Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297

Could someone with a rollback tool please rollback this editor's canvassing? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. It appears this may be a banned user, given the block history. The Evil Spartan 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Per User talk:Marine 69-71/Archive 16#Agreement, that's User:YoSoyGuapo. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I wonder if not canvassing using sockpuppetry was part of the agreement. In any case, the canvassing is still there. Twinkle doesn't work on the library computers, so some help would be nice. The Evil Spartan 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already placed a notice at WP:BLP/N: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kruzan. The Mark_Kruzan page is clearly an attack article written by someone who is in a lawsuit against this person (said so directly on page, and confirmed on talk page by another editor). Article was even worse before someone removed the libel, and has already been deleted twice. Worse, I cannot edit it because the page is a protected title. The Evil Spartan 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Moreschi ^Talk 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it was protected, yet editable. It was added to the protected titles list immediately after deletion (18:09) but was recreated well after that. If I had to guess, I would say it was probably due to caching issues. It should now be completely protected from recreation. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back - if indeed he ever truly went away (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey). Watchlisting Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is probably worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That damned user is back once again. Any comments? Greg Jones II 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a Wiki authority should look at Reggin1234's edits at the Kamau Kambon article. He makes what looks to me like threatening behavior to Kambon. Reggin1234 states where Kambon works and suggests that "it is simply a miracle that nobody has shown up at his (Kambon's) store, Blacknificent Books, and ended his miserable life." Griot 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. All racist images now deleted and his account indef blocked for pure vandalism. The Rambling Man 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sheesh! Is there something in the water today? – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my god, I am not sure. Greg Jones II 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

All recent libel revisions by Reggin and an IP have been removed from the history. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Y'all missed one: Image:Kamdon.jpg. Please nail it. The Evil Spartan 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Editor 24.199.99.169 has removed comments (see contributions) including two sets from AfDs (here and here), suggesting that they all belong to a banned user.

The last set of removals is suspicious in that one anonymous user votes keep, the other delete, which may not be consistent with a single invididual. 24.199.99.169 appears to have made some investigations, one of which appears to result in a "no case".

Although it may be right to remove contributions from known sockpuppets, to remove those only on suspicion and without due process, seems to be the start of a slippery slope. Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editing, even Editing with Tor. This contribution is from a Tor Proxy to protect my anonymity 68.148.109.58 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am calling for a transclusion expert.

There is a template, Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption, that another wikipedian thinks has text that violates WP:NPOV.

They placed an {{npov}} tag on the template -- which is kind of a problem

When the template is transcluded there is a box in the caption field on each article where it is transcluded. However, when one clicks on the button that tells interested readers where they can find the discussion about the POV concern they get the article's talk page, not the template's talk page.

I think the discussion of concerns as to whether the template has a POV problem should occur on the Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption -- not scattered all over all kind of the article's talk pages.

Would it be possible for someone to hack a special version of the {{npov}} tag that would direct the readers interested in the discussion to the template's talk page, rather than the talk pages of the individual articles? Sorry. I don't know if this is a little bit of work, or a lot.

If it is a lot of work can someone think of another alternative? Geo Swan 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in a template in the first place? Slabs of text like this should not be presented in image captions, they should be in the article body somewhere. --bainer (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with bainer. Although I have subst'ed the {{npov}} template and modified it a bit to make it look a little less crappy in the meantime. ➪HiDrNick! 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

1. When someone places a tag owner, like an {{npov}} tag, what responsibility does someone have to initiate the discussion on the talk page that the tag promises interested readers?
2. If someone places a tag like {{npov}} on an article, but they don't follow through, and go to the talk page to leave a specific explanation of their concern, is it appropriate to leave them a request on their perosnal talk page, asking them to return to the talk page of the article where they placed the tag, and explain themselves more fully?
3. If an article has a tag sitting on it, that the person who placed seems to have abandoned, that may very well be out of date, when is it appropriate to simply remove the tag?

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The last is easy; check the history to find when the tag was first placed, check contribs since to see if area concerned addressed, if so... be bold! nb. NPOV doesn't "date" - so check that it really has been resolved! LessHeard vanU 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems the tag was added today. I'll try to test a few fixes in my sandbox and see if I can comeup with anything that will correct the problem.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

{{TALKPAGENAME}} seems like the parameter that is messing everything up and no matter how that parameter is fooled around with, it will always link to the talk page of the currently displayed article. The only solutions I can come up with would be to make a new template where you have to type the talk page location or modify the existing one and make it a pain to have to type the location of the talk page for every article tagged. Making a new template might be more practical. Anybody else got anything so far?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Geo Swan's questions, it seems to me that the answer to all three questions is: Use common sense, and don't edit war over it. Od Mishehu 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In regards to the first question, I would say that the person placing the tag has a responsibility to initiate the discussion, which of course would include explaining their reasons for placing it. If the person placing the tag provides no explanation after a reasonable period of time (at least a few hours, if not a day) than I would say it would be fine to remove it. Natalie 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't make more sense to place the tag on the top of the template or the article where disputed text exists? Transcluding templates like npov could cause problems if it was transcluded where no NPOV violations exist. — Moe ε 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Kalive, an editor since January 2007, has removed the welcome template 7 days earlier and said "stop stalking me creep" (diff). I need help with this problem. Greg Jones II 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment was just a tad incivil but nothing that requires administrative attention. Is there something more serious to the matter that's concerning you?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I need some help on some issues. When he/she put that message up and removed the welcome template, it was making me feel a little bit upset. Greg Jones II 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry this is not a serious enough issue that requires administrative attention. Though it was not very friendly of them to write a message like that, this is no cause for much discussion or disciplinary action. I was going to leave a small note about the civility policy on his page but it seems you already did that yourself just a few moments ago. So this matter is more or less resolved.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have restored that message. If it is removed, put it back in, okay? Greg Jones II 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have reverted yourself. Probably a good idea, all things considered. If someone thinks you're a creep and a stalker, they just have a perception problem, that's all. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right about that. Greg Jones II 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'm having a bit of a problem with IP24.170.243.24 (talk · contribs). He's committed himself to vandalizing. Brianga first came accross his unconstructive edits on Rock Lee's article and reverted two; Our IP friend made another two apparently good-faith edits following that, which I reverted because they were redundant. Since then, he has made two more bad-faith edits on Rock Lee's article. When I went to place a warning message on his talk page, I noticed he already had one for vandalism on Son Goku (Dragon Ball); this was earned from four bad-faith edits. Aside from the two good-faith edits previously mentioned, this IP is a vandalism-only account which started editing today.

Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. next time, please report to WP:AIV (and you don't need as much detail for obvious vandalism. Also, since IPs are not accounts, they cannot be vandalism-only accounts. Mr.Z-man 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, and sorry for the mistakes. The only noticeboard I was previously familiar with was WP:AN/3RR. I'll keep that in mind next time. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to handle this.

User talk:Ravenfan4ever uploaded 3 images Image:05356.jpg, Image:Raven04ky0.jpg‎ and Image:Raven03xu7.jpg. In each of these the user asserted ownership of the image and gave permission for use in Wikipedia. The first image of the three has extended image data that indicates the copyright is held by http://www.wireimage.com/ so the assertion of ownership of the image by the user is not supported by the actual image data. I have tagged the image for deletion as a blatant copyright violation. I suspect the other 2 images are also not owned by the user but have no proof. The veracity of the user is suspect based on the first image. The images look like they were taken by a pro photographer. --NrDg 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that they (the pictures) could be in suspicion of WP:COPYVIO. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say ask the user on their page what the circumstances are, explain that unless they personally clicked the button on the camera, they should not upload the photo under those terms. Ask if they really took the photo. If the user does not answer or answers in a questionable way, delete the images. --B 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Doh! That ought to do the trick. Greg Jones II 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. I decided to effectively do what Greg suggested but used the WP:PUI procedure to accomplish it. Looks to give proper notice to user and is a formal procedure. --NrDg 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Mission accomplished. Greg Jones II 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Digwuren (talk • contribs) at 22:20, September 9, 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren (talk · contribs) attempts to disrupt the TfD of the template whose deletion he seems to oppose by tweaking the wording of the nomination for deletion submitted by the nominator (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 9#Template:POV Russia.)

He claims WP:NPA entitles him to delete most of the nominator's explanation while the wording of nomination accurately reflects the problem of the template and its creator. Digwuren then revert-wars over his redacting of other users' comments. [1] [2] [3]

Could someone explain to him the policy about editing other user's comments and watch further developments of this TfD? Thanks. --Irpen 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy against editing comments made by others is very subversivent to the policies against assuming bad faith and calling people racist. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree that the template is racist, your comment is welcome at the survey. --Irpen 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

And the rationale behind allowing you to assume the template was created in bad faith would be...? -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Just read what the template says. --Irpen 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sometimes it pays to investigate the matter before rushing to comment. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If there is a problem with the template then that should be dealt with soberly as Wikipedians, and not by making personal attacks. A personal attack in a deletion nomination is still a personal attack, and should be avoided. --Tony Sidaway 12:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no attack Tony, as several editors pointed out above. Did you even read the discussion? --Irpen

Moved from WP:AN.--Chaser - T 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, who is currently involved in a sterile, yet lasting arbitration case, is now seen using the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion noticeboard for personal attacks. I first stroke out the offending parts, later removed them under WP:RPA, but he kept reinstating them:

• [4],
• [5],
• [6],
• [7].

I'm normally not too sensitive about slightly offending comments and can accept good humour, but this case is neither. A TfD nomination that spends most of its content on commenting an editor rather than the nomination, and, indeed, contains but one word that can be reasonably considered discussing content, not personality, is something exceptional. Accordingly, I humbly request that the administrators take all proper and necessary measures to end this uncivility. Digwuren 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thread should be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TfD disruption --Irpen 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• • You've removed it repeatedly "under" WP:RPA? Digwuren, WP:RPA has no authority. It's not policy and not a guideline. It's an essay, and a highly contested one. Please take a look at its talkpage, and at the first lines of the essay, which explain this. I quote: "It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus... It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." If you apply it you may find yourself "held accountable for questionable uses." "Questionable" is a mild term for removing and edit-warring over another user's comment on an issue you're involved in. Stop it. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC).

• For the record, I'm not in any way involved in this template. I don't care much about it, but I do care about a soliloquy of insults masquerading as a TfD nomination. Digwuren 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Echoing what Bishonen said, edit warring over the removal of personal attacks is not a good way to go. If it's undone once, then let it be. Generally unless it's blatant enough as someone saying 'fuck you', it's a good idea to not touch it. Cowman109^Talk 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the indefinite block for Digwuren was lifted due to promises of good behaviour, but the conduct seemed to have scarcely changed. El_C 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

• It's my first time removing personal attacks. If you look closely at the article's history, you see I proposed a series of approaches as to how the removal should go, in attempt to find compromise. And for the record, I've never been indefinitely blocked. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would RPA even apply to those statements? I don't see a single personal attack anywhere in them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original wording: "WP:POINTy inflammatory bad-faith template for article tagging with racist overtones created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)"

Let's consider every part separately.

• "WP:POINTy" can be considered a description of the template in question. This is the only such word, by the way.
• "inflammatory bad-faith template" is an assertion on not on the template, but on the user. It claims that the user is deliberately, in bad faith, causing flames. This does not belong into any serious discussion unless it can be backed down by appropriate evidence, which is clearly not the case here.
• "for article tagging with racist overtones" is an assertion of racist intent regarding the user. Again, nothing about the article; only an insult towards Suva, who, by any reasonable standard, can't be considered racist.
• "created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates" should be obvious.
• And finally, "(see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)" is interesting, because it refers to another TfD by Irpen where he deliberately used such wording, only to be then pointed out it was not only insulting but also not backed with any facts. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to claim a template contains "racist overtones," you have no right to censor him. If you edit his comments, or the comments of anyone else again, I, myself, will block you, and you'll be forced to participate in RFAR/Digwuren from your talk page, with the aid of an clerk. El_C 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

---

It often amazes me the lengths to which those who complain, and even soapbox, about censorship, are willing to go to silence others. It stops now, Digwuren. El_C 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

There are times and places for political discourse. There are even places for insulting. Some people pay good money to be able to call in to folks who claim to be scantily clad females, only to hear insults. But the TfD board is not a place for insults, and you can't reasonably calls attempts to retain civility on that board "censorship". Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note that I've asked the unblocking admin for a brief followup (i.e. of whether Digwuren has been living up to the terms of the unblock). El_C 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Deskana's report would be appreciated here. As far as I can see, Digwuren is on a never-ending revert-warring spree. It does not appear likely that he was unblocked in order to indulge in this sort of behaviour. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Diwurgen, Irpen, and other related issues is now under review by ArbCom. I suggest archiving this thread, there is nothing we can add. Diwurgen, please remember that ANI is not a complains thread and concentrate on your ArbCom case.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, could you please refrain from adding inflammatory comments whenever Irpen's name is mentioned? That would be highly appreciated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My behavior is under the review by ArbCom? Interesting. I did not know that but fine. I welcome the review of ArbCom if there is any. Judging by the familiar faces popping up at once whenever I post, I am always under some sort of a "review" anyway. Too bad some editors don't have anything better to do but commenting on most each of my edit. --Irpen 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

My today's wikitime has been spent on populating Soviet occupation, reading several articles for Pullapää crisis and reviewing a WP:GA candidate. What have you done today, besides insulting people? Digwuren 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Just for the record: your "Soviet occupation" essays should be prodded immediately. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, let's do that: Article proposed for deletion because: Ghirla doesn't like it and thinks that the article sucks. Suva 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support archiving for ArbCom to decide. ThuranX 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate what needs to be decided upon? I corroborate that, when I was involved in deleting two articles started by Digwuren and Co several months ago, there was a flurry of sterile edit-warring over removal of my comments (including the entire rationale for deletion) with references to WP:RFA. As a result, the deletion process was derailed. I believe Digwuren deserves a stern warning for having crossed the line of disruption. --Ghirla^-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For ArbCom to decide what? I started this thread to ask some to take a look and stop the ongoing disruption of TfD. If this is done, there is nothing to "decide". Just watch this TfD, that's all. For the record, I have no objection to ArbCom getting involved in this nonsense too if this board is not enough. --Irpen 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

AC looking into this or that is not a free pass for disruption and I will not sit idle if it continues. El_C 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, this disruptive block shopping by Irpen needs to be examined by Arbcom. Martintg 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Block shopping? Did I ask to block anyone? All I asked is that Digwuren be told in no unclear terms to stop editing my comments. The message seems to have got through since he now left them alone. You are welcome to try to get ArbCom involved of course in this too. --Irpen 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I find your double standard disturbing. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally removal of comments are bad approach, if those are not obvious vandalism, ethnically based harassment etc. Can't find such in Irpens comments. In other hand we have an example then administrator's user:Piotrus talk page was converted to attack-harassment page, pointed to specific contributors [8]. Nor administrator Piotrus, nor anybody else removed those ethnically based harassment made by Halibutt. Second point, to name Irepn's messages on this board as disruptive block shopping as Martintg did, is misleading and unjust, say at least. As there are no hints about block request. M.K. 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Obviously the solution for this is for Irpen to avoid making inflammatory statements of this sort. --12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talk • contribs)
  • Your comment, Tony, makes me wonder whether you even saw the page in question. Uninformed snide remarks are unhelpful. --Irpen

I would like to report User:PIO for his repeated attacks against both me as well as Users No.13 and Kubura. The complication (I hope someone can resolve) arises here: the user in question is apparently experiencing "technical difficulties" so he uses an IP, however he signs his edits (with PIO), and it is unmistakeably obvious (due to the identical, rather shaky grammar as well as my experiences with the user) that this is indeed the person he claims to be.
The best example's of his attacks are here (in Italian, but still obvious), and here. I have warned him repeatedly, both on his IP and registered talkpages, he, of course, deleted all the warnings. The user is also suspected of sockpuppetry, and apparently thinks he can get away with murder if it is done in the Italian language.

Another matter, the extremely controversial article, Istrian exodus, has been in the past prudently shielded against unregistered users by Admins. This protection apparently expired recently and the article has become a verotable battleground of edit-warring. I request that the semi-block be returned so that this infinate conflict can finally end. DIREKTOR 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell he's suggesting that several other editors "need to see a psychiatrist," which isn't in keeping with the atmosphere we're trying to promote here. Your own comments leave much to be desired as well[9]. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, this user has infringed upon even the low standards of decency that are kept in the unending edit war between Croatian and Italian users. In his post on Giovanni Giove's talkpage he also calls me (and others) an idiot and "mentally disturbed", he also incessantly calls me communist. I do not mean to be pretentious, but if these are not textbook personal attacks, I do not know what is. I believe at least some action is warranted. DIREKTOR 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

While exploring WP Sandbox yesterday I discovered the picture of a nude woman with some commentary. After requeting deletion I continued to the word game, then returned to Sandbox. This time there was commentary about the picture and possibly about its removal, which was quickly erased as soon as I added a comment. The point is: the comments appeared in the bottom margin of the page, NOT in the text box! When I attempted to report the problem on the Sandbox discussion page the material was very speedily deleted, nor could I find any record of it in the History.

