block on this user, provided he is convinced it would be appropriate to do so. I think there should be a consensus for such an unblock, but again, if TS is convinced, that satisfies me, the current blocking admin. --Yamla (talk) 17:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Though as the original blocking admin, I will say that I believe the 48 hour ban should at least be served out. He certainly deserved that. Black Kite 18:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

After fully disproving the racism allegation, and noting his response to, well, everyone, here and on his talk page, I was set to block for a week without considering the "legal threat" aspect, which I agree is probably a misread. I don't ask for, or want, any kind of apology, and I'm not trying to play some "look who's winning now" power game, but I'm just frankly opposed to an unblock until there is an apology to Nh.jg, whether or not he is under your tutelege. If that happens, I'm still slightly uncomfortable with, but would not oppose, an unblock after the original 48 hours is up. But really, shouldn't there be consequences to that kind of nteraction with other human beings? That "aw, come on, I'm sorry" thing he did after the second unblock request strikes me as nothing more than seeing if he can eek a little more fun out of us. --barneca (talk) 17:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Update: the user has now apologised. Thoughts now? Woody (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess when I demand someone apologize, I can't complain that it doesn't sound real. It doesn't, but whatever. Unfortunately, Nh.jg isn't around to accept it, but I guess, whatever again. There probably was never a legal threat, the mysterious broadband problem has cleared up right on time, so I'm grudgingly OK with a reduction back to the original 48 hours, although I will make a final note for the record that his unacceptable behavior has continued right up until 10 minutes before the apology. --barneca (talk) 19:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good block, unacceptable behavior by Hammerandclaw. If he's apologized, however perfunctorily, and an experienced Wikipedian (Tony Sidaway) is working with him, then I think letting the block run for 48 hours is the best approach. It should be abundantly clear that this editor has used up most of his allotted patience, and that a recurrence of these sort of issues will result in a longer or possibly indefinite block. MastCell ^Talk 19:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, and I'd still love to hear the details (details, not "my f**** broadband won't process it", whatever that's supposed to mean) of the apparent problem that obliges an editor to delete things. Hammerandclaw, if what you meant was "I screwed up and deleted something by mistake" then an admission is fine. Assuming good faith, if there's a real problem with an ISP, browser or (unlikely as it seems) broadband provider then it should be reported as a bug. I'd also add that your comments here will probably have led to your subsequent behaviour, if the block is reduced, being quite extensively watched. Tonywalton ^Talk 20:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Inflammatory behaviour

User Cherso made these edits on Feb 17, 2008, in a timespan of 30 minutes. I find that these edits weren't made in good faith:
19:48, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[74] 'Today (february 17, 2008) for the first time since WWII a piece of Yugoslavia breaks away from the Slav control!! KOSOVO IS INDEPENDENT ! I hope soon other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow....may be even my CHERSO, or Istria or Zara....who knows" ??????? On his userpage. Inflammatory statement. Territorial expansionism.
20:11, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[75]. "Independence of Kosovo...... what a beautiful day for the non-slav (and even Italian) Irredentism!)". ????? Comment on of the edit on the article Italia irredenta. Glorifying of irredentism ??? Non-Slav - what does this mean, that every cr*p is can be good unless it comes from Slavs?? Are we going to tolerate this?
20:24, 17 February 2008, Cherso wrote:
[76]. "! BTW, "Enjoy" the independence of Kosovo! Finally, the Slavs have lost some territories in ex-Yugoslavia since WWII and withdraw from Albanian Kosovo.....As you can see, the legacy of your Tito (with his ethnic cleansing) is starting to disappear...""??? On my talkpage. With this one he obviously tried to taunt me. That's inflammatory behaviour.
Am I wrong or he has bad attitudes towards Slavs? Please, make conclusions for yourselves what kinds of attitudes are these. From my experiences with him, this looks like anti-Slav attitude.
As you see, he gradually shows that ("...breaks away from Slav control... I hope other parts of ex-Yugoslavia will follow", "beautiful day for non-Slav irredentism", "finally, the Slavs have lost some territories????????????").
These are heavily inflammatory edits and even worse. Something must be done. Sincerely, Kubura (talk) 14:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

If you're opposed to people abusing their Wikipedia user pages to make divisive political statements that have nothing whatever to do with Wikipedia, then why does your own user page say "This user is against the joining of Croatia to the EU" ? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 14:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Because this is how nationalist conflicts work on Wikipedia. You continue to call the kettle black, hoping that someone will grab the bait and block the opposite party of the dispute. EconomicsGuy (talk) 14:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My favorite is always when I end up having to block the original poster because they were the one initiating things. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats at Hashim Thaçi

71.254.249.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) removed what appears to be sourced negative information about Kosovo's prime minister here. The edit summary included a legal threat that implied that the IP is associated with Thaçi's office. I checked the sources, reverted, and left a talk page warning. Thought I should report it here since this is a contentious topic. // Chris ^{(complaints)•(contribs)} 14:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good call. The IP has not re-asserted the legal threat since the warning, so a block MAY not be necessary at this point, but please keep an eye on it. If the problematic behavior continues after the warning has been given, let us know and we will escalate to the next step. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hacking

