User:Ludvikus has moved Revisionist Zionism twice this week despite consensus on the Talk page to leave it as it is. Most recently, he moved it while discussion is active. In fact, he is the only editor who feels that the article should be renamed.

In general, User:Ludvikus has been engaged in disruptive editing. He has started several disambiguation pages that serve no clear purpose (e.g., Historical revisionism (disambiguation), Standard work). He has proposed mergers that make no sense and created articles about subjects that already have articles (e.g., Ninteenth Century (sic), Union of Zionist-Revisionists).

Can somebody please intervene with User:Ludvikus? Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SHAME on users who have political usernames (another example: User:Flying tiger) going after voices of objectivity and reason. The thin, weak voice of NPOV will not be drowned by a cacophony of politically-motivated aggression. -WikiSkeptic (talk) 18:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

For reasons that I do not quite understand the complainent has been stalking me. Wherever I go to edit he/she sems to appear and Rvt my work. The article he's complaining about is Revisionist Zionism which I believe should more properly be labeled Zionist revisionist movement. He seems to be working with one other editor, whose name is very difficult for me to remember. I welcome any independent, cool-headed voice that can help resolve the dispute. Thanx. --Ludvikus (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ludvikus's nonstop disruptions, which indicate little understanding of the subjects he disrupts (one of many examples) has indeed required constant monitoring. It would be a relief not to have to monitor him. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 18:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

No idea about Malik Shabazz (isn't it likely to just be his name?), but which of the meanings of "Flying Tiger" is politically motivated? (Unless my memory is wildly wrong, Flying Tiger was also a Spiderman supervillain.) — iridescent 18:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My User name (and certainly Flying Tiger's) is a red herring. The issue at hand is Ludvikus' behavior, which is disruptive. Please take a look at Talk:Revisionist Zionism, Talk:Historical revisionism (negationism), and Talk:On The Jewish Question, where I have hidden many of his disruptive comments to bring some semblance of order to the pages. On many of the Talk pages, he discusses other unrelated pages. Please, can somebody try to help? — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 19:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes. I'm prepared to implement a move probation. User is restricted to use the WP:RM procedure (to be closed by an admin), even for noncontroversial moves for the next month. RfC is probably the next logical step if issues continue beyond that. El_C 19:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

While we're here, might I also call attention to User:Ludvikus#Certain engaging editors? I'm reading that as this user calling three other users Holocaust Deniers, which seems to run afoul of WP:NPA. Tarc (talk) 19:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You got that wrong. We are all writing about Historical Revisionism, which scholars say that that's the same as Holocaust denial. Please don't be reckless with your accusations. --Ludvikus (talk) 20:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It's best not to list other users in a way that could be inferred as negative. I doubt those users wish to be listed in such a way. El_C 20:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I've modified that. The purpose was mere to be able to click on their difficult long name. That's all. Also, I have not heard an objection from them. In fact, you and I have been working together on articles related to Marxism. Would you mind it if I did the same with your name? If so, I'll not do so. Please let me know. Furthermore, are you now addressing me as an adminstrator? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I am addressing you as an administrator. I would rather not be listed. I, actually, intervened as an admin to that article, because you made a questionable, undiscussed move to it that needed to be reversed. El_C 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Done! As per your request. And I've done the same for Shabazz and the other editor whose name is difficult for me to spell. Is that another issue resolved? --Ludvikus (talk) 21:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm not sure I understand the question: maybe they can answer it...? El_C 21:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to end all issues between all the parties. Look above. There are many accusations against me. I want to solve them all now. Put an end to it and have peace. So I'm asking you to deal with all the issues raised above. Not just the (1) "move" issue and (2) the names on my "user page." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what else you expect me to do. It's up to all of you to follow the steps for dispute resolution. El_C 21:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you tell me what issues remain to be taken to "dispute resolution". You cannot expect me to write my own indictment, do you. Wikipedia should not be Stalinist Russia. Since your an adminstrator who has taken action against me, inform me now what the rest of the complaints against me are outstanding, which you say you cannot resolve, but must be taken to "dispute resolution." --Ludvikus (talk) 21:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what those issues are. I suggest you tone down the polemics and talk to the people whom you are having problems with. El_C 21:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Look at the disruption occuring this very moment while I'm trying to resolve the dispute with Shabazz (--Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)):

==RfD nomination of [[:Union of Zionist -Revisionists]]=== I have nominated Union of Zionist -Revisionists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 21:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