Since then I tried to find someone to report the incident to, but coming from WV I asked for a Custodian; Tourskin refered me to Adminostrators. Please advise. Thank you, Shir-El too 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Content added to the sandbox appears below the "block" of instructions. The edits you mention are still in the history (here, for instance). As for the picture, it has encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is not censored. That's probably why your edits were reverted—featuring a nude subject is not really a valid reason for deleting an image; if it is used for vandalism or disparaging to the subject, that's another story. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you; will try not to jump the gun again (could it be called 'Newbie Blues'? ;-) Shir-El too 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Some (if not all) of the subpages created by User:Efansay need to go. I wasn't sure which, so I'm bringing it up here. As a note: this user has very few edits to the encyclopedia (and has been told about it). RobJ1981 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• for evidence. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 06:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've gotten rid of nearly all of them except for a few that I think are a proper use. I've also given this user a stern warning.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Current evidence.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a number of cite-taggs and other request for references to this article, however certain users keep removing them without any summary, or offensive remarks. One user complained that the reasons for the cite taggs should be further explained on the talkpage. Which I then did. Yet they still get removed. I would like the version with the cite tags restored and that the article be protected (semi or full) untill references are provided, or that the users removing the taggs be explained that they are harming the trustworthyness of wikipedia.Rex 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A little background. Rex Germanus move-warred at the article in the past (without seeking consensus on the talk page) and was reverted by several distrinct editors. He then proceeded to add 40(!) cite tags on the article (along with more unilateral modifications) and when this massive adding of tags was reverted he reverted in turn using summaries like "naturally I revert. In fact, one more of these actions and I'll report you. I'm fedd up with this childish behaviour. If you want remove a tagg, ADD A SOURCE FOR IT!" and "revert to last version by rex. Fact taggs readded. See talk for details. Remove them again, and I'll call in the admins.". And call in the admins, he did. And I failed to find any offensive remarks direct at Rex in the recent history, though I feel his behaviour, in turn, is a bit tedious. As for the request for protection... see m:The Wrong Version 84.145.229.194 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Naturally the remark on 40 citetaggs is a lie, and a bad one too. Though the information in the article is so unsourced and flawed my guess it would have been easy to actually do it. The move discussion (as it was discussed) is irrelavant, as is your remark on the 'wrong version'. It not about my version, its about a version with information that can be checked. In fact my version is identical to yours, with the only difference being that mine warns readers that the information is not sourced. Learn how wikipedia works, then lecture others.Rex 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to count them, Rex, before you call me a liar. 40 Tags were added. 84.145.229.194 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, 40 cite taggs were not added. Still a lot though. With which one(s) did you disagree anonymous? I can't seem to find your objections on the talkpage. Rex 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. An admin just restored virtually all my cite taggs.Cheers!Rex 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would someone block this idiot and semi-protect AIV for a while? He's an obvious sock. The Evil Spartan 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has already been given an involuntary three hour break... The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm only seeing vandalism on AIV from the one IP address, so I think any protection is unecessary as yet. Natalie 18:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A week ago User: Daddy Kindsoul was blocked for continuingly reverting the NOFX page, violating his revert parole.[10]

Today the block expired and he went to the NOFX page to make the same revert again.[11]

Now I know I should assume good faith, but considering the number of times he has been warned to go to the talk page before he reverts, I think this can be categorised as vandalism, as he clearly knows better.

I'm not sure what his revert parole conditions are, but he may well have violated them again. Hoponpop69 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More like intentional disruption, not vandalism, but that's splitting hairs. Guess he needs a parole extension, contact the RFAR folks. ThuranX 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop is been dishonest. As you can see from the diff no vandalism has been purportrated, just the additional of information with vertified sources; which he happens to keep blanking (See, WP:VANDAL) with his IP (see, WP:SOCK). Hoponpop has already been blocked by an admin this week for his abusive behaviour towards me (vile personal attacks in edit summaries), yet he continues to throw out personal attacks here.. clearly hasn't learned his lesson. - The Daddy 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Michael? Corvus cornix 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are so sure I am a vandal and a sockpupptet, go ahead and file a report.Hoponpop69 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to, its already been proven that you use IP's like 68.114.92.198 and others to attack articles and harass.[12] And spread more insults, you have even been accused of spreading racism while using one of your sock IP's.[13] I come here to work on articles, not to play silly little games with "people" like you. The fact that you were blocked for calling me an "asshole" should give you a hint that maybe you should move onto doing something constructive. - The Daddy 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:RookZERO, who has just returned from a weeklong block, is immediately diving right back into his continual non-stop edit-warring on many Scientology-related articles at once, including Scientology and democracy and David Miscavige, a perennial WP:BLP problem. He does almost zero talk page posting, and his edit summaries are still almost uniformly insulting despite warnings from multiple editors to knock it off. A glance at edit summaries on his contribs page shows a long-term pattern of calling anyone who disagrees with him a "cult vandal":

• "Member of a known cult vandalize the article, by deleting well cited and directly relavent information which does not suit the cult POV" [14] (he is referring to me here, which I find grossly offensive)
• "restored cited material deleted by cult vandal" [15]
• "restored categories deleted by cult vandal" [16]
• "your repeated deletions of cited material that does not fit the cult POV" [17]
• "restored article defaced by cult vandalism" [18]
• "classical "censorship by vandal" - deleting relevent links for no reason beyond that they don't suit the cult POV" [19]

This relentless and obnoxious belligerence that Scientology is definitively a "cult" and that anyone who reverts his edits must be part of that "cult", makes him impossible to reason with and work with (literally, because he rarely discusses edits outside of his summaries). The Scientology articles are problematic enough without this person's ongoing disruption. wikipediatrix 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked as a SPA. I would welcome admin review, as I would some other admins help with requests on Scientology related matters. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure that SPA is totally accurate; user appears to also be interested in martial arts, where he makes much more reasonable edits. However, he doesn't seem to have learned to control his feelings about Scientology during his block. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree I was hasty with the SPA accusation and apologized for it on their talkpage. I also commented that if they were to agree either not edit Scientology or to get consensus for their proposed edits before doing so that the tariff could be reduced. I would still like a review of the tariff anyway. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm far less concerned about whether he's a SPA as I am about editwarring with no real explanation, insulting and libelous comments like calling another editor a "member of a known cult" and crying "censorship" when his edits are reverted by multiple editors. wikipediatrix 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that I do things properly. I believe I was right to block indefinitely for the continuing disruption, right to suggest that if the editor were to stop the disruptive editing then the block could be lifted or reduced, and right to request review of my actions.

Blocks are preventative. If the user agrees not to edit disruptively and gets unblocked then Wikipedia wins. Indefinite is a potentially long time, and most everyone deserves a chance. LessHeard vanU 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Being one of the editors who was unfairly at the receiving end of his slanderous accusations, you might understand why it makes little or no difference to me whether he shapes up in the future or not. His hateful and slanderous accusations already made will still remain in print, on the internet, in the Wikipedia system and all its mirrors for all time now, and in this sense he wins and gaming the system wins, not Wikipedia. The long-recurring pattern of blocks for his behavior also suggests that any action would indeed be preventative at this point, not punitive. wikipediatrix 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am a sysop on Wikipedia, not for wikipediatrix. I act for what I understand to be best for WP, which involves stopping attacks on the edits and characters of WP editors and attempting to resolve disputes, and to encourage good editing.

As mentioned, I would be grateful if other admins were also to review complaints in respect of Scientology related matters. LessHeard vanU 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with the SPA block. A quick glance at RookZERO's edit history proves that he is not an SPA. That said, wikipediatrix is right to be concerned about his problematic behavior. I really don't like to think of AN/I as indefblock-on-demand for established users, this situation requires a more delicate approach like WP:DR or WP:CSN. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I concur, upon review, that this is not a SPA account - but it is one that is disruptive with regard to articles relating to a particular subject matter. As it is I have explained to RookZERO that it was his immediate resumption of editing in the same manner that incurred his previous block that provided me with the reason for an indefinite tariff. It is understood that indefinite does not mean forever, but if anyone wants (me) to amend the tariff now then I am happy for it to happen. However, I don't want an editor to be able to wait out a block and then resume the same practices as before - it doesn't gain Wikipedia. I would like to see some progress in getting the editor to understand why their conduct was unacceptable, and why any repeat will not be tolerated. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this editor could be a candidate for a topic ban if he/she agrees to enter formal mentorship. And with respect to Wikipediatrix, a good number of editors have one or two hot buttons that they're better off avoiding. If I'd put my energies into 9/11 or World Trade Center I doubt I would have gotten sysopped. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The anon ip Special:Contributions/69.19.14.38 has just been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours.block log Personally i think he should have a longer block due to the death threat shown per this diff. I think this was a quite serious threat and should be dealt with before he returns. Thanks. Woodym555 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! This isn't just 24-hour block material, this is super serious. wikipediatrix 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder the IP did a death threat and it is a serious problem!! Greg Jones II 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be related to a now-blocked registered user who was vandalizing and trolling earlier. I think we need a checkuser to see if there are any more registered accounts out of this IP. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Brad, who do you think it was? Georgewilliamherbert 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I indef-blocked. (That's what we do just for legal threats, and this was much worse.) Yeah, it looked as credible as an online death threat can be. I'm 99% sure he was blowing smoke, but that's no excuse. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the talk page with the indefblockedip tag and explained a bit. You guys only beat me to the indef block by about 30 sec. Georgewilliamherbert 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a dynamic IP, we probably should not be blocking it indef. I shortened the block to one month. I won't complain if someone wants to extend it though. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He's asked to be unblocked, claiming his password was stolen. Er, since when has one needed a password to edit anonymously? Can't sleep, clown will eat me referred him to the unblock mailing list, but I doubt he'll get satisfaction there. -- llywrch 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello, This is a repost, The user Codyfink6 is making these edits again, this time on the Wendy's article. Could some on please take the time to block him? The complaints are piling up on his talk page. I do not believe he is a sock puppet, but he causing issues that are disrupting several articles. - Jerem43 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't udnerstand why this User has not been blocked. Could someone please explain? Corvus cornix 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, since my original post on the 7th: According to his contribution page, he has made approximately 8 edits, only one of which was productive and not reverted. There is one article that he has created that has been tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable and one that was deleted for the same reason. Again he has been requested to verify all edits and ignored the requests. - Jerem43 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I made a request earlier this week that this user be blocked (again) as that he is consistently making disruptive/unproductive edits and/or creating articles that are non-notable (I cannot find the archive of it). He has been requested to stop by myself and at least 10 other editors or administrators, yet he ignores our requests and continues to do so.

He has created at least nine non-notable articles that met the criteria for speedy deletion, two of which he tried to recreate several times. Several articles that he did create, he was asked to modify so that they met the criteria of a notable article, yet he did not and another editor had to. When he does create an article, it is usually just a sentence or two long, does not cite any sources and he fails to place a {{stub}} designation.

Here are some articles he has made disruptive/unproductive edits to:

• Burger King products - keeps putting incorrect or conflicting data in;
• List of CBS slogans - created an article that was basically a duplicate of the main article;
• CBS Records - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• Dice Game (pricing game) - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• Farmer Jack - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
• WLS-TV - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
• WNYW - keeps modifying their slogans with incorrect data.

Mr. Finke will not respond to any posts on his talk page, so this has been very frustrating to many editors who have tried to engage him in a productive dialog to help him understand what he has been doing violates the policies of Wikipedia. He has already been blocked once and I believe that he needs to be blocked again, for at least 30 days if possible. This will hopefully get the point across that he has been causing harm to this community.

Jerem43 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds strongly like User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Has this user made any constructive edits? If it's not something from the sock drawer (as suggested by Corvus) maybe it's time for a WP:CSN? --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afraid that any sanctions against him would be ignored as that he does not read his talk page. ---Jerem43 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Then why not just block him like all of his other sockpuppets? Corvus cornix 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not so sure this guy is a sock puppet, but he is being disruptive. Could an administrator please put a block on him for a 30 day period, as the first one seemed to be completely ignored. - Jerem43 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

In the articles ArmA:_Armed_Assault an anonymous user (72.188.213.190, 70.118.89.204, 70.118.90.29) keeps deleting a legit screenshot with the argument that it's not "web-resolution". He even keeps reverting the copyright and fair-use rationale that is supplied with the image.

Can we do anything about this situation? --Frescard 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The resolution of that screenshot really does need to be reduced. WilyD 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think there's an exception to fair use policy for video games, even if what you are attemping to illustrate is the high resolution of the game. Although the anon should not be replacing the fair use rationale with the statement that there is no rationale. If s/he thinks the rationale is invalid, that should go to the talk page or some appropriate venue for discussion, rather than be edit warred over. I notice, though, that no one has attempted to engage this anonymous user in discussion at their talk page, which should be the first step. Natalie 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I uploaded a 300x250 pixel image at Image:Arma33.JPG that satisfies the low resolution requirement. WODUP 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, at that size the whole point of the image gets lost...

But I've contacted the developer, and they will try to set up an image tag like Ubisoft, in order to allow any kind of screenshots. --Frescard 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a suggestion, but if you're trying to illustrate the resolution, how about cropping down to just a 500x500 small area of the screen? That would still show the level of detail and (while still technically a copyvio) might be less of a problem — iridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well... is "web-resolution" defined anywhere? I looked, but without much success.

I would imagine that nowadays, with the majority running at least 1024x768 that that would fall into the definition, but it seems that some people feel different... --Frescard 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've always understood web resolution to mean the same size as it's displayed in the article, typically 180 pixels wide. —Cryptic 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For things like album & book covers, I generally use between 300px & 500px - not everyone uses the default thumbnail settings, but I can't imagine anyone having it set higher than that. That's the size Amazon uses on sales blurb, so I treat it as a de facto web standard — iridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

"Web-resolution" is largely dependent on the layout of a site and the lowest common screen resolution used by visitors. While there's no one standard, there is a clear differentiation between that and print resolution, which is drastically higher (a 300dpi 8x10" image translates to 2400x3000). Also, Wikipedia users may have different thumb size settings in Special:Preferences - all the way up to 300px width. Fair use images should be no larger than necessary, but the 300px max guidelines are arbitrary and meaningless (though favored by the image patrol posse). However I have difficulty imagining a fair use claim where a resolution larger than .3 megapixels is necessary. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69 (under supevision at [[20]]) despite a discussion is going on related to the neutrality of March Days, he deleted the POV tag and also deleted some sourced information related to the numbers of killed people [21]without asking why? Andranikpasha 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Seraphimblade. Natalie 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was 14 days ago [22]. Now he's unblocked!Andranikpasha 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I did not read that closely enough. Natalie 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do love this - two arbitration cases and still the Armenia wars will not cease. Very silly! Fortunately, however, the kind gentlemen of the Committee have given us the tools to fight back. We simply have to drag this area of the encyclopedia back under control, and if that means playing a tad rough, so be it. General comment. Moreschi ^Talk 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Pflanzgarten was blocked indefinitely several months ago for edits like this on the Jim Clark article. Now, today 217.247.30.91 made this alarmingly similar edit, and 84.177.127.124 made another very similar edit. I think they should be blocked indefinitely as obvious socks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnel03 (talk • contribs) 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they look like IP socks, and I see this has been a problem in the past. I've issued a short-term (12-hour) block to the most recently used dynamic IP, which will just force him to switch. I've also semiprotected the target page, which should be more effective. MastCell ^Talk 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aynabend (under supevision at [[23]]) despite a discussion is going on related to the Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan), added unrelevant information [24] with a semi-vandal marking "Arran and Garabagh are almost synonyms." Andranikpasha 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Earlier on this fellow was placed on supervised editing, revert limitation and civility supervision for disruptive editing. Since then he's done nothing but wrangle pettily on various noticeboards. I've blocked him indef as a disruption-only account. Moreschi ^Talk 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah good work, most probably a sock by his editing pattern anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The world will probably continue to turn on its axis with one less nationalistic edit-warring single-purpose account in it. Er, good block - may just want to make sure it's logged on the Arbitration page. MastCell ^Talk 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Moreschi ^Talk 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job guys, this user needed guidance not an indef block. In any case the world still spins. Justice prevails VartanM 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. We've seen so many of his type before (we've probably seen him before, too: how many new editors are all over ANI after 2 weeks?) that we've come to realise single-purpose disruptive edit-warring wrangling accounts will not be changed. Moreschi ^Talk 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha is a genuine user. First off, he is, from email conversations, pretty much fluent in Eastern Armenian, Artaxiad can barely speak any Armenian and Fadix writes in Western Armenian. So he is not the sock of a banned user. If you are to ban him for unjustified reasons then also ban user:Ehud Lesar who every one of us knows is user:AdilBaguirov and who, unlike Andranik, keeps a nice account while his edit warrings are relied to other suicide accounts. I am ready to defend my claim that user:Ehud Lesar is banned user:AdilBaguirov and armed with many evidences before an AA3. Blocking indefinitely users while others have had two arbitrations as chances and still disrupt (Atabek) is unfair, which won't be the first time I witness here.

The reason why you see him so many times on ANI is because Grandmaster and Atabek abuse the process by provoking members by reporting them on every given occasion, Vartan was reported three times to the Arbcom enforcement by Atabek for insignificancies in a very short time, while Grandmaster submitted Andranik for checkusers more than once. While this abuse of process was documented during the last arbitration, case it was ignored by arbitrators like most of the other disruptions. Andranik was harassed and provoked the day he set foot on Wikipedia with multiple attempts to get him blocked. (whatever happened to the principle don't bait newbies?).

1) Report members as much as it is required 2) create the illusion that only disruption comes from them and finally 3) expect him to be blocked on the given next occasion. 4) And then have other administrators support the block to make it more official, endorsing by the occasion Grandmaster and Atabek abuses of process which has done nothing other than destabilising editors. - Fedayee 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no - my question is, why was this user reporting everyone else to ANI? I care little if this user is a sock: the point is that he's a single-purpose account created purely, so it seems, to disrupt articles relating to Armenia with edit-warring and tendentious editing. We have quite enough of those without adding more to the mix. Moreschi ^Talk 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For now, I object to this block. The user may well improve sufficiently with mentoring. Any objections if I explore that (including unblocking)? El_C 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not volunteering myself, to be clear! (I don't really do mentoring) I meant, someone else! El_C 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If you can find someone responsible and willing to mentor, fine, but I would question whether we really need dedicate such time to SPAs here purely to fight on what's already our biggest battleground, even without this one. I don't really objec to close mentorship + restrictions, though. Moreschi ^Talk 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I hear that. I'll look into it, thanks. El_C 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice idea as i was going to say that the block is a bit exaggerated but i am just busy mentoring another user. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked Moulton (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). See his Rfc and the talk page, as well as his talk page. Multiple editors have tried to help Moulton and work with him, to no positive result - the result is usually Moulton insulting those trying to help him. It appears Moulton has confused Wikipedia with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme. He uses the "martyr" card or makes personal attacks regularly. He not only hasn't learned a thing about how Wikipedia works, he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV.

Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free. IMO giving him another chance will waste more time, but I have no objection if someone else wishes to waste that time. I'm done. KillerChihuahua^?!? 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I commented as an outside view at the RfC, or I'd have done this myself a few days ago. Persistent talk page disruption, and trolling in the purest sense of the word - that is, editing with the apparent primary objective of getting a rise out of people. Sadly, he was all too successful. A good block. MastCell ^Talk 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have no problem with this block. Checking over the RFC, accounts that are here solely to push original research (some of the stuff he wrote was outstandingly original!) are not welcome. As little time should be wasted over disruption-only accounts as possible. Moreschi ^Talk 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I hate to see someone get blocked, but there was little else that could be accomplished. Good block and its a shame he wouldn't listen to what other editors had to say. Baegis 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sorry to have extended good faith towards him, but I'm not sorry to see the back of him either. The smart trolls are the worst. Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I commented at his RfC, although I did not have direct contact as others have. I think once he printed private emails (and who knows if or how they were edited by Moulton, which is why I think it's not appropriate), that was it. This is unfortunate, since he seems to be quite intelligent and well-read. But he didn't want to play by the rules. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell - it's a good block. I tried reasoning with Moulton several weeks ago, but gave up rather quickly. He just doesn't seem to be able to grasp the point of Wikipedia. Guettarda 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Abtract has edited WP:Lead section four times imposing his own view as to how articles should begin which goes against a long-standing consensus. His decision to edit this page was prompted by a number of users reverting his changes to United Kingdom, where he made the article begin with United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I pointed out that the UK article was following the guideline at WP:Lead section, and so Abtract decided to change the guideline to suit his view. I also pointed out that very many articles followed the agreed consensus and gave the following examples United States, BBC, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. Abtract then decided to edit just these articles to follow his preferred style. Abtract's edits with regard to the lead are but one aspect of his determination to change the UK article to his own way of thinking and to repeatedly ignore the consensus. Please see Talk:United Kingdom for the evidence. Jooler 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly disruptive behavior, in my opinion. --Haemo 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm thoroughly unimpressed by almost every single incident of this type, where someone is cited a policy, gets conronted by consensus on a page, then runs to the policy to get his way. I've already addressed at Lead Section, that he's making end runs around consensus across numerous pages, and hopefully that will sort this out, but I doubt it will be that easy, and I concur, it's disruptive. ThuranX 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Very disruptive, indeed. GoodDay 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

11 reversions on United States

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634
2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207
3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157226644&oldid=157225475
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157231654&oldid=157229558
5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157233128&oldid=157232011
6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157234670&oldid=157233580
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157237114&oldid=157236778
8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157237655&oldid=157237434
9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157240830&oldid=157239367
10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157242208&oldid=157241659
11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157244046&oldid=157243630

Jooler 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have provided a warning, this user may be blocked under Wikipedia's Three-revert rule. If he qualifies, you should bring this up on WP:AN/3. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Two Ip accounts User:86.145.251.168 and User:84.67.181.45 are obviously the same person, one was blocked for 3RR and the other restarted the edit war, the other couple of articles each has edited are identical as well. How can one tell if these are open proxies? Carlossuarez46 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting them over at WikiProject on open proxies. The users there will check them out. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will do. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not proxies, probably the same person, though, on a dynamic IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether this should be here or WP:COIN, but I just want to confirm that I can revert clear vandalism on an article about me, especially if it's from an anon and claims to be reverting edits made by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what board this should go on, removing clear/undisputed/undeniable vandalism is absolutely an exception to WP:COI. So its quite alright of you to do so, no worries.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not that another voice is needed here, but I surely think PPG to be quite right. Joe 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, reversion of obvious vandalism is appropriate by Wikipedia standards. The press and public can be harsh critics, though, so if you want to be avert potential off-wiki problems (which are beyond our control) then some alternative solutions are:

• WP:AIV - vandalism in progress noticeboard
• WP:BLPN - biographies of living persons noticeboard
• WP:RPP - requests for page protection (if the same vandal strikes several times)

Best wishes, Durova^Charge! 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Abtract for disruption on United States. I don't know about blocking the other reverters, could I have a second opinion? Thanks, Navou ^banter 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user has 'reverted' more then 3 times in 24hrs, that's a breach of 3RR. GoodDay 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Not even remotely surprised. Attempts to get "your way" in an editing dispute by changing the guidelines, and then changing other articles, are bound to get messy. It was disruptive to begin with, and this is just a symptom of that. --Haemo 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, however, you and another did revert exactly three times, and I considered blocking you two as well. Please do not participate in the edit war, even if you limit your reverts to exact three reverts. This is also disruption, and a block will prevent that disruption. Navou ^banter 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I've only reverted 3-times (pointing out my third, was my last). GoodDay 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll limit myself to 2-reverts, and avoid getting involved with edit wars. GoodDay 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd say no other blocks are needed even if one person did revert against him 3+ times. Abtract's actions equate to simple vandalism, if not originally, then by the 12th time he repeated them against mass consensus. --tjstrf talk 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, we should be understanding of people who go to the "brink" when they're dealing with someone who makes unilateral, undiscussed changes, and then breaks our guidelines to edit war over them. --Haemo 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edit history for United States I counted 3 reversions max for every reverter besides User:Abtract...

Breakdown:

• Gooday: 1, 2, 3
• DCGeist 1, 2 (had reverted earlier but those where all anti-vandal reverts, acceptable)
• G2bambino 1, 2, 3
• Evb-wiki 1
• Jooler 1
• AndonicO 1.

So technically there has been no 3rrs but the edit warring was disruptive.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I thought so, just wanted the to double check. Also, thank you for that promise GoodDay. Navou ^banter 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Folken De fanel and me have been arguing over the dbz live action film being merged with the dbz page. we both have different opinions, but every time he leaves a comment, the comment is personally attacking me. he says aweful things and he should watch his mouth. not to mention, he broke the three revert rule on the dragonballz page. he has a history of doing both these things. --Cman7792 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This user received a level 4 warning in early April for creating hoax movie pages. However, in late June, he created MayBe (film), which is supposedly directed by Martin Hernandez, a 15 year old. Then today, he created White Light (film), a nonsensical article that smells of hoax. He's also uploaded several movie posters from http://www.impawards.com; these probably aren't okay for 'pedia use. Not sure of appropriate action to be taken, possibly a short block? Thanks. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry accusations aside, this user is showing a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy and etiquette, making inflammatory posts on the Talk:Halo 3 page, and violating 3RR on Halo 3. Several users have attempted to discuss the subject of the edit war, as well as pointing out the 3RR rule and the need for sources. Please, do something about this user! Stryik 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, see User talk:SpigotMap; again, uncivil conduct and a general lack of respect for editors.

he's wrong, I've provided sources numerous times and they chose to disregard it, calling it a "hoax". even though every other site on the internet talked about it, there pictures OF it, and tehre was links to the halo 3 ebay page; honestly, I don't even know why i'm arguing with this guy. Duff man2007 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if those were reliable sources, you did break 3RR--$UIT 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for very blatant 3RR violations. Once this is up, if there are continuing problems, contact me. I'm concerned about the pattern of behavior I see here. AKRadecki^Speaketh 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report an ongoing edit war. It relates to the topic 'Tension Myositis Syndrome.' To review, on Sept 9, 2007, User:Pacula marked the article for deletion. This is a well established article that has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004, and has been edited and improved by many people over this time. It has many citations and has been linked to in many other articles. Then, on the same day, he began deleting all the references to this article and the citations involved, in other related articles. This left a mess of broken links and deleted citations, with nothing in the discussion pages to justify his edits. I should point out that Pacula is a games programmer, and knows nothing about the topic involved, but for some reason decided he didn't like it. As one interested in this topic, I began to try to repair the damage done. When I began to replace the deleted links and citations, trying to put the related articles back to the way they had been before his destructive edits, and not adding anything new, he quickly followed me around and deleted my repairs, calling me a "spammer." The discussion still goes on as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but Pacula continues to revert my repairs of his destructive edits. Then today, he accused me of spamming and advertising (false), of "Unwarranted pervasive linking to uncollaborated self-published work" (totally false) and threatened to block me if I continued to repair his destructive edits which I would consider vandalism. Look at his recent edits and comments and his multiple destructive edits to cited texts and links. This is censorship and vandalism in my opinion, and I would like it stopped. Thanks, Ralphyde 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: moved from AN3 - seems more appropriate here. Kuru ^talk 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder there is an edit war. We need some administrators to stop it ASAP. Greg Jones II 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming you are talking about Tension myositis syndrome.) It is perfectly acceptable for Pacula to initiate this deletion discussion, no matter how long the article has been on Wikipedia. Notability is not conferred by an article's Wikipedia age, but by other external factors. As for your accusations that Pacula began deleting the references, there are only two edits to that article by Pacula among the last 50 edits: this one, in which s/he puts a CSD tag on it, and this one, in which s/he nominates it for AfD following your removal of the speedy tag. Pacula has made a few edits to the AfD, but none of them are reverts and they are all very constructive. I'm not seeing what the issue with Pacula is, and there is certainly no 3RR violation, since s/he has only edited the article twice and they were completely acceptable edits. Nominating an article for AfD when someone has disagreed with the speedy is the right way to handle that. Natalie 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Nice summary, Natalie!) – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, to see what Pacula did, you have to look at his edit history. His edits weren't all to Tension Myositis Syndrome, but to all topics that previously linked to tension myositis syndrome, of which there were many. Since he destroyed these links by systematically deleting them and various cited text, they can't be found by just looking at tension myositis syndrome but can only be seen by looking at his editing history. He made a big mess of quite a few interrelated articles having to do with chronic pain. I have tried to repair some of the damage, to get it back to the way it was before his rampage, but he has then reverted most of my repairs. Thanks, Ralphyde 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see in Pacula's editing history is the removal of an external link you have repeatedly added. Whether this link is used a lot on Wikipedia or not will have no bearing on the AfD for the article since being an external link in Wikipedia is not a standard of notability. However, Pacula's editing history goes back nearly 3 years so I didn't check every edit. Could you provide some diffs, Ralphyde, of where Pacula has removed cited text, removed citations, or broken a link? Natalie 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, I don't know what you mean by diffs, but if you start with the edit history for Pacula at 15:42 on 9 September, you'll see his nomination for deletion, then in rapid order starting at 18:13 the same day, he removed the links to tension myositis syndrome from Fibromyalgia, Pain and nociception, repetitive strain injury, list of medical abbreviations, human body, chronic pain, back pain, biopsychosocial model, lumbago, carpel tunnel syndrome, TMS, low back pain, etc. When I tried to repair this damage, he then reverted all my changes and called me a "very determined spammer," when it was he who was vandalizing all the links and references based on a false idea that these links weren't legitimate. I've been a student of tension myositis syndrome, which relates to a method for curing chronic pain, for over three years, have read nine different books on it by several different authors, and it is a legitimate and important subject especially to those in chronic pain. And Pacula has continued destroying these important links in spite of my complaints to him, which he purged from his talk page. Thanks for caring, Ralphyde 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

There seem to be issues of LINKSPAMMING (which also applies to wikilinks) and OWNERSHIP going on here. (BTW, if you don't yet know what a "diff" is, please get better informed before doing much more editing. That's pretty basic knowledge you will need if you are going to engage in talk page discussions and in any conflict resolution processes.) Basically these matters are common beginner mistakes and a refusal to listen to more experienced editors (in this case Pacula) can give you a bad record here. Don't edit war. Discuss and learn. -- Fyslee/talk 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it helpful to link to the page in question when suggesting that someone educate themself. Ralphyde, you can learn what diffs are at Help:Diff. Natalie 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Natalie. I guess I knew what a diff was, as I'd assumed it stood for difference, and I'd learned to see them for what they were. However, what I didn't know was that they were called "diffs" or how to pass them to you for your observation. So thanks for the link. It is helpful. Ralphyde 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralphyde's complaint against me is basically that I systematically removed a considerable number of links and references from various articles that pointed to the TMS article, and that much is true. I removed them because I felt that they were link spam - refering (directly or otherwise) to what I saw as an extremely non-NPOV article on a WP:Fringe subject that basically read like an advertisement for the books it used as references. Most of these references to this article/advertisement seemed barely relevent, so I thought it best if I tried to sweep up the mess as much as possible. Ralphyde's insistence on undoing the removals prompted me to place the standard series of 'advertising' user warning templates on his talk page, from which came the threats of blocking that he refers to above. These books that the TMS article uses for reference are the above-mentioned 'uncollaborated self-published works', though I realize now that Ralphyde is not the author, but merely an evangelical fan of the author's theories, making this more of a WP:SOAP spamming issue than of blatant commercial spam as I first thought. - Pacula 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the essense of my complaint, that Pacula hastily marked an established, long standing, and important article for deletion, without any knowledge of the subject, but then, before anyone had a chance to discuss that motion, he deleted all the links to it in related articles, as well as cited text, so that people could not properly see the significance of the article, and when I tried to restore his destroyed links, he followed me around deleting them again and calling me a spammer. Marking the article for deletion was acceptable (though wrong in this case), but then rushing around destroying all the links to it to diminish its importance (i.e. destroying all the evidence) before anyone had a chance to vote on his motion and thus making it inaccessable from related articles, was absolutely unacceptable. There should have been a wait until the issue was decided. That is my point. In addition there was nothing about any 'uncollaborated self-published works' involved. This was a total red herring. Ralphyde 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, beginning a deletion discussion of this article is perfectly acceptable, regardless of how long the article has existed on Wikipedia. As to whether it's important, that's for the AfD discussion to hammer out. Secondly, removing links to this article from other articles will have no bearing on the AfD, as this is not a way of meeting Wikipedia:Notability. The importance or significance of an article can in no way be judged by its presence within Wikipedia - it has to come from outside. If you are worried that not enough people will participate in the deletion discussion, you may wish to list it on an appropriate noticeboard (not telling people how to vote, just informing them that the discussion is taking place). So what you have here is a content dispute, and as the banner on the top of the page says, this board is not part of the dispute resolution process. Administrators have no special ability to adjudicate content disputes; please utilize one of the processes outlined at Wikipedia: Dispute resolution instead. Natalie 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Two editors have been reverting like mad on today's featured article, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. I've blocked both of them for 12 hours, but since this is my first 3RR enforcement, feel free to adjust length or overturn as needed. Resurgent insurgent 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here yourself and hopefully and admin can soon have a second look. Let me just note that it is very unfortunate that we arrive at a situation where the author of a featured article gets blocked for multiple reversions on 'his' article the same day that it gets posted and can't help feeling that we should have been more vigilant / helpful in the first place --Tikiwont 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The editor in question claims he was reverting vandalism, and a cursory review of the diffs seems to bear that out. Please keep in mind that obvious vandalism is an exception to the 3RR policy. When an article is a TFA, it's a magnet for vandalism, and we need to keep that in mind and approach things a little more carefully. I think you owed the author a bit of an explanation when you blocked, telling him why the vandalism exception didn't apply in this case, assuming you believed that it didn't. AKRadecki^Speaketh 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Err Resurgent insurgent's block doesn't show up in the logs at all. The users in question are User:BQZip01 and User:ThreeE, for the record (took me 10 minutes to find out who he was talking about :P). The two user block logs in question: [25] and [26]. Ignoring that confusing note, 3rr was indeed broken, and it was not vandalism. One editor removed a bit of unsourced information in the lead and it was reinserted back and forth, so the block was appropriate. [27] [28] [29] Cowman109^Talk 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:BQZip01 has done the 3RR thing again today -- the second day in a row on the article in question. ThreeE 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only partially involved as I was working vandal patrol yesterday but he is reverting other edits not related to this particular subject you guys are fighting about. There has been a LONG discussion on the talk page and consensus appears to be near but you came along and went ahead and edited anyway despite the ongoing discussion you knew was taking place. That is my observation. I am going to try to get BQZip01 to cool it a bit but you need to participate in the discourse. It would be better for the article. Spryde 11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• HE'S BACK ~ not a big surprise. New IP is 41.241.8.137. He also uses IP 41.241.74.5, and just added 41.241.14.73 not sure if you have that one yet. He has also posted this in the Wikipedia sandbox. I'll not link it because, you can tell from the title, what the picture is. Image:Hot_naked_woman.jpg He's been repeatedly blocked but continues to use sockpuppetry to get past the blocks. More information can been found on my talk page.IrishLass0128 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Along with placing the pictures of the naked women in the sandbox, he is putting obsene phrases/"invitations" in. He has a long history of this behavior and has been reported several times. He also uses user:Hen55 as a user id. He continues to remove verifiable information and place assumptions and personal opinion in articles. He is constantly changing his IP to evade blocking.IrishLass0128 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• User has abused people, posted pictures of naked women, bragged about evading blocks, repeatedly invited people to "enjoy his man parts" and changed user reports about him. He's blocked for a week but has evaded the blocks again. As I have never encountered such a problem, is there a procedure for getting him banned for good and blocking his sockpuppets? He is disruptive, participates in edit wars, adds unverifiable information, and reverts edits made by multiple editors ignoring consensus decisions. Please advise on how to get user banned. CelticGreen 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's back again this morning. 41.241.14.73. He's making the same changes and vandalising the same articles. He seems to believe there's no such thing as "step-siblings" such as step-brothers or step-sisters. It's what makes it so easy to tell it's him. CelticGreen 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could I get an uninvolved admin to step in and try to sort out some of a mess that I am, at least minorly, involved in? It started as an article about an game who's only claim to notability was an appearence on the reality show American Inventor, where it did not get very far at all. I wrote out a more full history here. The page has been bouncing around between redirect and aricle for the last few days, and as of this morning the two month old AFD has been suddenly re-opened. So we now have both active RFD and AFD discussions going on the same page at the same time. - TexasAndroid 13:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Another AfD is certainly in order, but re-opening the old one is probably a mistake this far out. A new, clean-slate AfD would probably be best. Have you talked with User:DarkFalls about this? MastCell ^Talk 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've responded to him now. I had not noticed that he was an admin as well. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please check the disruptive edits of Azurgi (talk · contribs) at Saudi Arabia. The guy doesn't communicate and keeps reverting even if it was clearly explained to them that WP:MoS is more important than their POV. He has just reverted me twice to the version of an IP. It could be them as it could be someone else. I already left him a clear message at their talk page as i am not a fan of edit warring. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I left another warning that he needs to discuss his proposed change; if he again reverts against the consensus version without discussing, then I think a brief block would be in order. MastCell ^Talk 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks mate. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Zsero has openly declared in past discussion that he has abandoned WP:AGF in his interactions with me. In light of this, I asked that he not make edits to my User or User_talk pages until he rescinds said abandonment. He has continued arguing in my User_talk space despite my request; this is harassment, and I request intervention against his continue posting there unless and until he rescinds his abandonment of WP:AGF. Italia^vivi 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no policy, guideline, or even mild suggestion, that editors own their talk pages, and can ban people from them. User talk pages exist to facilitate communication between editors, and any editor who has a legitimate comment to make to another editor, or a legitimate contribution to make to a discussion taking place on another editor's user talk page, is entitled to do so. Doing so does not constitute harassment in any sense of the word, and certainly not in the sense defined at WP:Harassment. As for AGF, it is decidedly not the case that one must continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary; I did AGF of Italiavivi for far longer than I needed to, but eventually the evidence to the contrary seemed to me overwhelming, and I stopped, as is clearly my right. I fail to see how that affects my right to participate in discussions taking place on his/her talk page. -- Zsero 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero, I will ask politely one more time: Please abstain from making edits to my userspace until you rescind your declared abandonment of good faith against me. Italia^vivi 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No policy, guideline, or anything else, requires me to accede to such an request. I will continue to make reasonable and appropriate comments on your talk page whenever I see a legitimate cause to do so. I have not harassed you until now, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. -- Zsero 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't care if you have not harassed me until now, now is not acceptable. Please do not make edits to my User space while you continue flaunting your abandonment of good faith against me elsewhere. It is harassment to fill my User space with arguments while openly declaring your refusal to assume good faith in discussions with me. Italia^vivi 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't. And I have hardly "filled" your user space with arguments. My comments there have been few and modest. Now if I were in fact "filling your user space" or trying to do so, e.g. by posting many KB of nonsense, that would be harassment. But I've never done so, or even come within orders of magnitude of appearing to do so, so I don't know where you come off implying otherwise. -- Zsero 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is generally recognized that when someone asks you to stop using their talk page, esp. in admitted cases of no AGF and no civility, the offending editor should stop. Please limit your conversation to the talk page of the article in question. Continuing to attack him on his talk page constitutes harassment (even if only he feels it's an attack, it's best to disengage.) ThuranX 03:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If it's "generally recognised" it must surely be written somewhere. Where?