I'm not sure whether this is the right place for this. Someone seems to have added a non-existent page to my watchlist. How much else of the system is open to hacking? Peter jackson (talk) 15:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:VPT is the right place to go. Nakon 15:52, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• You can save your time, though. Check the article histories; what probably happened was that an article on your list was moved to a new name (perhaps by a vandal) and then moved back, and the new name remains on your watchlist. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Do you mean I should check the history for every article on my list? Is that saving time? Peter jackson (talk) 17:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have anything to worry about, this is just the result of pagemove vandalism. If you really want to find out, go to the history page and click "view logs for this page" to see if there was a bad move somewhere. east.718 at 17:46, February 19, 2008

Let's ban Ln of x

Resolved

 – [77] - was that so hard? We shouldn't have wasted so many bytes on a simple vandal. —Random832 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ln of x (talk · contribs) is a particularly abusive sockpuppeteer. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x and Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Ln of x. The user has a long history of abuse stretching back more than six months. The user is continuing to set up sockpuppet accounts as recently as a few minutes ago, with Entershikarirules (talk · contribs) and Ilovepunk (talk · contribs). The vandalism is always similar to this, describing someone as cute and cuddly. I seriously doubt given the long history of abuse that any admin would unblock this user; as a result, they are defacto banned already. Let's make that official. --Yamla (talk) 16:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

What benefit is there to "make that official" besides bureaucracy for its own sake? The edits are pure vandalism, it's not like anyone's going to suggest not reverting them. —Random832 16:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

A ban is virtually impossible to overturn, an indef block isn't. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We can add the user to the list of banned users, and add a ban notice to the user page. --Yamla (talk) 17:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Support ban — Rlevse • Talk • 17:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• I'm going to oppose this in principle as there is absolutely no reason to hold an in-depth community ban discussion for a blatant vandal. WP:DENY, WP:RBI, etc. —Random832 17:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Incidentally, any listing for this "user" belongs on WP:LTA, not WP:BANNED. —Random832 19:06, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Why on earth bother? Ln of X is a blatant vandal, nobody will ever unblock them. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
• Strong support ban I have encountered this vandal multiple times before, have blocked several of their socks, and have been trolled by them at least once. They have caused nothing but disruption to Yamla, to various other users, and numerous articles. I think a ban is appropriate here. Acalamari 20:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm putting a stop to this before we waste any more time on process for its own sake. —Random832 20:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Further explanation: A community ban is _defined_ as "no admin is willing to unblock" - the discussion/process stuff came later. By any reasonable definition, this "user" (if you can call him a user) is already banned. So, this whole exercise is pointless. We can revisit this if his status as being banned is ever disputed (but it's unlikely it will be). —Random832 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Irony and ArbCom enforcement

Can someone other than myself deal with this? As a result of this AE report I placed Radical-Dreamer (talk · contribs) on a variety of editing restrictions per WP:ARBPIA. As you can see here, these restrictions included civility supervision. His first comment: this gem, aimed at yours truly. I'm unwilling to block, due to the fact that the comment was directed at myself - can someone else please decide on appropriate action? Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the comment certainly was uncalled for, but I'm having a hard time distinguishing whether it's incivility, or just minor disgruntlement. He should certainly be warned about it, though, if he keeps it up, a block might be warranted. Justin^(Gmail?)_(u) 17:11, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I think an accusation of abuse of admin tools is incivil, and someone on ArbCom civility parole ought to be more careful. Is WP:AE backed up, or should this report be directed there? Avruch ^T 17:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's certainly an assumption of bad faith. Read the terms of the civility supervision - you'll see those aren't permitted. ArbCom restrictions are supposed to be enforced fairly stringently. I brought this here, as opposed to AE, to get a fast response.. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm inclined to give him a one-time pass to vent his frustration about being called on his disruptive editing, which he's just expended; and no more leniency from here on. But a block would certainly not be out of place, either, under the circumstances. The tactic of accusing an admin enforcing policy of being motivated by anti-[Israeli/Palestinian] bias says alot about the accuser, and it's really tired on this particular set of articles. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it's not a "tactic" if the admin really does happen to be biased. (And I'm not talking about Moreschi, who I don't know from anything.) 6SJ7 (talk) 21:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image on Birth certificate

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Content issue. No admin action required. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

---

The article for Birth certificate previously had an image (Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG) of a Russian birth certificate. The image was deleted due to its improper licensing and subsequently removed from the birth certificate page, based on the fact that its fair use claims by the uploader David Shankbone, who has a history of adding inappropraite photos to Wikipedia, were invalid and that its use in Birth certificate was unnecessary and added very little valid information to the article's content. The uploader has reverted my removal of the image and added it back into the article. The uploader is adding this image for novelty purposes, as it allegedly depicts the birth certificate of a pornographic actor, although this is unverified, as is the claim that the document is a birth certificate at all. The image is not beneficial to the article at all, as there are very few Russian-readers who visit the Engligh-language article for Birth certificate, and the remaining viewers will not understand the document's content. Furthermore, because the article has no section on Russian birth certificates, the image has no place on the article as there is no text in the article referring to Russian birth certificates. This further invalidates the user's claim that the image's use in the article is fair use. Please review this issue and advise at your earliest convenience. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Image:Russian Birth Certificiate of Michael Lucas.JPG doesn't need any kind of fair use justification. It is freely licensed under the GFDL. Have you tried using the talk page or contacting David Shankbone directly before bringing this here? --Onorem♠Dil 17:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your choice of a link to show his "history" of adding inappropriate photos is odd. If I remember correctly, his photos were largely supported in that discussion. --Onorem♠Dil 17:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The uploader was informed. The image was nominated for deletion, but all history of that issue has mysteriously erased itself from my contribution history. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the image was speedied - but only because an identical version of the same image was available from commons, and not because of any fault in licensing or origin. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the original reason for deletion, the main issue here is that the image does not currently contribute to the article at all. If David Shankbone has sufficient knowledge on Russian birth registration to add a section to the article, I welcome his addition. However, there are no sources to indicate that this image is actually that of a birth certificate. In my opinion, it looks more like a passport. Of course, I have no knowledge in this area, but this is simply my opinion. Rhythmnation2004 (talk) 18:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Soviet era paperwork of this type and age actually would be closer to a passport in design, depending on when and where it was issued. Your request to this noticeboard was for advice on the matter, and I have no evidence to suggest that the photo is anything other than what the uploader claims it to be. In this case, with regard to this image in and of itself, I don't see any issues. The inclusion of the image in a particular article is a content issue, but I note that free images (such as this one) are always preferred to non-free images. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

So let's get this right - someone uploads a picture of a Russian birth certificate, and despite having no knowledge whatsoever about the subject, you suggest that it might not even be a birth certificate? Wonderful. As for the photo itself, I'd say it adds to the article, especially as free photos of birth certificates are difficult to find. Black Kite 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rhythmnation2004 and Birth certificate issues

That's an interesting post by Rhythmnation. Not only did Rhythmnation lie about the reason for the removal of the photo, claiming it was a "deleted image", but also now questions whether the photo is a fake. Why is Rhythmnation here? Why are they not at the Talk page to discuss why a "Soviet birth certificate" does not belong on the Birth certificate article? What admin action, exactly, is an editor who removes sourced, cited content on an appropriate article by lying in an edit summary asking for? It seems pretty relevant for a global encyclopedia to mention in a sourced caption that the Soviets used to describe a Jewish person's nationality as "Jewish" and not "Soviet". But it's a content issue, not an admin issue. --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, did they label non-Jewish people as "Soviet"? "nationality" may not be the right translation if not. —Random832 18:10, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Good question, although it might be more relevant to wonder if they named people "Catholic" "Lutheran" "Greek Orthodox" etc. for the nationality. Considering the Soviet state was officially atheist, I would assume that other religions weren't considered "nationalities" but I'm sure a little research will answer. The citation I have makes mention of the history of "Jewish" being seen as a race (when it's not, it's a religion and ethnicity) as a way to single out Jews for discrimination. --David Shankbone 18:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually speculating that it might have been intended to refer to the ethnicity, and that the field in question would be filled in with other ethnicities. Regardless, it's not clear that a caption describing this issue belongs above the fold in an article about Birth certificates - Anti-semitism might be a more appropriate place —Random832 18:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, that could be, but a lot of photos are used multiple times. my Scorsese photo is on a lot of articles I never placed it on. My issue is with a content question being raised on the admin board - it muddies the water too much between content and policy/guideline enforcement. It's hard to argue that my placement of a birth certificate on the Birth certificate article is superfluous, and how many people today are willing to have their birth certificates photographed and released GFDL? Not many... --David Shankbone 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhythmnation2004 has a long history of taking issues to noticeboard well before an issue needs to be brought there. He also has issues with ownership of articles, with this one in particular being one he feels attached to. Metros (talk) 18:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, my own encounters with this individual suggest he's a) time-waster (in regards to his contributions to those sorts of discussions) and b) forum-shopper - check out his recent waste of bandwidth "efforts" around Harry Potter. Similar waste of times are littered through his history. I see nothing here that requires any admin intervention or any evidence that all efforts to use normal dispute channels have been exhausted. Oh and I've asked him to remove the misleading "wikibreak" notice on his userpage (for full disclosure on my part). --Fredrick day (talk) 18:59, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Nandesuka and Michael Lucas (porn star)