BTW in this case there is no article in question, to whose talk page I could take it; the discussion, about something that happened here on ANI, was taking place on Italiavivi's talk page, between him/her and another editor, and s/he said something that wasn't true, so I pointed it out, as is my right. I was entirely factual, and documented the truth with the relevant diffs. -- Zsero 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

First, above the 'until now' indicates you KNOW that your actions are taken as harrassment. beyond that, if you're going to wait till the admins block you by demanding I give you a policy citation for a common occurance here on AN/I, then good luck with that free time the block will get you. Your statement that you intend to keep editing there, despite your admission that it comes off as harassment, is a problem. but since you don't believe it, I'll step aside ,and let others get the point across. ThuranX 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh my goodness. "Until now" indicates nothing of the sort. It means exactly what it says. I have never harassed Italiavivi, and I have no intention of harassing him/her, or anybody else. How you read what you do into it is beyond me. AFAIK when Italiavivi claims that declining a request not to edit a user talk page is per se harassment, s/he is using a definition of "harassment" that is peculiar to him/her. Are you really saying that you share that view? It's certainly not consistent with the definition at WP:Harassment. -- Zsero 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you all just walk away? This seems like pointless instigation at this point, and it's definitely not helping anyone resolve their disputes. --Haemo 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love for him to walk away. I simply ask that Zsero not make edits to my User space until he rescinds his abandonment of good faith against me, nothing more. Italia^vivi 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The correct response would be "I would love to walk away", not "I would love for him to walk away". And since you're the one who filed this frivolous complaint here at ANI, I can hardly walk away from that can I? You have not "asked" me not to comment on your talk page, you have demanded it, something that you have no right to do, and threatened that if I refuse you will file frivolous complaints against me, such as this one. That's hardly something I can walk away from. I don't comment on your talk page to annoy you, I do it when I have something pertinent to say. Such as this evening, when you misrepresented what another editor had done, and I pointed out the facts. That's what the talk page is for, and I have every intention of continuing to do so when appropriate and not otherwise. -- Zsero 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Zsero, Italia, step away from each other entirely. Zsero, stop instigating discussions with Italia where he/she does not want to discuss things with you. Italia, ignore Zsero if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should stop and rather concentrate energies on editing articles accordingly to WP:CIVIL. I did see the message on User talk:Zsero in which he explicitly talks about not proceeding with good faith towards the other editor. that means trolling! WP:TROLL/WP:GAME. Just because there are gaps in certain rules in wikipedia doesn't give you the right to harass someone else's user page and more if the other party doesn't want to discuss things not related to articles but a discussion here.[31] plus Zsero edited over taliavivi's comments (it is considered vandalism WP:TALK). My humble advice is to just drop all this nonsense..!!--F3rn4nd0 ^{(Roger - Out)} 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? You've got to be kidding. 1) I am explicitly not required to AGF forever; how is declaring that I've reached the point where I no longer AGF of someone "trolling" or "gaming"? 2) How have I "harassed someone else's user page"? By "gaps in certain rules in wikipedia" do you mean that I'm expected to obey rules that exist in your head and nowhere else? 3) Deleting someone's comments on my own talk page is not vandalism - where on earth did you get the idea that it is? I'm entitled to delete them just as Italiavivi is entitled to delete comments on his/her talk page. I leave comments that I consider useful and constructive, even if they're criticism directed against me. In this case I saw no point in leaving the comment up. -- Zsero 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to consider this resolved so long as you both agree not to talk to each other on each other's user talks. How's that sound?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Which is what is being asked here, is it not?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (unrelated) violation of 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Wikipedia, which makes this all rather moot. Fram 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may be relevant. Szero's comment on Italiavivi's user talk page included the word "confabulating" used in an unnecessary and provoking manner and may possibly have been a contributing factor in Italiavivi's decision to try to leave Wikipedia. I think that users should not have total control over their user talk page. They should not be able to use it as a forum where a limited group of people can develop a consensus that does not include all points of view (as I tried to do on a user page once and was criticized for it and stopped). However, posting a comment which does not assume good faith and which is provoking and at the same time is overstepping a request to stay off the talk page is a combination which I think is worse than any one of those things alone. I think Szero has mistaken a user with a very different point of view with a user who does not have good faith -- they are two very different things. --Coppertwig 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, I have not mistaken anything. This was not a matter of a different point of view but of different facts: those in the edit history and those in Italiavivi's mind. The word "confabulating" was carefully chosen to describe what I believe Italiavivi was actually doing, and what I believe s/he has done before. It's as much good faith as I can muster for him/her, and bear in mind that I am under no obligation to assume any GF, having had plenty of evidence to the contrary, but rather than accuse him/her of deliberately lying (as s/he did to me) I gave a more innocent explanation. But the facts remain the facts, and they're not as Italiavivi has represented them, either in that case or in the previous ones.

And it remains the case that nobody has the right to ban others from appropriate use of their talk pages, and defying such a purported ban does not constitute harassment. Which means that this complaint was frivolous, yet another violation to Italiavivi's account. -- Zsero 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen quite a lot of people lately who think they can "ban" other people they dislike from their talk page. It may sound like stating the obvious, but perhaps WP:UP needs to point out that they can't do that? >Radiant< 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. Viridae^Talk 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Certainly true, but it's often wise to honor a request to stay away. Tom Harrison ^Talk 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd support a balanced edit to UP, once which explicitly states taht 'while a user's request that you not continue using his talk page is not enforcable because it constitutes a WO:OWN violation, it's often wise to be CIVIL and disengage, at least for a brief period (such as a day, or weekend), to allow both parties to cool off and return their focus to the content dispute.', thus making it clear that it's good manners, but not policy, to stop when asked. ThuranX 11:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider it really bad form to post to someone's talk page if they make it clear they don't want any communication with you. I don't think there should be a policy about it either way. We shouldn't encourage Wikilawyering, but we shouldn't encourage WP:DICK violations either. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• On the contrary, I consider it really childish to tell people "whatever you have to say, I don't want to hear it". It's the wiki equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la" at the top of your voice. >Radiant< 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand the concerns about harassment and incivility, but I think these can be dealt with by other means than talk page embargoes. These include comments by uninvolved admins, the dispute resolution process, and (in extreme cases) admin actions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• Agreed. As a policy, it could be gamed and used to justify harassment. Radiant's stance would make for a mighty fine essay though. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • • Perhaps we could add Radiant's note to WP:UP, but also bring up WP:HARRASS on the page and specifically state that as an exception, or something. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Would somebody please help me at User talk:Alansohn. I asked him really quite nicely nicely not to use misleading edit summaries, which prompted him to accuse me of all kinds of shit, and he also thinks that reposting a cached version of an article is fine by policy whereas deleting an article on a living individual drawn entirely form tabloid news reports is Evil. Judging from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn this is pretty much normal behaviour for him. Is it time for further action? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Quite nicely? You accuse me of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." You then made an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There is no policy requiring that any edit summary be entered, whatsoever. Every single word added to the article included a reliable and verifiable source. We now have a completely imaginary WP:TABLOID policy that has been violated, when in fact every single reference added comes from a reliable source, and that no one else has challenged. Even the admin who deleted the article in the face of unanimous consensus to keep the article as is (other than the nominator) didn't use teh excuse that teh sources weren't reliable. No other editor has claimed that the content added was "controversial" or attempted to change a word of what you have decided was inserted misleadingly. Every single edit that I have made over the past few years includes an edit summary that provides a clear, concise and accurate description of the changes I've made. That, despite repeated requests, you have never specified what Wikipedia policy has been violated, you have failed to specify what the "or else" part of your threat is and to take take the action you keep on threatening is evidence that there is no legitimate purpose here. It amazes me that an admin can improperly delete an article, another admin can improperly delete the same article after sources were added, and a third admin can make false accusations of a policy violation, accompanied by threats of further action, that I can plead with this admin to move on and have him refuse. I finished my edits of the article, which is balanced, comprehensive and in which nearly every sentence is thoroughly-documented (including such "tabloids as The New York Times and New York magazine). I had already moved on, but an admin wants to fight a non-existent battle. And who has a problem here? Alansohn 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with JzG in regards to you using a misleading edit summary. I do not see where JzG has breached WP:CIVIL here? He did not right off the bat come to you with a stern warning. I think you overacted to what he was leaving as a notice/reminder from the start. Also, there may be no policy about entering an edit summary but policy is clear enough in saying "do not enter a misleading edit summary."¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice" when NO ONE HAS SPECIFIED WHAT WIKIPEDIA WAS VIOLATED, may not be a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it is certainly not "nicely". What battle is being fought here? Are we just having admins defending other admins by attacking non-policy issues? Alansohn 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Calm down. No battle is being fought here. Your edits were believed to be inappropriate. I am not really aware or involved about the controversy of your content additions (so I have no comments in regards to that) but it is easy to tell that you were using a misleading edit summary. Just understand that it is honestly not appropriate to do so. That's all.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Do you (or anyone else) seriously believe that the edits were deliberately "misleading" as User:JzG accused or (at worst) brief? Do you have any shred of Wikipedia policy that requires any edit summary for any article (Answer: none exists)? Was any Wikipedia policy violated? What is the "or else" threat "to bring this to wider notice" and why was it necessary? I had finished editing the article and moved on. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here; Your fellow admin User:JzG is trying to fight some sort of battle about the article, citing his brand-new WP:TABLOIDISM policy. I don't suppose that you know his motivations or the answers to these questions, but we need to hear a thorough explanation for these actions directly from the horse's mouth. Alansohn 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes I do and I explained to you why. You labeled them copyedits when they had nothing to do with small grammatical, spelling, etc. fixes. However, I do understand it might not have been your direct intention to make the edit summary misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I left this comment on his talk page describing the difference between what is considered copyediting and introducing new material into an article. I also alerted him to this ANI thread as common courtesy.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have last week been in a very similar dispute with Alansohn, and this behavious seems to be all too common for him. The RfC hasn't really achieved anything, sadly. Fram 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good to see all the old tricks here: the SHOUTING, the accusations, the outrage, the wikilawyering and the mindless repetition, all without admitting even the slightest possibility of having done something wrong. The RfC could be re-opened. Eusebeus 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Or escalated, since he shows every sign of not just not learning, but of denying any need to learn. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed. This is not a new problem by any means. wikipediatrix 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
• No disrespect, Guy, but given that your response to his "what the hell are talking about?" was to simply repeat what you originally said, with added boldface, talk about escalation cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• That was the third or fourth iteration. But you're right, it should have been apparent that Alansohn's response to any form of kickback is reliably denial and attack, so yes I should have taken it straight here or maybe arbcom. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• <Slaps forehead>. Guy, doing the same over and over again and expecting different results is, what, exactly? And yes, I mean both of you. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Actually Calton, he didn't ask for clarification, he asked what WP policy he was explicitly violating in his summaries, which is wikilawyerish & belligerent, given the discussion that had already occurred. Eusebeus 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Asking "what did I do wrong" isn't asking for clarification? On this planet, it is. And the answer is, to tell him what. If he doesn't shut up then, yeah, it's Wikilawyering, but citations to the International Journal of Because I Said So (to use one of JzG's formulations) are bad regardless of who's doing it or how microscopically thin-skinned your respondent is. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If your edit summaries were misleading, and it was an accident, then just apologize and explain that you'll be more careful? Is that a really difficult thing to do? Why all the shouting?--Haemo 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems apparent that he didn't understand what JzG was talking about -- whether he should have is another question, but is at least ambiguous -- and since JzG's response was to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, it seems Alansohn's response to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, was at least at the same level. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• A note on my page that read "Alan, please try to leave more descriptive edit summaries when making edits of this nature", would have gotten a prompt thanks. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind every single edit (and edit summary) I made to the article, despite the claim of "violating" the brand-new WP:TABLOID policy that JzG created earlier today. Instead, my first contact from User:JzG was the baseless claim of making knowingly misleading edit summaries in bad faith "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice", which User:JzG presents as "asking nicely", is anything but. We deserve far better from an admin who seems to be desperately trying to manufacture a controversy here. Alansohn 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really see why one would get a "thanks" and the other would cause you to react like this. You've made it clear that it was an accident; that's good now. Everyone here appears to be acting in good faith, and it would probably be beneficial if we just left it at that. Sometimes cheerfully responding even to things you feel might be pushing it prevents a lot of trouble. After all, we all have better things to do. --Haemo 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• My version is a suggestion; JzG's version constitutes an accusation and a threat. And you think they're the same? Accusing someone of maliciously hiding nefarious edits to an article and threatening action is your version of assuming good faith? Alansohn 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Except that the issue wasn't that your summaries weren't descriptive, it was that they were misleading, representing significant textual changes as "copyediting". Most editors will not check or patrol an edit labelled "copyediting" by an account with a bluelinked user page. You didn't suggest that this was accidental, what you did was to demand what the hell was wrong with calling it copyediting - and all that does is make it look very much more like you are deliberately setting out to mislead and far less likely that you simply hadn't thought it through. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• You are still making the baseless and bad faith accusation that the edit summaries were misleading. You still have not justified just how it is that you "know" that they were misleading. You didn't make a request. You didn't make a suggestion. You made an accusation accompanied by a threat. If you look at my past 30 or 40 thousand edit summaries, you will see that a significant majority are prefixed with the words "copyedit and wikify re..." Yet, this is the first time, in over 40,000 edits, that anyone has ever accused me of making a "misleading edit summary". Did you bother to review the edits and look through my edit history, or were you just trying to manufacture a controversy about an article where there seems to have been clear administrative impropriety? Someone else mentioned WP:COPYEDIT as the issue here, but that's a "how to", not a policy. I've asked a dozen times, and you still haven't specified what Wikipedia policy was violated. Why was the bad faith accusation and threat necessary, and why on earth would you think it was appropriate. ? Alansohn 20:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a serious charge: a baseless and bad-faith accusation. So let's have a look, shall we?

(copyedit and wikify re bio) - but the "copyedit" re-inserts gratuitous detail about her mother's death. Misleading? Certainly not just a copyedit, and when it follows this edit [32] which has the edit summary "(what her mother died of isn't really relevant and adds nothing to the article)", and removes precisely that fact - and that fact was inserted by you in the previous edit! - you cannot posisbly be unaware that what you were doing was, far from copyediting, reinserting disputed material. So: I would call that a very misleading edit summary.

(add additional biographical details, with sources) - really? So the statement "An expert hired by the plaintiffs in a civil case against her who reconstructed the accident based on data from the car's "black box" determined that her actions intentional" is a biographical detail? Since when did experts determine things in civil suits?

But I guess not all your edit summaries are misleading. Take this one, for example: [33] - (You were the one who intruded with knowingly false claims and made pathetic empty threats that you refuse to follow through with. Put up or sht up, once and for all.) Oh, my! Knowingly false, eh? No chance of even a difference in interpretation, knowingly false. Dear oh dear, sounds like you might need to open a request for comment, what with me going round making knowingly false accusations. Or... wait... is it perhaps the case that others here have also said that your edit summaries were misleading? Why, they have! So perhaps it's not knowingly false after all! Perhaps it's a perfectly reasonable interpretation under the circumstances! Perhaps, after all, you might need to, you know, be a bit more careful? Perhaps someone should go to your talk page and suggest that you're more careful with the summaries? Ah, but I see that a helpful admin already did that.

FYI: acceptable responses would have been "oops", "sorry", "that's not what I meant" or even nothing at all.

Unacceptable responses include "HOW DARE YOU!" and "SHOW ME IN POLICY WHERE IT SAYS I CAN'T DESCRIBE REVERSION AS COPYEDITING, GO ON, SHOW ME!".

In short, then, I left you a polite note, and you went utterly ballistic and in the process made a total fool of yourself by asserting that it is knowingly false to describe as misleading those edit summaries which were, very obviously, misleading. And from your RfC it seems that this is repeatably how you react. The question is what we might want to do about that. Guy (Help!) 22:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already written an outside view on the original RfC asking why a particular old, resolved dispute was there. Amusingly enough, in that old, resolved dispute, it was Guy/JzG who said at the time as a neutral admin that both disputing parties had lost their perspective. The general consensus on the talk page of the RfC was that the RfC result could be described roughly as "Alansohn never responded directly to the RfC; although some users noticed changes in some of his behavior that seemed to them to reflect criticisms made in it. Other users did not feel he showed any sign of modifying his behavior. No consensus was reached as to whether the RfC had its intended effect or not." If we think there is a general pattern repeating, another RfC seems to be in order, possibly escalating to mediation or beyond. Frankly, I think there is a bit of a general pattern repeating here. GRBerry 22:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Alansohn's view (see his screed below) seems to be that a good offense is the best defense. The RfC highlighted various tendencies, including:

1. A tendency to repeat his viewpoint with legalistic reference to policy, regardless of the response of those who disagree with him. This drives many editors to extreme frustration.
2. A tendency to accuse those who disagree with him of making personal attacks.
3. A tendency to insist upon the merits of his viewpoint without regard to a consensus or body of opinion that he disagrees with.
4. A tendency to reinforce his positions with nasty characterisations of those with whom he disagree
5. A tendency to extreme wikilawyering in discussion, often to the point of disrupting the larger debate.
6. A tendency to avoid all compromise, or even the invitation to compromise, in instances where he is convinced of the rectitude & probity of his position, sometimes modulated by an ingenuous (or perhaps heartfelt) belief that he alone is acting to build consensus (or in this case an encyclopedia).