This admin and I had an issue in Talk:Pubic hair awhile back, and now appears to be trolling pages (ones he never edited before) removing my work.[78], this one they restored vandalism, [79], [80]. Then Nandesuka went on Michael Lucas (porn star) and again renamed the man a name that was never his. Lucas has made it clear on the Talk page that he was never given his father's name. There are sources that only refer to him as "Treivas". Then, to top it all off, I actually photographed his Soviet birth certificate, his Soviet passport, AND his US passport that ALL show his name is "Andrei Treivas". What more does this guy need to do to not have Wikipedia rename him simply because our "reliable" mainstream media wantonly assumed he was given his father's name when his mother never did so? The photos of these documents, at Lucas' request, are on his Talk:Michael Lucas (porn star) page - what more is this guy supposed to do? Force New York Magazine to write a new article with the correct name so Wikipedia will stop calling him a name he never had? I seriously doubt he is running away from his father's name--his father actually works for him at his porn company! Two issues: Please advise the admin User:Nandesuka that his trolling my work and his poor editing that seem to be focused on me (hey, at least that IP troll is congratulating him); and two, can we finally put to rest the stupid 'Bregman' business considering three different forms of identification are photographed and provided on the man's talk page, all showing his birth name was "Andrei Treivas"? --David Shankbone 18:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Removing photos with an edit summary of "rv vanity" does seem to be assuming bad faith, especially when those photos do seem to be relevant to the subject. Black Kite 18:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems incontestable to me that WP:BLP mandates that Wikipedia can't be a primary source for biographies of subjects about which Wikipedia is writing. I personally am more than willing to believe that Michael Lucas's birth name is not Bregman, and I'm personally willing to believe that the documents you photographed are authentic. What I'm not willing to do is to substitute original research for a reliable source. Like it or not, New York Magazine published this fellow's name as Bregman. All we need to do is to find one reliable, independently-published source that refers to him without that name, and then we can put the issue to bed by citing that source instead of New York Magazine. Photos taken by Wikipedia editors don't seem to me to meet that (fairly low) bar. Nandesuka (talk) 18:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

We are not establishing the info with a photo, but with a birth certificate. The photo is merely the mechanism to reproduce that info. Are you really suggesting that a journalist is a more reliable source for someone's birth name than their birth certificate? WjBscribe 18:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't this be a case for a (sometimes referred to as Adrei Treivas Bregman) notation? That would acknowledge the existence of another name in reliable sources while satisfying the BLP concern (the individual's name isn't actually that). Is there an OTRS ticket somewhere that refers to this? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That makes perfect sense to me. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Has he actually been called "Adrei Treivas Bregman" anywhere other than this one piece from New York Magazine? WjBscribe 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Does it make a difference whether he sends a copy of his birth certificate to OTRS or has it uploaded locally? If anything, the latter is better for verification purposes... WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I was more asking if the subject had formally provided notice of the error, or if he had simply posted on the talk page claiming to be himself. Either way, the birth certificate is persuasive. WP:OR would come into play if an editor drew conclusions from that document, but using it as a reference to say "Michael Lucas, born Andrei Treivas, is..." in the lead. The birth certificate documents a birth, and that birth involves the name Andrei Treivas, so it could source a statement that an individual was born and, at birth, had a given name. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 18:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to accept that current practice has passed me by, but I will simply say that I don't believe this is a correct interpretation of our policy against original research. Wikipedia is, at its core, a tertiary sourced encyclopedia. Relying on photographs of things that purport to be primary documents, especially when there are reliable sources that claim otherwise, in the absence of OTRS action, goes against our best practices. Nandesuka (talk) 19:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That you so frequently edit war over issues where you don't understand policy (or common sense) really raises grave concerns about your status as an admin. That you are following me around with some kind of bone to pick with me also makes it questionable. At the very least, you are simply hurting your reputation; at the worst, you are hurting Wikipedia and affecting people's lives outside of it who consistently have to tell people that 'Bregman' was never their name (thus, again, hurting Wikipedia since it makes us look silly). I wish you would give more thought to your behavior, since admins are supposed to be examples for the rest of us, and you aren't setting a particularly good one with your behavior. --David Shankbone 19:47, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Your inability to assume good faith is, in the end, your own problem. I will continue to edit diligently, regardless of your wish that your writing not be edited. Kind regards, Nandesuka (talk) 20:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nandesuka's a good admin, David. This seems to have boiled up over nothing, and it's a shame to see two good editors fall out over it, because you both have a point. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about themselves, so if the subject puts his name on his blog, for example, we can source our article to it within reason. But Nandesuka's also right that we need to be careful about when we do this, just in case someone's trying it on with us. I'm not saying anyone is in this case, but that's probably Nandesuka's concern -- that, in general, this could be regarded as OR, so caution is required. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 20:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked only into the Michael Lucas matter. I find Nandesuka's position there to be absurd. We have a copy of the subject's birth certificate - an official document that establishes his birthname. Nandesuak has instead replaced this information with information sourced from a piece from New York magazine - based on whatever research the journalist conducted. The subject has confirmed the latter is inaccurate and provided us with proof of this? To demand third party publishing of the correct name in this circumstance is absurd, contrary to WP:BLP, against the interests of Wikipedia readers, and has the potential to make Wikipedia look fairly ridiculous. I am stunned that someone trusted by the community to exercise judgment could have done so in so poor a manner in this instance. WjBscribe 18:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Agreed. "Absurd" is putting it mildly. We have WP:BLP for a reason. Black Kite 18:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
  • When you say "we have a copy of his birth certificate", do you mean "He has provided a copy of his birth certificate to WP:OFFICE" or do you mean "A Wikipedia editor has uploaded a photo of something purporting to be his birth certificate to a talk page?" If we mean the latter, I agree that the situation is absurd, but perhaps not quite in the way you intended. Nandesuka (talk) 18:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you really boiling this down to such a formality? Are you saying that if he sent a copy of his birth certificate to office (either a photocopy or photograph would I believe satisfy the OTRS respondent) that is somehow better than allowing that same copy to be uploaded locally where it can be looked at by anyone? WjBscribe 18:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not sure what you're driving at. Are you suggesting that the birth certificate is fake, the photo is (brilliantly) PhotoShopped, or that the uploader managed to find a Russian birth certificate from someone born on the same day and with the same name? Black Kite 18:41, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
      • I'm saying that the provenance of the document in the photo simply isn't verifiable. But see my response to SV below. Nandesuka (talk) 18:43, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• We do allow subjects to offer us sources regarding issues like that -- names, birth dates and so on. If the subject has written his name on his website or blog, that would be enough for us normally, even without a birth certificate. Self-published sources are allowed to be used in articles about that source. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• I'd always considered such things to be original research, but I'll take your word that I'm behind the times on this. Thanks for the correction. Nandesuka (talk) 18:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And please stop following me around. Are you open to recall? You still received edit warring messages (the same way you edit warred on Pubic hair), and some of your judgment that I outline above, and some of your edit summaries, are hardly what I would call admin behavior User:Nandesuka. --David Shankbone 18:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input. Have a nice day. Nandesuka (talk) 18:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Being familiar with the Michael Lucas (porn star) article and issues, I suggest that if a reliable source has stated that his name is something other than Andrei Treivas (apparently Lucas' birth name) that we simply note it and correctly state that it was mistakenly reported by __ as "Bregman" although he never was given his father's name. Benjiboi 19:55, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea, to articulate that his father is Bregman, but that he was never given that name at birth. Good suggestion Benji. --David Shankbone 20:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Surely the point here is that the birth certificate is the source? If it's an official government document, and anyone can walk into the appropriate office and pay for a copy, then it's both reliable and verifiable. Of course any online image or physical copy of it could be faked, but since we already accept offline-only sources that can't be an issue. On another topic, I'm confused about how a scan of a birth certificate can be released under the GFDL. Surely the scan shares its copyright status with the original, which presumably rests with the government in question. Are they releasing birth certificates under the GFDL? Bovlb (talk) 20:23, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The alleged birth certificate in discussion is printed in the Russian language, using a Cyrillic alphabet. Who here is claiming expertise to read Russian, Bregman? The interview with New York Magazine was conducted with Andrei Treivas Bregman present and answering questions, was it not? The notion that one party in a court case used Wikipedia to identify the other side is preposterous. And none of this addresses the matter of Lucas being a prostitute, which was the real issue raised on Nandesuka's talk page and is well documented.--72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:01, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Shankbone and others reversed and contradicted themselves in removing the prostitute reference as Bregman wanted it removed, so as to whitewash and sanitize his bio. It's quite a different thing to say he was an escort than a prostitute. Escort ignores the sexual component of the trade, the actual prostitution where Bregman sold his body for money.--72.76.88.140 (talk) 22:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Really really blatant POV pushing

We have some really obvious POV pushing on Palestinian people. I am giving a heads-up that I am highly considering ignoring all rules and breaking 3RR, seeing as a) the POV pushing is really obvious (see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#User:75.72.88.121), b) this is being done by two obvious sockpuppets, c) the said editor has been blocked in the past. As I said, I am more worried about keeping Wikipedia pure, so if I get blocked, fine, then block away, but I'd rather ignore the rules and keep it correct. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

There is absolutely no rush. Those articles are on probation, its up at WP:AE, dont go overboard. Relata refero (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Damn, he did it anyway. Relata refero (talk) 19:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I've never edited Palestinian/Israel-related, at least not significantly (that I remember). But I'll be straight with y'all, if we do anything other than call this POV-pushing spade by what it is, then I have no part in this encyclopedia. <removed by me>. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to get information about the evil spartan for he/she is defaming palestinians and their homeland, by removing the information needed for the article. I did not defame or make any POV just the facts according to the references on the article itself. The map has nothing to do with the map of a state, it is a geographical map, and I did not alter the Israel map for example. However this person is altering freely the Palestinians article , because he says that a map of the middle east with out israel is offensive, (where did he got that info from) and how did he not figure out that removing the homeland map of the Palestinians is not offensive, and was he expecting that Palestinians should put the political map of Israel on their homeland map is not offencive to them. This is very insulting, especially that Palestinians outnumber jews of the world and the number of Isreali citizens!I demand immediate response to stop his vandalism and hiding behing unreachable name to be contacted!abubakr (talk) 19:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked Adnanmuf (talk · contribs), and not The Evil Spartan, for blatant POV-pushing and edit warring. Sue me if that makes me an evil admin. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't at all, but as Guy says further up on this page, we should be worried about crusaders. Relata refero (talk) 19:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've reverted to the previous revision. Obvious POV edits and a the MOS mess he was making. — Save_Us † 19:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Twinkle being used to incorrectly re-nominate article for deletion over previous closed discussion