   Many of these are on full display here and below; it is distressing that there has apparently been no willingness to moderate any of these instincts. Eusebeus 02:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Again, we have Eusebeus and his selective misinterpretation of facts. JzG violated WP:POINT by placing a knowingly false accusation and a threat on my user page in response to a made up policy violation regarding edit summaries. Despite repeated requests for the policy violated, JzG has stubbornly refused to specify what Wikipedia policy was violated; one can't be "legalistic" when there is no legitimate basis to the patently false "warning" and its accompanying threat. That you have added to the disruption in no way minimizes the abusive action by JzG. A cursory review of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman, shows unanimous consensus that the original article meets any and all standards of notability. That JzG refuses to abide by this consensus and has manufactured an imaginary "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy to justify his actions is further evidence of bad faith on his part. I stand by every single action and every single edit to the Lizzie Grubman article. I invite any individual who believes the current version of the article violates any Wikipedia policy to take another stab at deleting it at WP:AFD. Until then, this entire process of intimidation is intended to be disruptive, the very definition of a WP:POINT violation. This abuse by JzG must be put to an end. Alansohn 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Wrong on two counts. First, WP:POINT is doind something you know is wrong in order to demonstrate it's wrong. Second, as outlined above, your edit summaries were misleading. Your obdurate refusal to accept that - and yourt increasingly hysterical atacks on me for even daring to say it - is a cause of concern here. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You have repeatedly stated that you believe the article should have been deleted, and that in its current state it violates the "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy you made up. You acknowledge that there is no Wikipedia policy that was violated, nor have you ever mentioned a real policy as an excuse for your actions. Your attack and its accompanying threat were intended to interfere and disrupt an editor who had the nerve to recreate an article you still think should be deleted, but refuse to start a second AfD. The attack and threat you posted are the very definition of WP:POINT. That you can claim to have believed your attacks to be anything other than a bad faith backdoor effort at deleting the article is utterly shameless. Your refusal to acknowledge the intentionally disruptive nature of your threat should demonstrate your unsuitability to serve as an administrator. An apology from you, accompanied by a commitment to refrain from use of knowingly false policy violations, will end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 15:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I did nto delete the article. I did not make a single edit to the article which made it more likely to be deleted. I did not call reverts "copyedits" in edit summaries. I did not repost the article in violation of GFDL. I did not tag the article for deletion. I did not enture an opinion in the deletion debate. Funny, isn't it, how you seem to want to believe that I'm the problem. Guy (Help!) 23:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• What would be the point of another RfC? Alansohn displayed no interest in the prior one, and any lessons he might have taken from it have proven ephemeral. RfC (or RfM, come to that) presupposes that all parties will come to the table and accept some measure of consensus resolution. What would make this any more likely now than the first time out I cannot guess. In my direct experience, Alansohn does not cease objectionable behavior until he is ordered to do so.  RGTraynor  03:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure myself. I'm certainly not going to object if the next step is further along the dispute resolution path. The outcome I want is Alansohn to continue as an editor with improved success at working well with others he disagrees with. I'm not sure how to get there though. GRBerry 14:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This guy has gotten away with vandalizing too many articles for too long. I and numerous others have warned him/her in the past, yet (s)he refuses to relent. He continues to vandalize such articles as Ozzfest, Slipknot, Satellite (album). Please prevent him/her from disrupting these articles any further. Thank you!

Firstly, the IP hasn't edited since yesterday. Secondly, his/her history doesn't appear to contain any vandalism, but rather good faith edits like this one. Now, maybe you disagree with those edits, but that is not vandalism. Could you provide some diffs of this vandalism? Natalie 22:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you kidding me? This guy continuously adds bands like Simple Plan onto the Ozzfest page, and then adds a bunch of nonsensical miscellaneous information (incorrect band line-ups, etc.). It's happened at least ten times now. But I'm sure you'd know that if you looked at the history...

Also, I find it ironic that you mention Slipknot, given that he totally butchered that article yesterday...

Here you go: [34] [35] [36]

This looks like good faith to you? I didn't think so. 75.60.240.144 01:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Honey, we're all volunteers here. So when you're asking the volunteers with keys to do something for you, it helps when you provide evidence of an actual problem. I can't speak for everyone else but I can tell you that I don't have time to go through every single edit of anyone, especially for vandalism that hasn't happened in two days. So please try to react a little less poorly when you are asked to provide diffs.

I'll agree with you that it's vandalism, but this is all days old. What are you expecting us to do about it now? Natalie 12:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, for starters you could get off your butt and make sure it doesn't happen again. Or you could wait for someone else to do it, since, as you said, you don't really HAVE to do anything, honey. At any rate, expect to see me back here when it happens again. Stargazer eternal 13:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

How about using the various warning templates available and reporting to WP:AIV when they hit a level 4 warning and do something again? Nothing really requiring Administrator attention really needed here, but although this IP has a history of vandalism, we never block IPs indefinitely, because they may belong to many people. And note that anything we do cannot fully block vandalism - short of blocking all editing of Wikipedia. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright then. I'll remember your warning templates and rest assured I'll make good use of them. :) 76.247.76.79 19:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Uss-cool has plastered Talk:Abd-al-Aziz ibn Abd-Allah ibn Baaz with a number of attacks on my integrity as an editor due to a content dispute, which I am wary of as I suspect he may be involved in this open case. I'll keep it short, this is not about the content dispute as I understand this isn't the place for it; this is about this user's consistent inability to behave in a civil manner. As can be seen by his contribs, most of his activity on this site has consisted of attacks on myself:

• 13:58, 10 September 2007
• 15:09, 10 September 2007
• 11:32, 11 September 2007
• 13:10, 11 September 2007
• 16:29, 11 September 2007
• 16:36, 11 September 2007
• 16:39, 11 September 2007

In addition, he has also used this IP address, for what it's worth.
Normally I would just chalk this up to a newbie not knowing how things work, but that coupled with my suspicion of him in regard to the above mentioned sockpuppetry case and his persistence in these attacks makes me a bit suspicious. Please advise. MezzoMezzo 20:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

He just added three entirely new sections to that article's talk page this morning, all three of which are dedicate solely to launching more personal attacks on me. Even the very section title's are personal attacks. MezzoMezzo 18:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Giving warning to Uss-cool. Advise if attacks continue.Rlevse 19:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

A new User:Elick txu is pushing a self-made "demographic map" into the sensitive Iranian Azeris article. The map was originally uploaded to a fringe website and he is not providing any sources (in fact many other editors thinks that it is incorrect). He was reverted seven times by different users but kept re-inserting the map with nice summaries like [37]. I have blocked him for the PA and warned about 3RR and OR. Still he continued pushing the map as User:Babek Azeri. I have indefblocked the sock and extended Elick's block to 48h. I am reporting the matter here as while I have no interest to this article, I have reverted Elick and his sock twice, so I might be considered a participant. If somebody wants to review my actions, you are very welcome Alex Bakharev 01:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefblocked the original account as well. I'm not in the business of letting obvious trolls like this run around (edit warring, 3RR, personal attacks, nationalist POV-pushing, sockpuppetry). Moreschi ^Talk 12:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's now socking away merrily, so keep an eye out for more disruption on the way. Moreschi ^Talk 21:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That User:JzG has chosen to deliberately misinterpret edits and edit summaries in bad faith, solely to push his arbitrary and baseless claim that the article "violates" the "WP:TABLOIDISM" policy he concocted today, is completely and utterly pathetic and intentionally disruptive. He made no effort whatsoever to discern the purpose of the edits; after going berzerk the fact that an article he opposes in the face of clear consensus was recreated, he concocted an issue deliberately intended to violate WP:POINT, aiming to create an excuse for deletion of the article. The two edits falsely and maliciously presented by JzG as "highly misleading edit summaries", his baseless justification for his deliberately false warning and threats were the following: Edit 1 with an edit summary of "add additional biographical details, with sources" added a source about her celebrity clients and added two statements about the SUV incident; her claim that it was an accident, and an expert's claim that it was intentional, each backed by a separate reliable source. Edit 2, with an edit summary of "copyedit and wikify re bio" reinserted sourced information regarding her mother's death placing it in context in the lead section together with the mention of her parents, and several other copyedits and wikifications including 1) removing the words "and 'fixer'" (no support found), 2) changing "a Long Island nightclub" to "a nightclub in the Hamptons, 3) wikilinking to felony (so that anyone unsure of the definition could look it up), 4) adding the words "Second-degree" before "assault" (to specify the crime she was charged with, based on the source), and 5) wikilinking to "driving while intoxicated". Every single one of these changes was sourced, was made in good faith, came from a reliable source and was made with the intention of improving an article that had already been improperly deleted and had vultures circling around looking for more excuses to delete it again. Well more than 12 hours later, with a stable, thoroughly-documented article far behind me, JzG went bat shit and went on attack. Deliberately ignoring the clear purpose behind the edits, failing to review the content of the article, and purposefully and maliciously ignoring my previous use of "copyedit and wikify re..." in edit summaries, he made a knowingly false accusation that the edit summaries I use were intentionally misleading with an aim of "hiding" something. This accusation is complete and total bullshit, and JzG's insistence that he believes this crap to be true is patently unbelievable. JzG has never bothered to point out any Wikipedia policy that was violated by these edit summaries, the fact being that edit summaries are not required and have never been required. That JzG has misinterpreted my good faith effort to improve an article he wants deleted is his own personal hangup, not justification for a manufactired warning and an empty threat. As there is no basis for his false and malicious claims, there is obviously no validity to his threat of taking this "to a wider audience". The proof of the pudding is JzG's edit summary for his bullshit attack: the incredibly detailed word "warning". That an administrator such as JzG would be so utterly ignorant of Wikipedia policy as to have to make up rules to be violated is a sad and disturbing state of affairs. Appropriate sanctions need to be taken against User:jZG to ensure that this pattern of abuse is not perpetuated with other users. I am willing to accept an apology from him to end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 01:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute on Lizzie Grubman? User:JzG has two edits to that article as far as I can see. It doesn't look much like "bat shit" to me. Secretlondon 02:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This screed is way too long for many people to care. For instance, I haven't read it, and I'm not going to at that length. Look at the top of this page. Is there an executive summary? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

HA HA HA... I got as far as 'JzG did wrong' and ran for the sig... and then read it all. Alansohn seems to be lashing out. forget that noise. JzG wasn't the oly one revertign excess personal info unrelated to the article subject's notability. I'm starting to get tired of seeing Wikipedia articles turn from 'here's why this prson is notable' into 'here's every available fact about the person. Read a 'real' encyclopedia. Information too far outside notability is NOT included, and WP can benefit from remembering that we don't need to know Lizie Grubman's dog's name, nor about her exboyriend,s OR about her parents' deaths. None of those topics impacted, in any citable manner, her actions in that incident. ThuranX 02:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps this is better placed above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Alansohn, instead of fragmenting the discussion?--Hu12 02:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This is not at all what I had in mind when I suggested everyone just drop it. --Haemo 02:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Plus, I provided categorical proof that, yes, Alansohn's edit summaries were misleading (and I think that everyone else who has expressed an opinion has agreed). He just doesn't want to admit it. He speculates above as to my supposed secret motives, but actually I had no secret motives. Is anyone here in any doubt that if I seriously wanted that article deleted, I'd have deleted it? Have I ever shown myself to be unwilling to take a bold action in the case of a WP:BLP concern? I ahve absolutely zero investment in that article, I didn't even express an opinion on the AfD. Alansohn made at least two edits with very misleading summaries, as outlined in detail above, including calling a reversion a "copyedit", and he utterly refuses to acknowledge that he did, or even that I am allowed to point that out. And while he's talking about assumption of bad faith, I didn't see him acknowledge that Ryan's deletionw as in good faith, or that the deletion of his (Alansohn's) GFDL-violating repost was in good faith, either. Quite the opposite. Id say, in fact, that Alansohn showed every sign of wanting to WP:OWN the article and fight off all comers. Regardless, I think it's time Alansohn stopped spitting in the soup. Guy (Help!) 08:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The claim that edits were made with "misleading summaries" is complete and total bullshit. Every single edit made to the article was referenced using reliable and verifiable sources, was balanced, neutral, encyclopedic, made in good faith as part of an effort to improve the encyclopedic nature of the article and had a clear, concise and accurate edit summary provided, and I stand behind every single aspect of every single edit made to the article; JzG used his mind-reading skills to determine that edit summaries that used were part of a calculated scheme to hide changes, a claim that is completely and totally false and is a shameless personal attack made in bad faith. That an admin would be so utterly ignorant as to fail to understand that edit summaries are not required and that minor changes are tagged as such is an astounding embarrassment. After two admins improperly deleted the article, JzG has been looking for an excuse of his own, going so far as to manufacture a Wikipedia policy of his own -- "WP:TABLOIDISM" -- to push for deletion in the face of clear consensus at the AfD that he is completely and totally wrong. I love the GFDL violation nonsense, which even JzG can't honestly believe; One has to be quite ignorant to insist that copying Wikipedia content violates GFDL, and if that were the case, any content copied within Wikipedia would violate its own license. I don't own this or any other article; it's bad faith attacks from incompetent and malicious admins such as JzG that is the problem here. JzG has refused to acknowledge that the attack and threat posted on my talk page were intended as part of an effort to interfere with the article and to get revenge for the fact that the AfD he so brazenly supports in the face of clear consensus had failed. A simple apology for his disgraceful bad faith attacks will end this matter once and for all. Alansohn 14:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • There is a difference between "misleading" and "intentionally misleading" which seems to be eluding you here. I suggest you assume good faith and move on. --Haemo 18:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Alansohn, please stop alleging that JzG created "his own" policy simply to justify his deletion rationale. All JzG did was to create a new redirect to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#NEWS, which, as I'm quite sure you know, has been official policy for quite some time. -- Satori Son 19:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
        • Nice Try. JzG has been claiming that use of sources that he defines as being from "tabloids" invalidates the source; There is absolutely no policy that states that. Lizzie Grubman is clearly notable for her career success, media exposure as subject of a TV show and her involvement in an extensively publicized SUV incident, all documented up the wazoo with reliable sources. The effort to delete the original article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lizzie Grubman failed, with complete unanimity of all participants (other than the nominator) that the article was notable. After being improperly deleted, the article was recreated. Every single statement in the article is supported by reliable and verifiable sources from "tabloids" such as The New York Times and New York magazine. Yet JzG still stands alone in his insistence that the article violates his concocted "WP:TABLOIDISM". Even the most cursory read of WP:NOT#NEWS will show that there is absolutely nothing relevant there that relates to this article. If JzG (or you, or anyone else) believes that the current article violates WP:NOT#NEWS (or "WP:TABLOIDISM", or any other Wikipedia policy), the proper thing to do would be start a second AfD. The fact that JzG has refused to do so, despite repeated requests is further demonstration that he doesn't believe the nonsense he's spewing. Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
          • If you believe his application of WP:NOT is flawed, then stick with that, but continuing to claim over and over that he has "manufactured his own policy" called WP:TABLOID is inaccurate. You are only undermining your own arguments by making such accusations. -- Satori Son 20:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
            • It's not my application of WP:NOT. I merely pointed out that following Jimbo's strongly worded addition to WP:NOT, the idea that articles on living individuals dominated by negative material sourced mainly form tabloid sources should be deleted, is at least defensible. One of the more amusing facets of this particularly fatuous dispute is that Alansohn is hysterically claiming lack of WP:AGF against him, while at the same time asserting bad faith on the part of three separate admins and anybody who agrees with them. As I say, Jimbo added the word tabloid to WP:NOT, and neither of the deletions of that article were by me - one was on the basis of the tabloid problem, one on the basis of somebody else noting that copy-paste reposts violate GFDL. For some reason Alansohn seems to think this is my problem. In fact, Alansohn seems to think that every problem is always with everybody but him. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Uhm, copying in that manner *is* a GFDL violation because of the lack of authorship information. Shell ^babelfish 18:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Uhm, all material on Wikipedia *is* freely licensed for copying. Material is cut and pasted all day long from one article to another or within Wikipedia articles. Are you claiming that every time Wikipedia content is used in any other article the GFDL license is violated? Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• You might want to read the past debates on similar subjects, every one of which has concluded that copy and paste moves and restores are a violation of GFDL. You might also want to take a look at the responses re GFDL, not one of which supports your position. Guy (Help!) 22:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• He's clearly pulling your leg. An editor with 40 kajillion edits obviously understands that copy-and-pastes from other Wikipedia articles without attribution and a link back violate the GFDL. That was a major argument against BJAODN. How could anyone have missed that? -- But|seriously|folks  22:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment to the plaintiff. Calm down. Instead of re-hashing the entire story, what are you prepared to do to resolve this matter? --Aarktica 19:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'll tell you what I'm prepared to do. I will continue with my efforts to build an encyclopedia. I will continue to add content and create new article, all populated with reliable and verifiable sources. I will stand up to those who believe that you have to destroy the village to save it. The one change is to be even more careful to watch my back; I will have in the back of mind that there are people like JzG who will choose to misinterpret actions of others to push their own biases and try to ensure that these folks can't find any excuses to cite violations of non-existent policy. Alansohn 20:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • In other words, you don't see any problem with your actions either on the page in question, or in your responses to subsequent reaction. In that case, I have a suggestion — assume good faith more readily, always assume civility, and remember that a temperate response is best. --Haemo 20:23, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I see absolutely nothing wrong with any edit I made to the [[Lizzie Grubman] article. I will categorically state that every edit made here was made as part of an effort to improve the article in question and to improve Wikipedia in general. My dictionary defines "misleading" as "intended to deceive". That JzG decided in bad faith that my edits contained "misleading edit summaries" is one of the most egregious examples of bad faith I have ever seen. Instead of making a suggestion or recommendation, JzG made a shamelessly bad faith assumption that I was hiding something with my edit summaries, a statement that is complete and total bullshit, accompanied with a threat to "to bring this to wider notice" if I failed to comply with his demands. I pleaded with JzG to find out what policy was violated only to receive repetition of the same baseless claim, later helpfully put in bold by JzG. I don't know how you define good faith, but his false claim he used to start his attack here that "I asked him really quite nicely nicely" is completely and totally false: His initial contact started with an accuation of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." and ended with an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There isn't an ounce of good faith from JzG. Where's the "nicely" part of this? Where's the "good faith"? I will do my best to ignore trolls like JzG in the future. Alansohn 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, I know you see nothign wrong with them. That's the problem. For example, you added text that said that an expert hired by one party determined that Grubman's actions were deliberate. The parties and their witnesses do not determine anything in a court case, expert witnesses give an opinion, but the court determines. And your edit summaries were misleading, of course.