I just noticed the following:

• (Creating deletion discussion page for List of sidekicks. (TW))

As you can see, this new AfD is written right over an older already closed AfD, i.e. instead of creating a new discussion as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (3rd nomination). I'm not sure if it should just be reverted back to the closed version and a note left to the nominator that he has to start a new page or how we handle these sorts of things. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I would recommend reverting and leaving a detailed note with the nominator about how to nominate an article for the second time. Just remember to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 20:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I nominated this as every fiction has a sidekick, plus I feel that the list is too indiscriminate and will never be completed otherwise it will become cluttered. Knock-Off Nigel (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's not that you nominated the article, it is that it is not properly done. We do not write new nominations over old nominations. You have to create a new page with (3rd nomination) in the title. You should create that page, move all the comments from DGG, Colonel Warden, etc. to the new page and then revert the current page back to the closed version. Again, the AfD was not properly formatted, which could just be a problem with Twinkle. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 20:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've copied the discussion-to-date (with reference to the source in the edit history) to a new 3rd-nomination page, reverted the 2nd nomination page to the prior discussion, and corrected the transclusion link on the current day's log. I think that puts things right for this to go forward. - JasonAQuest (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bug in Twinkle. I've previously reported it, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_User_scripts/Scripts/Twinkle#TW-B-0099_.28open.29. Jfire (talk) 20:53, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Wait. Am I missing something here? This article was deleted by consensus after its second nomination. (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sidekicks (2nd nomination)). The article List of sidekicksthen shows up again, by a spa, a few days ago without any of the history, meaning a copy paste from an off-wiki site most likely, (according to my magic admin screens, 553 deleted edits are not visible - doesn't that constitute a GFDL violation??) This should be speedy deleted as recreation of deleted material after discussion at AfD (G4). Anyone object to a G4 deletion? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea that would be a GFDL violation and shouldve been a db-repost. If this AfD somehow resolves as a keep, we'll need to do a history merge to resolve the GFDL issues. MBisanz ^talk 21:03, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Given it was created with "List of sidekicks PDF Print E-mail" as part of the article, it is very likely a copy/paste from elsewhere. I'd agree with a G4 speedy. Even putting aside the GFDL violation, this should have gone to Deletion Review first. Resolute 21:09, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Taulant23, incivility

Pls take a look here, is the reason the barnstar was given tolerable? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:19, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found out User:Taulant23 is already on civility parole... The Cat and the Owl (talk) 20:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Hollis01, spamming and advertising

Not sure the right procedure here. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=Hollis01 shows basically all spam/advertising. I've cleaned up the current mess as seems right to me. But note on his talk page that there is a history of recreating rapidly deleted articles, etc. DTRT.

Tb (talk) 21:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Latha P Nair

Latha P Nair (talk · contribs) has been adding a link to Comparison of office suites into dozens of articles on application software and technologies. In many cases, the link seems of questionable relevance, since the comparison deals only with current office suites. For example, the addition of the link to the article on the long-defunct CEO (Data General) doesn't seem helpful, nor does it seem useful in Pivot table. The editor is not responsive to concerns raised on their talk page, and has re-added the links after their removal in some cases.

This is a relatively minor matter, so would I be overreacting if I issue a block for say 24 hours to try to force the user to discuss their edits? What other options are available when the editor does not respond to talk page queries?-gadfium 22:24, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Higher (Heidi Montag song)

Page has been hacked to add gross NSFW and racist imagery in that I cannot seem to edit out even after going manually into the history to revert (image tags do not show up in page edit mode). This needs an emergency deletion and restore to rectify. Nate • (chatter) 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

No it doesn't! {{YouTube}}, which is used on this and many other articles, had been vandalised, but has been fixed before I looked at this. I've fully protected the template as a result. Bencherlite^Talk 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick fix, I didn't know exactly what was causing the problem. I didn't think of one of the templates being the cause of it. Nate • (chatter) 22:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Hint: if you can't find what's causing it, it's always a template. —Random832 00:26, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Adventures of Superman (TV series) and verifiability and rules violation

We have a peculiar case here of a red-link user who started on the 17th and seems to know his way around wikipedia very well. Of course, he could have edited under an IP address for a year. But his approach seems oddly familiar. Be that as it may, his edits, confined to TAOS and Gidget so far [81] are based on the peculiar notion that a published book is not a verifiable source. Specifically, he's saying that he can delete any opinion given by author Gary Grossman on the grounds that "he's biased and is trying to sell books". [82] According to this user's theory, no published book (or website, presumably) about a subject is a usable source. Taking that to the extreme, that would clobber most of wikipedia. In talking with an admin about this, he pointed out that a blanket accusation that an author is biased is a very serious charge and could get someone in big trouble. What's up with this? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

And just so we're clear, I'm not arguing about specific POV complaints (like uncited claims by editors which find their way into articles), I'm arguing about his assertion that the author of a book can't be cited for his analysis and conclusions about the topic he's writing about. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:35, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've encountered the same user and share Baseball Bugs' concerns. User:Dorftrottel 22:51, February 19, 2008