• • Many others are here to build an encyclopaedia as well. The only concern I have is that you have elected to assume bad faith going forward. Nevertheless, I wish you all the best. Cheers, --Aarktica 20:42, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I look forward to working with them. Alansohn 20:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• That'll e a first, judging from your previous RfC. Guy (Help!) 22:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing much, and I'm probably overreacting, but IP address 74.100.231.137 went insane on my talk page, and removed a comment made by someone else.

All I did was post on their talk page about Metroid Prime 3: Corruption, and the whole Mother Brain =/= Aurora unit.

Before i undid what this user posted, here is what they posted:

"Ok Dude STFU, do you have some kind of pickle shoved way up your ass or something?"

"...you need to in general learn not to be such a god damn asshole.."

You can see the whole message(s) under my history page.

Again, probably something minor, but this REALLY shouldn't be the kind of thing that happens to users.GreenAiden555 02:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

People occasionally go bananas. If they go persistently bananas, you can report them as a vandal (if they are vandalising) at WP:AIV. Also, keep in mind that IP addresses can be used by many different people, so there's no guarantee that the person using the IP address right now will be the same one using it an hour from now. Just take things in stride and brush off the little things. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't remove vandalism warnings from your talk page either. Secretlondon 02:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is it really vandalism when the page in question was a joke, and I signed a petition to keep the page by saying "YES KEEP IT"?GreenAiden555 21:20, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy forbidding removal of anything from your own user talk page. It'll still be in the history, so it doesn't really matter anyway. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 03:02, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's no prohibition as such on removal of warnings. But when checking out vandal reports and the like, if I see someone's history shows they have regularly blanked a lot of stuff from their talk page I often think "hmm, wonder what's going on here..." and start looking in more detail. There may well be nothing of concern, of course. Raymond Arritt 03:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If I have to put up with this user's nonsense trolling anymore I'm going to go off on him, and that's putting it mildy. He already revert warred with me, unsuccessfully accused me of 3RR, which I was told to ignore because he seemed to be wrong about it [38], and now he requested I be "blocked from editing the WWE roster site" for adding "false information" [39]. This user has been a problem for the last month having been blocked for disruption three times. Comments or action would be appriciated. — Moe ε 03:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Moe_Epsilon has now making threats of dealing with me.Look here[40]. Someone needs to talk to him. User:Cowboycaleb1Cowboycaleb 06:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, the threat of dealing with you? You really make yourself look bad. — Moe ε 07:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be harassment. I find Moe to be in the right here. It also looks like borderline, if not absolute, trolling; he continues to make disruptive, and falsely founded reports at places where true vandals are reported. This must stop. I bring into suggestion, but will not presently bring into force, a block for some period of time. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 08:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a warning of sorts on the talk page. No block needed for now but the childishness of it all should stop. Pascal.Tesson 11:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive289#Edit_war.2Fwarring_at_Carlossuarez46Rlevse 19:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:RFC_bot has fried his circuits and is now severely disrupting RfC. Not only is he failing to record RfC notices in the noticeboard, he's removing them when added manually. The owner seems to be on a break: User_talk:Messedrocker#Bot_not_working. The bot needs to be immediately blocked until he can be repaired. Loom91 08:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

That is a bot updated page, and they will always be removed when updated manually. Viridae^Talk 11:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The Bot is not malfunctioning, users have malformed template use, When adding a RFC template to a page please make sure that it is properly formated. β^_command 02:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to report User:PIO for his repeated attacks against both me as well as Users No.13 and Kubura. The complication (I hope someone can resolve) arises here: the user in question is apparently experiencing "technical difficulties" so he uses an IP, however he signs his edits (with PIO), and it is unmistakeably obvious (due to the identical, rather shaky grammar as well as my experiences with the user) that this is indeed the person he claims to be.

The best example's of his attacks are here (in Italian, but still obvious), and here. I have warned him repeatedly, both on his IP and registered talkpages, he, of course, deleted all the warnings. The user also allegedly uses sockpuppetry, and apparently thinks he can get away with murder if it is done in the Italian language.

This user has infringed upon even the low standards of decency that are kept in the unending edit war between Croatian and Italian users. In his post on Giovanni Giove's talkpage, besides calling me a lunatic, he also calls me (and others) an idiot and mentally disturbed, he insists on incessantly calling me a communist, of all things. I do not mean to be pretentious, but if these are not textbook personal attacks, I do not know what is. At least some action is warranted by Wikipedia policy, is it not? DIREKTOR 09:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Interesting how all opinions on your edit summaries, with the sole exception of yours, agree they were misleading. Interesting, too, to compare how many edits we each have to that article. Stop spitting in the soup. Guy 21:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.109.81.201 (talk)

Stop spitting in the soup? I do not understand what you are talking about.

• There was my version of the article.
• There was PIO's version of the article.
• I edited some parts of his version, while allowing it to remain, in order to create a "compromise version". It was my hope this version would remain there until our discussion has brought us to a consensus. It was not meant to be permanent.
• I made every effort to engage in civil discussion, what are you talking about? DIREKTOR 22:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

This editor came to my attention when he tagged an entire linguistics article by adding the (expert) and (source) templates at the top. There were no edit summaries and no reasons were given on the talk page to justifiy the branding of an article that, since April 2002, had received the attention of multiple editors. A previous (neutrality) challenge had just been overcome through expansion of the article to include concurrent theories. Challenged to give his reasons, the new editor was unable to motivate his (expert) request. His (source) request turned out to be loosely relevant to two sub-sections and (refimprovesect) tags were added at the top. A (weasel) suggestion was accepted at the top of a paragraphe. All of his concerns were aimed at edits from previous editors and none of my own contributions were affected. The history of actions taken is summarized at the Creole language talk page.

Reviewing the contributions of this new editor elsewhere on Wikipedia for a short period going back to just 01 September 2007 reveales the following editing record:

• | 01:05, 11 September 2007 | Execution by burning | +fact, -fix | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 01:17, 10 September 2007 | Creole language | +expert, +sources, -fix | No S/D | Noula69, SmackBot |
• | 01:28, 10 September 2007 | Multiracial | +original, +style, +sources, -fix | No S/D | Malik Shabazz, SmackBot |
• | 12:24, 03 September 2007 | Honorary Whites | +sources, +original, -fix | No S/D | Noula69, SmackBot |
• | 02:26, 05 September 2007 | Talk:Middle Passage | D = -consensus, unsigned | - | Noula69, SineBot |
• | 02:25, 05 September 2007 | Middle Passage | -POV | D = -consensus | Noula69 |
• | 13:39, 03 September 2007 | Talk:African American | unsigned | - | SineBot |
• | 13:34, 03 September 2007 | Talk:African American | D = -civility, unsigned | - | SineBot |
• | 12:51/22:42, 03 September 2007 | African American | - | - | Sprotect2 status granted [41] |
• | 12:34, 02 September 2007 | Atisone Seiuli | +fact | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 18:17, 01 September 2007 | Hypergamy | +sources | No S/D | SmackBot |
• | 16:32, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 16:29, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 16:09, 01 September 2007 | African American | major edit | No S/D | - |
• | 14:54, 01 September 2007 | Charles Hamilton Houston | ethnic disruption | No S/D | Noula69 |
• | 12:29, 01 September 2007 | 227 (TV series) | +fact | No S/D | SmackBot |

The first column gives the time-date, the 2nd the location of the incident, the 3rd the violation and/or editing error, the 4th whether the action was properly motivated (No S/D = no summary, no discussion on the talk page; D = -xxx = discussion lacks civility or consensus), the 5th if the action has been challenged or reported by another user, including my own actions in the matter.

Without being overly restrictive in the interpretation of Wikipedia policies and guideline, it appears nevertheless that the editor Kemet ignores consistently common sense in resolving issues at hand. His editing behavior is intempestive, overly reckless, violating consensual practice, uncivil, pushing on tags, tendentious and disruptive especially when related to the subject of African American^† besides requiring frequent bot intervention to correct faulty editing. (^†Some of his hostile editing seems to be directed against Malik Shabazz.)

What is more, a cursory glance at his actions since November 2004 and at the phenomenal amount of complaints on his own user talk page convinces me that his violations of the last ten days might be only the tip of the iceberg and that we are confronted here with a professional sh*t disturber intent on stirring up controversies with an underlying ideological bias. In my opinion, there is good cause to investigate further and consider putting this editor on probation. In the meantime, I have reverted some of his unwarranted edits with the appriate reasons on the respective talk pages. Noula69 10:55, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Smackbot, at least, doesn't correct faulty editing, it just adds a date to various maintenance tags. That aside, what administrator intervention are you requesting? This sounds to me like something that would better benefit from Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Natalie 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If Noula69 has looked at ALL of my activity, then he/she will have noticed that the "incident" with user Malik_Shabazz is a non-incident; whatever issues we might have had were resolved quite a while ago. If Noula69 looks closely at the African American content, he/she will notice the profusion of useful, substantiated contributions that I have made. I will certainly admit to having added tags to articles before explaining my reasoning in the discussion sections, and have already stated several times that I will stop that practice. As for having an ideological bias, that is not a sufficient reason to exclude users from Wikipedia, so the point is moot, and will say no more on that subject. If Noula69 (or whomever else he/she consults) makes thorough review of my contributions, (rather than a "cursory glance"), then he will notice that they are overwhelmingly conscientious and cogent, even if diplomacy isn't my strong suit. At the same time, again, with a THOROUGH look at the history of my "contraversies," they are overwhelmingly concentrated in PAST, not RECENT activity. As I communicated to Noula69 before, he/she is free to go over my tags, but one should remind him/her to fully review the activities of users before making accusations, and, indeed, soliciting the support of others in this premature endeavor (i.e. Malik Shabazz) or mudslinging (see: 00:37, 12 September 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Charles Hamilton Houston‎ (→Brown). Kemet 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's been at this since November 2004 and I don't see any signs of him changing his ways or correcting anything in his editing behavor. Quite on the contrary, he's been reverting most of the changes I made in one single day. His "incidents" with Malik Shabazz I substantiated certainly don't belong to the past but occurred within the last ten days. His contributions to the content of African American are effectively substantial --- substantially controversal as it is as are his contributions to biographies of African Americans. As he has now written to me regarding the biography of African American lawyer Charles Hamilton Houston, we must empasize nationality over ethnicity, justifying thus his choice to represent Houston in Wikipedia as an American rather than an African American.[42] Will we let him convert all African Americans on Wikipedia into Americans? What else does he have in store for us? The more I look at this, the more I get convinced that we are dealing here with a dangerous fanatic who is here on some nutty mission.

I'd like to add some comments.

1. I don't think there's any reason to believe that Kemet's editing is "directed at me". Kemet is the ancient name for Egypt, and I'm named for Malcolm X, so it shouldn't be surprising that as editors we share some common interests.

2. I think Kemet's edits at African American generally have been constructive and included sources. An example I wish Kemet would leave edit summaries, but many editors omit them.

3. I left at messages at User talk:Kemet concerning banners at African American and Multiracial that expressed editorial concerns about those articles but were left without edit summaries or messages on the articles' respective Talk pages. In both instances, Kemet responded quickly.

I don't know anything about the other articles in question, but I wanted to make clear that there are no issues between Kemet and me, and I haven't seen any disruptive editing by Kemet in the articles we have both edited. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 23:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe there's some policy somewhere against offensive usernames, such as Gays are awfully disgusting. Does someone with admin superpowers wanna deal with it? Thanks. bobanny 16:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

07:38, 12 September 2007 Krimpet (Talk | contribs) blocked "Gays are awfully disgusting (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite

Blocked about 9 hours ago by Krimpet. --Onorem♠Dil 16:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You people are good. bobanny 17:00, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

We have Usernames for Administrator Attention for that sort of thing. Secretlondon 17:09, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

OTOH, if friends of gays should not be allowed to edit articles, perhaps enemies of gays should be encouraged to contribute... Joe 21:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck? WAVY 10 21:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It's a parody, but in poor taste. Georgewilliamherbert 23:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree; I think it's a brilliant commentary on typical Wikipedia vandals. It made me laugh... color this gay girl not offended by it. -FisherQueen (Talk) 02:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nor I. Carlossuarez46 06:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

OMG, that's the funniest thing I've seen on Wikipedia in a long while. I'm not gay and I have no friends, so I wouldn't know if it's offensive. Bad taste...uh...yeah. bobanny 06:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This confirmed sockpuppeteer is back, and is doing some odd things. Using User:Rolldadice he moved his original sockpuppet case page, and then edited the contents using a user name User:QuarIII imitating User:Quarl, one of the admins involved last time Marlon was active. The edit he made in this case was to change User:Marlon.sahetapy on the suspected sockpuppet case to User:Aalsanea, another sockpuppeteer. He also moved his user and talk page to User:QuirkieQuarkie. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 19:15, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• I've blocked Quarlll and Roldadice as sockpuppets of Marlon.sahetapy. I'm new at this, so could someone else look after the page moves? I think it's ok now. If someone could just check that I didn't screw up, I'd appreciate it. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I indef move protected User:Marlon.sahetapy, since this is the second time in two days the userpage was moved. I have blocked Marlon.sahetapy for 1 month, since the account has been blocked twice previously. If anyone feels that these actions are excessive or lenient, please adjust accordingly. -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 19:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cheers Flyguy. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 21:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

There's something going on here, and I think it requires an admin to look at it. A user (User:Ward3001) is putting the "suckpuppet" template on the user page. I removed it a few times, until he pointed out there was a sock case against the user (it was started after I removed the template). He added it again, and now the owner of the page is removing it. This has gone on a couple of times. I think these users have a history. I'm sort of a third party that stumbled upon the dispute, for the record. --UsaSatsui 20:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Tweety has been using IP socks to vote stack on Afd. Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets#User:Tweety21 has some details, User:Ward3001 was the person who nominated some of her articles for afd. Secretlondon 21:10, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand, but he put the template up before the case was brought. In any event, that issue has been resolved, at least with regard to me and Ward3001. With an active case, the template doesn't bug me. The adding-and-removing does.--UsaSatsui 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Users have some control over their page. If they disagree with assertions of sock-puppetry, the tag can be removed until there is some actual decision made with respect to their case. --Haemo 21:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that's the case, then someone had better inform the person putting the template up. It appears the sitiuation is already ugly, continued reverting on the user's mainpage could make it more so. --UsaSatsui 21:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(also posted to AN)

This is particularly important if you ever block anyone ... Greg Maxwell ran the list and put it on wikien-l: [43] Many of those are inactive, but many aren't. "There was a thread on commons-l about admins who have email this user disabled. I made a report of all the guilty parties on commons. It was trivial enough to run it again for English Wikipedia, so I did." I note myself it's very easy to accidentally neglect this ... I certainly have. So go into your preferences and check. - David Gerard 20:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently, Wikipedia has an article called The Need about a late '90s queercore band from Washington. Recently, however, the article has been getting edits that change the subject entirely, to a different band located in California that happens to have the same name. Starting with this edit on August 10th, several users and IPs have been changing the article to the same version, all discussing this other band. Oddly enough, all the editor names are similar to the lead singer of the band, Garrett McArthur. Gee, wonder who it could be...

Garrettmcarthur - only edits have been to The Need
72.129.69.164 - only edits have been to The Need
Wgmcarthur - edited The Need, also created page at Garrett McArthur

After the IP vandalized following a suggestion I left on Wgmcarthur's talk page to just create a new article, I got a bit fed up. I've requested semi-protection for the page, but I'd also like to see the two editors and the IP blocked as single-purpose accounts. Garrett McArthur probably ought to be deleted as well. Thanks. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Would either band even qualify per our notability criteria?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The original one is marginal - probably passes WP:MUSIC per their touring etc. The "new" one almost certainly doesn't - and Garrett McArthur is definitely A7 and I've speedily deleted it. ELIMINATORJR 06:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The California band definitely doesn't (and by extension, neither does its singer). To be honest, though, I haven't read the original article too closely, so I can't vouch for its notability either way. I'd be okay if someone wants to tag the whole thing for deletion. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

New development: Semi-protection has been declined. I'd still like the users in question to be blocked, though. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 06:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The promoter (self promoter?) adding the new California band needs a stern warngin at the least. His article's entirely CRYSTAL, as it predicts where we might someday hear their music, based on the fact that they know a producer who worked with some big names. The other band, int he older version of the article, has a passing notability, but not much more. However, that the older article has mild notability, and the new one has nothing but maybes, I'd support a long talking to or a short block if the edits persist. ThuranX 20:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

72.129.69.164 has just attempted to revert The Need to the version about the band from California again. This has really got to stop. GlassCobra (talk • contribs) 09:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Final warned that IP. Jmlk17 09:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the last posting, both Wgmcarthur and a user called DelFi Music Group, whom I strongly suspect is controlled by the same person as Garrettmcarthur, 72.129.69.164, and Wgmcarthur, have tried to hijack the article. Multiple attempts to reach all these users have gone unanswered, except for one note on my talk page, asking to be unblocked, even though I don't think any of the names have been blocked. Can something please come of this now? GlassCobra 12:22, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be able to get page protection. That would slow them down a bit at least. I like the note they left on your talk page. "We have a copyright on the name..." That's odd, since names are not protected by copyright law. --Onorem♠Dil 12:46, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I've already semi protected the article for a week to prevent the IP from editing it for a while. Wgmcarthur (talk · contribs) and DelFi Music Group (talk · contribs) have been blocked indef as well, leaving Garrettmcarthur (talk · contribs) as the only unblocked account. Also, Garrett McArthur was recreated hours ago; I've speedied it. If he continues to try and hijack the article, or to recreate the deleted material, please let us know. Regards, Phaedriel - 12:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Phaedriel! I was wary of page protection, as I had already asked on the 11th and was declined. Could we also possibly get a block for 72.129.69.164? I think it's fairly safe to assume that this is the same person. GlassCobra 13:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Hu12 is attributing past edits made from an entire range of a large ISP to myself, including many which are literally years old and pre-date my introduction to Wikipedia. He insists on attributing this range of IP addresses to me, and I would like to know what kind of recourse exists for these types of claims.