The red-link user lifted the List of Adventures of Superman episodes directly from a wikipedi-banned website called tvrage. That's funny, considering he was lecturing me on copyright violation for quoting the series spoken intro. Something is fishy here. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:00, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, I've noticed similar: Here he removed external links, saying "WikiP doesn't cite TV.com and IMDb as External links". But here, he added links to those same pages as references in another article. Also, most users don't know about the concept of undue weight on their third day of editing.[83] User:Dorftrottel 00:20, February 20, 2008

Now that I've turned him in here, and notified him about it, he's hurriedly paraphrasing the descriptions. I advised him that I will be preparing a suspected sockpuppet report, on the grounds that he knows way too much about wikipedia for a guy who just started 2 days ago and immediately started in on revamping the Superman and Gidget articles. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Rather than reacting indignantly at being notified, he reacted with another comment that seems a newbie would be unlikely to make. [84] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

And copping a flippant and un-newbie like attitude when I asked him to explain himself. [85] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:03, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

White Cat

ANI regular User:White Cat is at it again. In keeping with his regular pattern of overreaction when confronted with editors who disagree with him (compounded in this case by the high emotional drama and general juvenalia of the ongoing episodes debate), User:White Cat is "assembling evidence" to "prove" the meatpuppetry of another editor. I think it's a vicious smear, but admin attention would be appreciated, especially since making this kind of very public accusation at arbcom is inappropriate. Relevant link is here and here. Of course, I may be wrong that making sock/meat accusations against other editors at an unrelated arbcom case is not problematic. Eusebeus (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh, it's at ArbCom. I think we'll just have to let them deal with this trash. I'm pretty sure they can see this for what it is. --Haemo (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

• Agree with Eusebeus that this appears very inappropriate and that this aggressive behaviour is also typical for White Cat. Incidentally, I had posted to AN regarding the same issue, to little response. User:Dorftrottel 22:50, February 19, 2008

Vandalism to Fidel Castro

Someone is using template transclusion to vandalize Fidel Castro, as you will see the second you click the wikilink. I caught User:PlantDraft doing this and reverted and warned him, but it appears he has help. Administrator assistance is requested. --Agüeybaná 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Related to Higher vandalism I reported above...I've reported him to WP:AIV. Nate • (chatter) 22:44, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but he had assistance from User:Ruddigger. Sockpuppet, probably. Anyway, this has been solved for now. --Agüeybaná 22:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked that one too. There's definitely some socking going on here... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:50, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Related to User:Poloris's vandalism on Bobby Robson yesterday? --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 22:48, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Why should we "obey" this . Because Mr. Fidel Castro is a communist that has ruled Cuba for 5 decades with an iron fist. Wikipedia is just honoring Castro the same way it has an article on Hitler. People proably Vandalize the article of Castro because they are againist his dictaorship he has held since the 1950s. I support these people because they fight for freedom, the right to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Asking us to "repect" the article, is saying to "respect" Hitler and the Final Solution. I have the right to free speech by the Founding Fathers of the USA. Wikipedia cannot censor me. Its a violation of the First Ammendent. Rio de oro (talk) 22:54, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a private website, and we are neutral; that means that we neither support nor oppose these people or their actions in their respective articles. You have no right to free speech here. Get used to it. --Agüeybaná 23:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

See WP:FREE. It gives a good explanation of why you have no right to free speech over here. The article about Castro is supposed to be written neutrally, meaning that a person who will read it will not be influenced positively or negatively about Castro-they'll form their own opinion. Having access to unbiased information is one of the best things about democracy. Puchiko (Talk-email) 23:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism was to a template: Template:Cleanup-rewrite which effects potentially hundreds of Wikipedia articles. It just happened that the Fidel Castro article was the most visible. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It was probably less to do with Castro's politics than someone obtaining lulz from getting large, floating, difficult to remove pictures of wangs on as many WP articles as possible. It's not a new idea by any means... --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 23:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Ridiculous, Rio de oro. Exactly how does adding a penis template to an article constitute fighting for freedom? JuJube (talk) 23:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

My toughts exactly, our goal here is to present a neutral biography, not push our own pov because we disagree with the actions of a certain politician. - Caribbean~H.Q. 23:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Well you guys techinally wrong, the servers are in the USA. So its USA law. Get it right you Cubans. --Rio de oro (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Two things, number one I'm not Cuban and I hold no particular POV over the country's political status, and two your last comment can be considered a personal attack, I recommend that you stop your pov-pushing and political trolling before you get blocked for personal attacks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:22, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter where the servers are, the US constitution says that congress shall not pass laws that restrict the right to free speech; it says nothing about private websites like Wikipedia. Get it right you gringo. --Agüeybaná 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Shock templates

Resolved

 – User indef blocked

Ruddigger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been inserting shock images into common templates (such as Template:Cleanup-rewrite, here.) Anyone willing to block without warning? This is a fairly serious form of disruption, and should not be tolerated at all, since the vandalism affected a huge number of pages. Silly rabbit (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Nevermind: [86]. Silly rabbit (talk)

WP:AIV would probably be the fastest way to stop this next time. John Reaves 00:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Kosovo after independence

Could we agree to semi-protect all articles on Kosovo's cities for a couple of days (or a few hours, at least) ? Compare the edit histories of all cities (Template:Municipalities of the Republic of Kosovo) with that of Priština‎, which I semi-protected some three hours ago. There's little more than sterile nationalistic edit-warring. - Best regards, Ev (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

PS: I'll take advantage of this opportunity to mention the existence of a shared watchlist for Kosovo-related articles, WP:KOSWATCH. - Ev (talk) 00:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I dont think so, protection shouldnt be used pre-emptively. That said, if any specific articles need it then we should consider only on the basis of what is happening at that article, not what is happening in the world. Just my two cents. – Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 00:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Need to reopen Archtransit's sock cases and other actions

Archtransit's short career as a sysop included killing a number of suspected sock reports. In at least one case he deemed a SSP "counterproductive" which another admin later closed as an obvious sock.

Suspected sock closes to be reopened

• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rohit tripathi60
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Deanrules
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/124.185.79.125 reclosed Mr.Z-man 01:14, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
• Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nationmaster reclosed - Mr.Z-man 01:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Note this does not presume a different conclusion will be met. It is merely appropriate cleanup after the actions of the user in question. Whoever reviews the last of these four, please note there is evidence examined by Arbcom that suggests at least one of the comments made to it was influenced by Archtransit, and therefore all comments should be set aside in re-evaluating the case.

Other actions

I have reopened the above sock closes; someone else needs to review his ANI and other project space actions since January 9 - 10, when his RFA passed and he ceased being scrutinized by the community.

Can a note be posted below when this is done, and any dubious matters noted and reopened or fixed?

FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 00:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Doing...Tiptoety ^talk 00:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done, all looks okay, as there really is not much project space contributions during that period of time. There are two AfD's that where closed by him during that time though, those being Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Madiun Stadium (which had a clear consensus), and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Obadiah Newcomb Bush (which had a somewhat clear consensus). I do not see the need to re-open them though. Tiptoety ^talk 00:45, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

New concern, Congolese fufu (talk · contribs) supported the Boeing 747 FAC. I just realized s/he was involved somehow in all those blocks. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:36, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Its looking strongly like Congolese fufu was a sockpuppet of Archtransit. Investigating further, I noticed that one of the accounts in Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Onequestion identified as a sock of Congolese fufu, Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs)'s edits bore a similarity to Fairchoice (talk · contribs). FT2 has confirmed that Wikipeace2008 is a match for Archtransit so it would appear all the accounts confirmed as socks by Alison in that check were also Archtransit. WjBscribe 00:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Also take a look at this: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Profg, and then this edit made by Fairchoice (talk · contribs). After Jehochman (talk · contribs) blocked profg (talk · contribs), Archtransit blocked Jehochman. Tiptoety ^talk 01:08, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah -- I've been looking at Congolese fufu (talk · contribs · logs) for a while as a possible Dereks1x (talk · contribs · logs) sock. He has been found to use socks; it doesn't surprise me to learn that he was involved in these blocks done by Archtransit who appears to be a Dereks1x sock. Easy enough to connect the dots - also please note that a confirmed Dereks1x sock is named Peace2008 (talk · contribs · logs) and one of C.f.'s confirmed socks was named Wikipeace2008 (talk · contribs · logs). Further evidence tieing the two sockfarms together. Tvoz |talk 01:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review block

I blocked User:DILD0Z for an inappropriate user name. Please let me know if I was over zealous. Dlohcierekim Deleted? 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks straightforwards and correct to me. The use of l33tsp33k to try and avoid our username restrictions is a non-starter... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:13, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree. Looking at his few contributions, looks like a joker but is not prevented from contributing useful content under another username. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 01:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Vintagekits

Hi all. After the recent kerfuffle over the Sussexman checkuser case, I took a closer look at Giano's ArbCom election to see if any further sock-puppetry could be seen from some of the SPAs which voted there. It has already been proven by checkuser that User:David Lauder has voted no less than four times there. Unfortunately, I found another account which I initially suspected was connected with someone else.

Given that it was obvious that the account was also set up to make the minimum threshold for franchise and little else, I ran a checkuser on the account, per checkuser policy. This was the result;

 Confirmed - the following:

1. Sweetfirsttouch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
2. La voz de su amo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
3. Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

As checkuser cases go, this was pretty straightforward and was a direct hit. The account User:La voz de su amo was actually used to troll on ETA-related articles, adding information about Sinn Féin. This account created an article that User:R.Fiend eventually got into trouble over when he blocked User:Domer48. Trolling and votestacking on ArbCom elections.

The account, User:Sweetfirsttouch was actually used during the ArbCom case when Vintagekits was indefinitely blocked to evade the indef block placed on his account at the time. It was created two days[87] after his indefinite block[88].

User:Vintagekits was blocked indefinitely by myself last year in a turn of events that ultimately led to the Troubles ArbCom case, in which Vintagekits was unblocked and put on probation.

Placing this here for community input as this is bound to be controversial - Alison ^❤ 01:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)