The IP range in question has made over 7,000 edits total according to Wikipedia Scanner. There is inevitably overlap when using such a large ISP, and I will not be held accountable for every edit from my geographical region in the past three years (especially when I have only known of Wikipedia for one year). Numerous editors have already raised concerns about the compliance of Hu's page with WP:RFC's guidelines (especially the lack of prior resolution attempts, mischaracterized diffs, and certification by completely unrelated users), but this most recent development (attributing an entire IP range to myself) is of serious concern to me.

I am also requesting serious independent review of Hu12's RfC against me. I do not believe Hu's page abides by the guidelines at WP:RFC, which reads:

From WP:RFC: "The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it."

What is going on at Hu's RfC is getting out of hand; it is exactly what WP:RFC says is not the way to approach things. It is not a page which complies with WP:RFC, it is not organized, and it is making accusations which I have no apparent recourse against (attributing large IP ranges to me). Hu is placing placing warnings on my talk page for contesting his use of IPs which are not my own; please, I ask that others here take the time to review what's going on at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi and tell me if it is what WP:RFC really prescribes. I am open to conflict resolution, but this RfC has been nothing but conflict, with no resolution or good faith whatsoever. Italia^vivi 07:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Will another sysop please prevent this user from removing content from his own RFC? The content that is being repdedly removed is a part of the origional filed Sept 2cnd. thank you--Hu12 07:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I politely as possible asked Hu to stop attributing these IP addresses to me, and Hu responded by claiming that my request was threats and personal attack," for god's sake! Hu has described me as "irredeemable" and expressed a desire to "firmly remove me from the project." This individual has no interest whatsoever in resolving anything with me, and shows no concern about his falsel, sweeping, indiscriminate attribution of IP addresses to myself. What kind of recourse exists for me here? How is this dispute resolution, and how is this pinning of IP addresses to me not harassment? Italia^vivi 07:50, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

This is precisely the disruptive behaviour that has got you into an RfC in the first place. During the whole process you have denied that there is a problem with your behaviour but it is obvious that you now need to open your eyes and listen to what the community is saying. There's nothing wrong with how the RfC is formed, it's a lot better than most - you now need to accept what other users have to say. Ryan Postlethwaite 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Half your malformed RfC's responses are editors expressing skepticism about the behavior and merits of those who created the RfC against me, and there are suspected sockpuppets endorsing your particular section of the page. You are not a spokesperson for the "community," and you are not an outside view on the compliance of your own page. Italia^vivi 08:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Same pages, same range. Quack quack. CU would say "sockpuppet. And yes, whole ranges have been blocked for one disruptive user, e.g. Manchester vandal. Will ^(talk) 08:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Can we forgo with the taunting? Also, what's Hu using {{uw-delete2}}? Can he not express his own thoughts? The use of templates to communicate in such instances is not acceptable. Nor is revert warring in one's own RfC, of course. El_C 09:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Many users feel that standardized templates are the best way to keep things from getting personal. See, for example, WP:TTR. I don't agree with that essay, but simply point it out to illustrate the opposing view. -- Satori Son 12:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that is not many users, it is basically a provocation. El_C 14:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say most users, I said many, and I stand by that. If you look at the debate going on at Wikipedia talk:Don't template the regulars, I hope you'll agree there is a lack of consensus on this particular issue. Just for the record, I agree with you that it is almost always better to use a personalized message when dealing with a long-time user. I'm just saying not everyone else feels the same way. -- Satori Son 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (seriously) violating 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Wikipedia. Fram 09:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Hu12 for 24 hours for also exceeding three reverts in this conflict. The first removals of content, and edit warring to keep them out, from the RFC were actually Hu12 repeatedly removing Italiaviva's comments. Both users also took part in the subsequent edit war with Italiaviva similarly attempting to remove content added by Hu12. While both clearly exceeded three reverts, and were aware of the prohibition against doing so, Hu12 (unlike Italiavivi) has not previously been blocked for this and thus I gave a shorter block period. --CBD 12:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good call. Fram supposedly failed to check both sides. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I only checked what happened at the time I saw the dits (through recent changes), and those were way too many reverts by ItaliaVivi: I also did not consider the reinsertioon of Hu12 of his own comments as reverts, as removing other people's comments is vandalism, and reverting vandalism is allowed. However, I should havce noticed the other edits (reverts) by Hu12, which also deserved a block. Thanks for keeping the balance here and looking at both sides a bit more carefully. Fram 15:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just normal as contributors in general tend to consider admins as a good example and therefore believe in advance that we (admins) do respect policy more than anyone. This is waht happens. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Check again, Fram - you were right the first time. As you say, the reinsertion of the IPs doesn't count for 3RR, because it was reverting vandalism. And the other edits you refer to are not reverts at all, they're moving comments to the talk page, where they belong. It seems to me that Hu12's block was mistaken and should be lifted immediately. -- Zsero 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

So... Hu12's removal of Italiavivi's statements that two of the IP addresses listed were not his was 'proper', but Italiavivi's subsequent removal of those two IP addresses (after his disavowal of them had been taken away) was 'vandalism'? No, I don't think so. Vandalism is a deliberate act to damage or disrupt the encyclopedia. Italiavivi only removed those IP addresses from the page after his statements that they were not his had been taken off. He clearly was not committing 'vandalism', but rather removing the content he objected to since he was not being allowed to show that objection on the page. The vandalism policy does not prohibit removal of materials from RFC pages (else Hu12's removals would have been 'vandalism' too). There is a general prohibition against rewriting the comments of others to change their meaning, but that is not in issue here as Italiavivi left the general claims about IP use and various other IP addresses in place - only removing the two that he was disputing on the talk page. That's a content dispute. As was the repeated removal of Italiavivi's comments from the page. --CBD 21:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Remark: User:Hu12 is waiting for a review of his block: user talk:Hu12. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, admin got the "Hu thought he was doing the right thing, and since blocks are preventitive, not punitive, there is no reason for this to continue, now that he has been informed." The editor got no such treatment. Keep up the good work admins. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

The cases are not even remotely similar. Italiavivi was removing content from the RFC, on the grounds that s/he claimed it wasn't true. It's to be expected that the subject of the RFC will deny some or all of the accusations, and that's why s/he has a space to put his/her side of the story. That was the proper place to claim that those IPs were somebody else, and offer whatever proof s/he could. Instead s/he simply asserted that it wasn't true, and edited the material out. That's not acceptable, and s/he must have known it.

What Hu did, on the other hand, was either proper, or if improper not obviously so. Hu removed, not material belonging to the RFC, but comments that did not belong there. The RFC instructions are clear - comments about the subject go on the main page; comments about the comments go on the talk page. All Hu did was move the meta-discussion from the main page to the talk page. S/he moved all the meta-discussion, not just Italiavivi's. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; I don't know. But s/he certainly had grounds for believing that s/he was doing the right thing. There was clearly no intent to disrupt anything, and therefore no need to block.

Zsero 04:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Most of what you said above confirms what the said editor was having at their userpage long before Hu12 decided to AfD it and file a RfC on them. I've seen a lot of administrative misguidance. Whatever is the case, admins should show a great deal of patience which this particular admin hasn't. Check their RfA. The admin in question has already been blocked before but was unblocked just because he is a good person. I am ringing this bell and would like to see a better attitude from this admin. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

italvivi is unblocked as well. See CBD reasoning above. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, and how have you discussed this with me (the blocking admin?)? Furthermore, where has ItaliaVivi indicated that he recognises that he was in error? He didn't even ask for an unblock, he asked to be indef blocked and to have his user page and talk page deleted. I may have missed the CDB post you referred to, but all I can see is a post by CDB agreeing that ItaliaVivi shuldbe blocked, but pointing out that Hu12 should have been blocked as well (albeit for a shorter period). Where has he reasoned that ItaliaVivi should be unblocked, and where have you discussed that possibility with me? You have unblocked him "because he is now informed", which is a rather poor unblock reason.Fram 12:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Fram and agree w/ some of what you say but the situation is totally different. There was a prior AfD of the user userpage and a subsequent RfC. There is a clear conflict between the user and the admin. You may not have known about all the story but it seems that the userpage in question was talking about admins misguidance (not your of course) and that Hu12 as an admin took it too far until it became a personal conflict. So when the admin was reverting, he wasn't doing his job as an admin but as a regular editor. Admins in direct conflict w/ an editor should show patience and common sense but it wasn't the case here. I saw a clear bias (not from you of course) and i cannot keep silent. Admins and editors are no different except the tools. Hu12 has clearly led italvivi to react that way and vice versa. Keep in mind that this is the second time Hu12 is unblocked because he is a good person and he thought he was right. We do justice. Free them all or keep them locked alltogether. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Why has italiavivi been unblocked? He reverted 6 times in an hour, has a previous history of edit warring and we have had no comment from him that he will stop. Hu12 admitted his errors and said he would not edit war any more so got unblocked. This should have been discussed more as I stongly object to the unblock in this case. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)The unblock will probably do no harm, so I'm not going to actively go after a reblocking. I can follow part of your reasoning, and am certainly not trying to put all the blame on ItaliaVivi, but the difference (to me) is that Hu12 is unblocked because he "now realizes he should have done it differently" (from the unblock reason), while I have seen no statements indicating this from ItaliaVivi. However, as he has supposedly left Wikipedia completely, keeping him blocked serves no further purpose. Fram 13:06, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's probably gone anyway guys. I hope admins realize how chasing an editor is bad for Wikipedia health. If Hu12 has apologized than great. If Italiavivi didn't it is because he is most probably gone away. The issue of italiavivi has been dealt w/ in an improper and exaggerated manner. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

You keep on missing an essential point: Italiavivi and Hu12 were not blocked for the same offense. Italiavivi was blocked for 3RR, in the form of removing part of the accusation against him/her 6 times. Hu12 was not blocked for reverting those edits - on the contrary, Fram agreed that Hu12 was right to do so, because it was reverting vandalism. Instead, Hu12 was blocked for removing comments from the RFC page; but that block was in error, because all s/he was doing was moving the comments to the talk page, which is where they belonged. Now maybe s/he shouldn't have done that; maybe once the comments were made in the wrong place s/he should have left them there. But that's a very different offense from Italiavivi's, so unblocking one should not have any bearing on unblocking the other, and it's wrong to see the two cases in parallel. -- Zsero 20:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not missing any point Zsero. At the opposite, i showed you more than the tip of the iceberg. Both users needed to be blocked for the all the fuss (AfD, RfC, AN/I, talkpages, etc...). You refer to the consequence and limit it to 3RR. i refer to the cause and the consequence. So i, originally, would have not blocked them for 3RR but for disruption. So it just didn't make sense that one party was unblocked and not the other one who's gone away for good i believe. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Zsero's right FayssalF. This block was in error, despite being well intended. Please don't Mischaracterize my intentions. Is it possible that maby I am a good person? There is no malevolent conection between me and italiavivi, Wikipedia has taken alot of abuse from him as have the many of admins (myself included) who have tried to help him. The RFC was attempt to correct and resolve behavioral issues of an obviosly disruptive editor who has a history of disrupting Wikipedia processes and required comment and assesement by the community. When a user engages in edit warring (intentionaly) then brags "Absolutely proud of and unapologetic of my actions"^[44], it becomes a problem. If the RfC was poorly formed, it was because it was my first. My interest and loyalties are to Wikipedia. My hope was that Italiavivi could change his disruptive pattern, not end up like like this.--Hu12 00:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for joining the discussion Hu12. he is a good person and he thought he was right are not my words but those of the admins who unblocked your account twice; so there is no mischaracterization of your intentions. I don't read them but all i could do is to read the whole situation starting from the book title till this page. Admins read just that single used page and based their blocks on it. There were reports about italiavivi and yourselves here twice or more i believe. The problem was his userpage and worse than that was the way you handled the situation. In just a couple of days the situation went out of hand. You are an admin and patience and calm are one of the core principles of adminship. That doesn't deprive an admin from finding an appropriate solution. Admins inform by invoking policies, warn and If Necessary block. You could have let another co-admin deal w/ the situation when some signs of involvement of your part became clear at a certain time. You did it from A to Z, except blocking him yourselves. You had editorial conflicts w/ him. Days later you AfD nom his userpage. It was kept. Later you filed an RfC on him. Later warring about IPs both of you. How on earth i should agree w/ your admin behaviour? Where is the patience required? You may be a good person and that's a good thing but why that wouldn't be reflected on your admin attitude? No cool talk, no mediation process followed? So why would we need admins? Remember he was an editor and you are the admin. That wasn't really balanced. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

italiavivi chose his own path,in behavior and action. A significant number of reasonable admins have attempted to correct his behavioral violations since last April. italiavivi's conduct had become increasingly inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and began interfering with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. Was he here to contribute and make the project good? Or was his goal to find fault with those whom he had a disagreement, perpetuating disputes to get his views across, or be the one in control by imposing one's own view of "standards to apply" rather than those of the community? These answers we'll never know. At what point do we (as admins), stop ingnoring the issue and start addressing the problem? italiavivi stopped listening, refused input and actively denied all obvious problems identified. My point above, perhaps not clear, was don't mischaracterize my intentions for attempting to resolve the problem. My intentions and hope for the RFC was that Italiavivi could change his disruptive pattern through community input.--Hu12 04:57, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking further at the underlying dispute, I think there is reason for concern and greater consideration here. Essentially what has happened is that someone dug up two instances where Italiavivi made edits without logging in, but signed his username to them. Then taking those IP addresses they went through other IPs in the same range and picked out some that they felt to be 'similar' and listed all of these IPs (and the two with identifying signatures) on the RFC. The wikimedia:Privacy policy states that we will only reveal IP addresses in response to a court order, to deal with extensive vandalism from a range, or the like... and WP:HARASS#Posting_of_personal_information prohibits revelation of personally identifying information the person has not themselves chosen to make public. Now, it can certainly be argued that since these IP addresses belong to ranges held by ISPs they may not be personally identifying enough to be of concern and that Italiaviva 'chose' to make his association with these IPs public when he signed his username to edits by them.... but it doesn't smell good. Nor does the listing of IP addresses as supposedly being his seem kosher when Checkuser would turn down cold any request to so link them. Italiaviva says some of them aren't his, and checkuser considers it a privacy violation to review the matter at all... so how is it ok to post them without the imprimatur of checkuser?

Bottom line - we shouldn't be attempting to 'ferret out' the IP addresses of users. If we continue allowing this practice (and I've seen other recent examples of it) then eventually there will come a day when an IP address which does lead directly back to the person behind it is revealed. Hopefully it will be an innocent case and no harm will come of it, but we can't really know. As I've said before... we should either always protect our user's IPs and identities or clearly state that we don't. Right now we say that we do, but allow alot of behaviours and activities which compromise that. --CBD 13:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a very valid point to make CBD, but if a user chooses to edit with their IP or for that matter a changing IP from an ISP then that is upto them. If they are using IP's to make it appear that they haven't been editing a particular page, or skip past a 3RR violation then that is up to them, but we have a duty to compare these edits and if it is clear a user has been using an IP to make disruptive edits, bring it to their (and the communities) attention. We're not talking about outing an IP that a user has been editing on - that would be wrong as the user hasn't chosen to do this, but comparing edits and saying that an IP and a user are the same person, ultimately abusing WP:SOCK. Ryan Postlethwaite 13:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Point of fact: our privacy policy does not promise to protect the privacy of those who are not logged in, and even specifically says that users who are concerned about their privacy should log in. All promises of privacy that follow are qualified with the words "when using a pseudonym". Without commenting on the appropriateness of all of Hu12's actions, Italiavivi is the one who revealed his own IP address. Natalie 13:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... so if you don't realize you aren't logged in and you make an edit which can be linked back to you then you are out of luck? Or, as occurs in this case, if people simply think that an IP address may be yours they can and should go about posting it as evidence? We can go that way if people want. I don't see any pressing reason to do so, but if we are going to then I think we should make it more clear that we allow (encourage?) users to do what they can to dig up and post the IP addresses of others whom they are in dispute with. --CBD 14:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say there is a difference between making an edit from you IP that maybe able to be linked back to you, and going back and signing your name to an IP edit you made. The first can only be guessed to be you, and if you really don't want people to know your IP address you have plausible deniability. Whereas the second is more than just not paying attenion - it's not paying attention and then going back and deliberately tying yourself to that IP address. Wikipedia only promises privacy to logged in users, because it is impossible to provide privacy to anonymous users, and Wikipedia cannot do anything if users reveal their own IP addresses. To clarify myself, though, I don't think what Hu12 is doing is acceptable, and I would describe it as harrassment, but I would not describe it as a privacy violation. There is a difference. Or rather, a violating someone's privacy is a form of harrassment, but all harrassment is not violating privacy. Natalie 14:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I understand the impulse to 'catch the bad guy', but am not sure this manifestation of it comports with actual practice. I recall a case where an IP address made a 4th revert, identical to three preceding it by a logged in user, and WP:RCU refused a request to determine whether that IP address was the same as the user for purposes of establishing whether a 3RR violation had occurred. IPs aren't useful for most types of 'sockpuppet abuse' as they aren't considered in RFA comments and often receive less weight in *fD and the like as well. Thus, they'd only really be 'helpful' in edit warring... and people can always be blocked for that if it goes on at length even if 3RR is never surpassed on any particular day. Thus... is there really any great need to identify 'IP sockpuppets' which would outweigh the potential harm in doing so? If people feel that there is then I return to my statement that we should be warning people about the possibility of their IP being dug up and posted about... and not just with 'abusers', because there are always plenty willing to use any such tool to 'go after' those they simply disagree with. It's the old Ben Franklin, 'if you give up liberty to gain security you will have neither' situation. --CBD 13:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

---

I thought it was generally accepted on Wikipedia that even if the user voluntarily disclosed it in the past, if a user chooses to "un-disclose" personal information that should be respected. Wasn't that the whole thing behind the THF case? --Random832 13:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

An editor has just nominated about 45 "List of XXXXX Americans" for all American ethnic groups. You can see a list which (I think) is comprehensive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups. I don't have any reason whatever to doubt the good intentions or sincerity of the nominator, and I'm absolutely sure the nominator is acting within policies and guidelines, but this massive set of nominations is problematic (combining them all into one nomination is also problematic, for different reasons).

There are both arguments that apply across the board for all of these types of articles and there are specific arguments that can be applied to individual articles. Some editors will participate in one discussion, some in multiple discussions where they'll have to make the same argument over and over again, likely by cutting and pasting it over and over again (that's already started). Some editors, like me, will get tired of the whole thing and post on some discussions and ignore others. Then closing administrators will have to consider each one of the discussions separately but consider many of the same exact arguments and issues. Different closing admins, using their best judgment, will likely decide the worthiness of particular arguments in different ways. One closing admin going through the whole list would probably not do a good job of considering individual circumstances.

Is this any way to run a wiki?

Is this disruptive? Possibly. It may or may not produce a lot of ill-feeling if one ethnic group's list is deleted while another one is not. That's happened already and the world hasn't come to an end, but it seems to me that admins might want to think about whether it hurts Wikipedia to be deleting some lists of ethnic group members and not others at the same exact time.

Should the lists be combined into one deletion discussion for ethnic group people lists? I've been told that the nominating editor was told to do it individually. Should Wikipedia admins temporarily halt the discussions just started and direct editors to a forum such as WP:NOT where Wikipedia can come up with a policy on these lists, just as we have for other types of articles?

Maybe it's best that the discussions go on just the way they are. I really don't know. Please advise. Noroton 00:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologies for listing each article as an individual nomination, however that was what was required by an administrator. [45] I agree that policies and arguments should be applied evenly to all articles, and they should either all be kept or all be deleted. Deleting the articles of some ethnic groups based on WP:NOT, while keeping identical articles on other ethnic groups (which has already happened) is not a fair application of pertinent WP policies and consensus. I would support a centralized discussion of whether any list of this type is appropriate for WP or not. Leuko 00:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's good to know we're all on the page. It's a mess right now, and someone should figure out how to close down the individual discussions and move anyone who is interested towards a policy discussion about these articles. The discussion so far is useful but it's fragmented across several dozen articles, none of which give a good overall perspective. Depending on the outcome of the discussion, if we decide these are okay they should all be kept and any already deleted should be restored; if we decide such articles are inappropriate then they should all be speedied; and if we decide it's a case by case matter then we should review them individually, but please, a few at a time. I have no opinion at all right now on the underlying quesiton of whether these lists are a good thing or not. If they are a bad thing, we will probably have to impose this on people who are editing each individual article, most of whom are obviously in favor of them. Wikidemo 00:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Wholeheartedly agree that we should come to some sort of consensus on whether these articles are appropriate for WP or not, and then take action (restore/delete) to carry out that consensus. Leuko 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It was recommended that they be nominated individually. That doesn't mean that they should all be nominated at the same time. A little common sense indicates why. -Chunky Rice 02:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, if two (or possibly more) identical lists in a series are deemed inappropriate for WP via WP:AFD and WP:DRV, I think it would be common sense that they all should be deleted, and see no problem with listing them at the same time. I don't think that listing and keeping/deleting these identical lists haphazardly is common sense per the comments made above. Leuko 02:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

What was the point of this, then? If there's only one fundamental issue, they should have been listed as one nomination. The only reason to list them separately is to make individual determinations for each one because of substantiative differences. If you don't think that there are such differences, then why did you do it? -Chunky Rice 02:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Because a previous mass AfD was closed by an admin requesting that each list be nominated separately, as indicated above. I didn't think it was such a smart idea, but what do I know? Leuko 02:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Like I said. Separately. Not all at once. It would have been more appropriate to do 1 or 2 a day, tops, instead of flooding AfD. There's no rush. -Chunky Rice 02:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Nominating in such a sporadic fashion would lead to inconsistencies in how the articles are handled (i.e. deleted vs. kept). I was hoping for a more unified consensus on the entire series of lists. Leuko 02:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have to point out, again, that there's no point in nominating separately, other than to obtain separate results. So again, I don't see the point. -Chunky Rice 02:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

And I have to point out, again, that I would have gladly nominated the lists into one AfD for en-masse consensus, however, that was discouraged by an admin. Leuko 02:50, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I feel like we're talking in circles. If you were going to nominate them all at once, with the object of obtain the same result for each, it should have been done as one nomination. If you were going to follow the recommendation of recommending them separately (with the purpose of obtaining different results for each) they should have been spread out. That's all I'm saying. I don't understand why you did it this way. -Chunky Rice 02:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree, and I would have preferred one listing, but there was resistance to multiple article AfD's on the previous nomination. Leuko 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - The massive disruption your actions of September 12, 2007 have caused speaks for itself, and imbues your protests with a hollow ring. Badagnani 02:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment - Recommend immediate, indefinite block on this editor, who is apparently using a bot to nominate what appears to be over 100 articles for deletion. It is humanly impossible to carefully respond to so many of these, which is probably his/her hope. Please take immediate and decisive action on this; not to do so undermines the good faith of our entire project. Badagnani 01:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Umm, yeah. It was nowhere near 100, I wasn't using a bot, and please see WP:AGF#Accusing others of bad faith. Leuko 01:11, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The number is 48. The nominator is following what he perceives as a request by an admin. Remember to assume good faith. Smashville 01:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Badagnani, you should remeber to be WP:CIVIL as well. Carlossuarez46 06:33, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Question - Does this conensus you were hoping for have anything to do with the fact that you failed to place notices at List of composers of African descent and six other African American-related lists, fully 1 day after your nomination? That in itself is a serious "Incident." Badagnani 02:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My apologies, I will add them now. Completely forgot that Twinkle wouldn't add them. Leuko 03:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment I favor making a decision on these pages in one group. I believe they should be deleted as a matter of policy, so its a pain to have to post in each AfD. My reason is always the same - Wikipedia lists require explicit definitions, and none of these pages have one. Editing to clean them up would just turn into an edit war, becuase membership in the group is subjective - I've seen one great-grandfather listed as making someone German-American. Lists like "Mayors of New York" are self-defining. These lists would require a subjective decision that later editors could reject at any time. Therefore, these lists can never be good pages. MarkBul 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

hi all - as you probably are aware, there is now a note on this page asking participants to come here and comment. Is this noticeboard really the best spot for this discussion? I'll keep if brief just in case, and say that they should all be deleted per MarkBul. I'm happy to elaborate and discuss further, but i think we should find a better location, i just dunno where! - Purples 01:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I guess this has become quite controversial. I voted delete for a few believing these subjects are better served as categories. However, the amount of afd's based on one issue is a lot to deal with. This may have not been the best way to go but I do not see why there should be any blocking of any editors. Just one question: Is there a tag for recommending an article to be turned into a category? MrMurph101 02:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This isn't what I meant when I said what I said during the List of Portuguese Americans AFD. What I said only applied to the AFDs that were bundled in that nomination, not all lists that shared its basic characteristics or problems. Flooding AFD with every single one of these lists in a single day is, needless to say, very bad. --Coredesat 03:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is it "very bad?" Are the nominations not valid? And why did your comments only apply to the articles listed in that AfD? Surely if the consensus is to delete the lists on the basis of WP:NOT, then all lists in the series are in violation of this policy, and not just the ones listed in that one AfD. Leuko 03:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Reviewing CORESDAT's closure, I see nothing that says 'go relist all of these today at once, but in separate, consensus ruining ways'. A deletion at this level should have been researched first, a methodology arrived at, possibly a bot used to tag ALL such categories, and so on. Instead, this entire situation comes of as either vindictive, or excessive stubborn-ness. SHould these ever come up for deletion discussion again, they should be listed as list of people in any groups, then follow with a complete list of all cateogries based on grouping people, from jewish americans to gay eskimos to members of US Senate, and on and on. I'd move for an immediate early close with links to a centrallized discussion somewhere for this issue. Otherwise, we're going to get a patch-work of results, each Keep result becoming 'precedent' for re-creating the survivors, or Deletes being precendent for reliasting survivors, and on, and on, and on. THis needs to either be dismissed (the ideal), or centralized. ThuranX 03:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, that is how I interpreted the closure. I agree that the nominations could have been better executed, but I don't know of any other place to discuss these issues other than WP:AfD. In order to obtain a uniform consensus for all the lists in the series, I would support an early closure of the individual AfD's in favor of a centralized discussion. I don't think dismissing these issues is ideal. Leuko 04:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

It's "very bad" because a mass-nomination of all these lists on the same day within minutes of one another makes it difficult for people to assume good faith, and results in undue accusations of bad faith on the part of the nominator. I understand this wasn't an intentional disruptive action, but it was probably not a good idea to do it this way. --Coredesat 06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The histrionic reactions some people have had to this good faith action are really distressing. While it may not have been the best idea to do it like this, it's certainly not an intentional attempt to disrupt the project. --Haemo 04:12, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is a damned if you do and damned if you don't situation: if you nominate some but not others, does that show bias? does it promote inconsistent results? If you nominate all of them, you get accused of disruption or worse - but you're at least likely to get more consistent results. I agree with Haemo, the reaction has been over the top, and each article evaluated on its merits. Carlossuarez46 06:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - To the best of my knowledge, there isn't any policy against nominating so many similar articles for deletion individually, all at the same time. But surely it would have made for less of a mess if a few of them were nominated individually, then we wait for their closure, and we nominate a few more. The problem I really have with these nominations is that they seemed to be indiscriminant. The whole point to nominating them individually, as suggested in the mass deletion AfDs that the articles already went through, was that some of them should be kept while others should be deleted - they need to be evaluated at a case-by-case basis. But I can't see any apparent effort or attempt by the nominating editor to determine if some of these lists really ought to be kept instead. Granted maybe he feels they all should be deleted, but some of these lists have only recently survived AfDs, and at the very least, I think those lists should not have been nominated at all. It's borderline disruptive. How many times are editors who dislike these lists going to keep nominating them for deletion? Those lists that have survived recent AfDs should be speedily kept in my opinion. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 06:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
  • The nomination of all these lists is more than likely not going to achieve the nominator's objective, a few are recent re-noms which should have awaited a further clarification of consensus. Many are first time nom's but some people are Immediatists and others are Eventualists so I cannot call what was done so far afield to say it was evidence of bad faith. I think what Cordesat is saying (correct me if I'm putting the wrong words in your mouth) is that the mass nominations make it plausible or more easy for someone to come to a bad faith conclusion. In any event, the apparent objective won't be achieved in this manner - so we'll be at this at some later time. Carlossuarez46 06:39, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Comment - Just as a general 'rule of thumb'... almost anything which creates a massive amount of work or significant changes across hundreds of pages all at once is going to be controversial / potentially disruptive. Think userboxes, road names, spoiler warnings, et cetera. We've seen anger and controversy from this kind of mass action over and over again. It is almost always a better approach to set up some area for discussion of the issue (see WP:RFC), link to it from various relevant pages, wait a while to see what consensus (if any) develops, take the proposed action on a representative handful of pages, direct everyone who comments on these actions to the existing discussion page, get more feedback, et cetera. Ease into it so that interested parties have time to become aware of the issue and comment. This limits the scope of initial changes, so any problems with the idea can be cleaned up quickly, and avoids drawing in a huge crowd of angry responders all at once. Not following such a course isn't necessarily 'bad faith', but it is almost always a mistake that leads to disruption. --CBD 10:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• To all editors who are interested in continuing this discussion, a new discussion has been started at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ethnic groups/Lists of Ethnic Americans. Hong Qi Gong (Talk - Contribs) 17:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Leuko has closed all or nearly all the deletion discussions at issue (for confirmation, see [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Ethnic groups). All of my concerns have been met, and I think everybody's concerns have been met. There appears to be no longer any issue for this board to consider (although the discussion here was useful). Noroton 17:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I would like to ask the admins to review the situation with recent paroles and warnings. Me and User:Baku87 were yesterday placed on parole by the admins: [46] [47], while another 2 editors received only a warning for the same violation: [48] [49] This is a second warning for VartanM, the first one is here: [50] It is strange that I was placed on parole without any warning, while VartanM receives 2 warnings from the admins. Why users are not treated the same? --Aynabend 05:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I discuss and explain myself in the talkpage while you and Baku87 were merely reverting to Grandmaster and Atabek. VartanM 06:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

To this point, I have not seen VartanM to be editing in an "aggressive POV manner". I have left some notes about talk page comments, but I consider those issues resolved (in one case, he redacted a comment at my request).--Chaser - T 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have recently felt the need to declare two users "banned", on my own initiative, and have so far not got around to submitting these for review. Sorry for the delay in doing so. The one is standard, the other a little less so.

Flavius Belisarius (talk · contribs)

aka Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs) aka many other previous names. Long history of blocks for 3RR, sockpuppeting and generally aggressive editing, including a previous indef ban that was then, sort of, silently rescinded. Blocked him for another routine 3RR case the other day; he reacted (as he's done previously) with a massive sockpuppeting spree. Undisguised, just in order to spite the process (as if he wanted to say: "You can't block me, I'll just go on sockpuppeting until you tire of it.") This has happened before, at that time with literally dozens of socks. This time, I've so far caught:

• Şehitler Ölmez Vatan Bölünmez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Her Türk Asker Doğar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Ahmet Hasim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 151.37.177.62 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 151.37.185.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

I suggest to upgrade to an indef community ban (again), and to liberally apply repeated range blocks on 151.37.0.0/16 and 151.44.0.0/16 when he strikes again (yeah, I know, it's a big range, but it's the only thing that stops him.)

I have no objection for the ban Your Honour, but "generally aggressive editing" is simply unfair. I added way more content and interesting information to Wikipedia than the average user, being fluent in Turkish, English, Italian, Latin, French, Portuguese, Spanish and German, and using my vast library at home for this purpose. Kill Caesar, but acknowledge his good deeds. 151.38.176.241 11:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Anon user "Dodona"

This user was previously reported on the CSN, where people closed the case as inconclusive due to lack of participation, and also here ([51]) before that. This anon user, who posts from a small range of mostly stative IPs and signs his posts as "Dodona", has been plaguing a set of talk pages for almost a year, with an incessant, extremely repetitive stream of soapboxing about some nationalist crackpot pseudo-history ideas relating to the descent of Albanians from Pelasgians. He's unable to stay on topic, to conduct a reasoned debate, to write understandable English, or to get a basic grasp of WP:V. I blocked him a couple of times for disruption, after which he always immediately returned with more of the same. After his latest blocks, he started sockpuppeting, using named accounts for the first time. For months now, people have mostly just rolled back all his contributions. As far as I remember he's never made a single article edit in this domain that wasn't reverted as nonsensical OR.

I'm aware my "banning" him is a bit borderline, because I'm myself a long-time participant involved in one of the articles in question. It's just that his activities are so narrowly confined to this relatively dark and out-of-the-way corner of Wikipedia that few other admins are ever likely to notice him.

Here's his contributions (i.e. some of his most frequently used IPs):

• 80.78.74.68 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.90.82.126 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.78.70.197 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
• 80.90.85.46 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

Ban was discussed at Talk:Arvanites#Dodona banned.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:26, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Dodona has been known as a troublemaker, so I can't help endorsing the ban. We need more prompt actions along these lines. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Endorse the ban. Incidentally the very first nick on the first one, seems to be Turkish, with the words meaning in order "martyr, immortal, native country, divided/separated" (very close to the word for "separatist") and the second "each/every Turk soldier/military natural" - I don't speak the language but have a good dictionary. The nicks if in English would probably be a violation of our username policy. Orderinchaos 08:58, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, those are well-known patriotic slogans. "The martyrs are immortal, the nation is indivisable", and "Every Turk is born a soldier". Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

So my suspicions weren't too far off the mark, thanks for that :) (I really need to learn a language someday) Orderinchaos 10:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has inserted his favorite spam link into Web 2.0 and Search engine optimization (one of our best spam honeypots). [52][53] [54] ([55] and while not logged in: [56], maybe to avoid scrutiny) I've explained the situation patiently and kindly.[57] [58] The user has responded with incivility, and is becoming increasingly disruptive, continuing to post to my talk page after I asked him to stop. I need some admin help, because I'm not going to edit war with this fellow, but I'm also not going to let him get away with damaging the encyclopedia. It might be sufficient for an admin to delete the spam and leave him a warning. I don't want to do that because I've already reverted and I really want to keep my membership in the Wikipedia:Harmonious Editing Club. While I think this is a clearcut case of spam, I don't want to push it. - Jehochman ^Talk 09:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

24 hour block. Durova^Charge! 14:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

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

This user has attempted to delete high quality content from the Web 2.0 article. He obviously agrees that it is relevant material, but curiously continues to label it as "spam" merely because it also references to another article on what he perceives to be a "commercial website". I demand that quality material be treated as such.

He is clearly damaging the encyclopedia by removing mention of an excellent idea that lies at the very definition of Web 2.0.

I have also initiated a discussion on the talk page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by YAM (talk • contribs)

Uh huh - David Gerard 10:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, for fixing the heading.

I don't agree that this is "high quality content," YAM, so please don't put words in my mouth. It's actually just run of the mill spam for an SEO firm called Copywriting Experts UK. Unfortunately, YAM won't listen to reason and I'm not going to put my reputation on the line by revert warring with him. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:17, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I completely agree that this is generic spam masquerading as a source. Adds nothing to the article, appears to serve mainly to promote the site. Guy (Help!) 10:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The source fails WP:RS. Orderinchaos 10:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. The link has now been removed by a third party. Sarah 10:47, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, so Web 2.0 is a very important article, especially since Wikipedia is one of the top Web 2.0 sites. The article still needs a lot of help. How about we all try to get it up to good, if not featured status? Maybe some of you can add Web 2.0 your watchlists. You too, YAM. - Jehochman ^Talk 10:49, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Adds nothing to the article? It is the only webpage on the Internet that actually attempts to define a very important feature of Web 2.0 by highlighting the modular systems that make development easier. It is the only page that actually addresses the "divide between functionality and technique", what is actually used on the Web 2.0 article. It thus hits upon a very fundamental aspect of the whole Web 2.0 idea, and ignoring it means ignoring significant research into Web 2.0. I think you guys haven't made the effort to read through it. YAM 11:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

YAM, this isn't the way to operate at Wikipedia. And it doesn't go over well to be this aggressive about it. Have a look at our guidelines and policies, in particular WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:RS, WP:NOT, and WP:NOR. Durova^Charge! 14:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've read the material at copywritingexperts.co.uk, and I agree with everyone else above.

To qualify as a reliable source, a website must be "regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand" and have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight." Clearly, this source fails that standard.

You have now been told by four different administrators that the link is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Please respect our guidelines on this issue. -- Satori Son 12:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

For "only site on the internet" substitute "sole proponent of a novel or idiosyncratic theory". Enough said. Guy (Help!) 12:30, 13 September 2007 (UTC)