---

That's the stub I created, and while I'm here responding to his complaint, he's not willing to cooperate with me at all but persists in provocation. What he has done is called in Wikipedia "stalking" I believe. He goes around looking for anything I do so that he could have it "deleted". I want that problem ended. Can you help. As you can see I'm extremely cooperative, while Shabazz continues to provoke. --Ludvikus (talk) 22:07, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What I've nominated for discussion is the article (now a redirect) with the mis-typed name (note the space before the hyphen) that you started, then moved to Union of Zionist-Revisionists. I don't think any readers will mistype the name of the organization, so I proposed deleting the mis-named redirect. Please click on the link to the RfD discussion page before you jump to any conclusions. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 22:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin, show mercy and close this case[edit]

The issue has been addressed by move probation. Can a merciful admin please put this case out of its misery and close it? thanks. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 22:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Oppose. There is still my complaint outstanding of being WP:Stalking by User:Malik:Shabazz. --Ludvikus (talk) 23:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:STALK:

[P]roper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, or correcting related problems on multiple articles (in fact, such practices are recommended both for Recent changes patrol and WikiProject Spam).

When I noticed that you were making disruptive edits on a few articles, I looked to see whether you were making similarly disruptive edits on other articles. That's perfectly acceptable. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. And I discovered more disruptions on other articles. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 02:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Talk:On The Jewish Question[edit]

• Disruption is taking place at the moment which is caused by another editor - you guy know who he is - but you do nothing to stop it. I'll be back in a moment with the Diffs. --Ludvikus (talk) 14:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• First look here: [1] --Ludvikus (talk) 14:28, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
• This is the problem given in the block below - I'll get the diff momentarily(--Ludvikus (talk) 14:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)):

    deleted commercial advertisment, --User:Schwalker (talk) 11:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's a Reverion, not a Deletion. Here's the Diff which shows (on the bottom of the page) the text he's removed by Reverting because he (User:Schwalker) alleges is an advertisement (Ludvikus (talk) 15:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)): [2]
• Furthermore, please look further up this noticeboar to the section: User:JPG-GR. It the same dispute degarding "disruption by User:Schwalker. He is currently involved in two(2) disruption disputes on this Noticeboard. --Ludvikus (talk) 15:11, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please do look at #User:JPG-GR, which describes another example of Ludvikus's disruptive editing and moving at another page. Or visit Talk:On The Jewish Question to see that his disruptive editing continues. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 17:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(ec2) Link removed Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I just tried to click the link to http://www.majalla dot org/books/law/rulesnamaz.htm in the article Salah#Other, but my antivirus software indicated that it might contain malware. Do others have the same problem? If so, the link should be removed asap. Aecis^Brievenbus 09:18, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear god, don't hyperlink it if you think it might be a problem. Viridae^Talk 09:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I got the same so removed the link. Aecis I don't think anyone would challenge you if you just went ahead and removed the link if it happened again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have looked at the link in question and examined a couple of hyperlinks within. I find (as of my only run) no attempts to inject or download anything other than http web pages. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • The stylesheet within the page writes some dodgy escaped javascript which then writes some iFrames. I haven't looked into what exactly it's trying to do, but it's probably not good. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 11:37, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• • Good catch, I used ff, no iframes. I did not look at the underlying code. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20256422-Question-about-HTMLFramerZ for more information. Note that the script will not execute directly when loaded as a style sheet - the problem is the style sheet is a broken link and the site's error redirector page is compromised. --Random832 (contribs) 17:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The user has made a number of disruptive edits already. I've warned him he's in danger of violating the 3RR rule in two articles and got this message on my talk page. Just to note that the last sentence in Slavic languages means: Eat my d*ck. He has also uploaded a bunch of images: [3] [4] and [5] with most probably false PD-self tags. --Laveol ^T 21:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the user in question has asked another user for help with me [6]. He seems to have called me a kapuk (must be some not very nice word whatever it means. --Laveol ^T 21:09, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have left a warning on their user talk page regarding the personal attack for now.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:13, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope he'll calm down eventually. --Laveol ^T 21:14, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

He broke WP:3RR on Template:Ethnic Macedonians after I warned him [7]. Should I go to the 3RR noticeboard? --Laveol ^T 21:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

User doesn't take any warnings seriously. He broke 3RR again on Bulgarians--Laveol ^T 20:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked. He's been pretty disruptive all through the day on various fronts. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

A user ( Nicoleta Sofronie (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) ) moved Keith D (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) user and talk page to Roger Parslow (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log) and now I'm lost! Looks like a vandal move however Bidgee (talk) 13:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Neil NeilN promptly took care of it.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 13:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, that'd be me (very similar user names, I know). --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 13:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

D'oh.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 13:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be part of some weird vandal/sockpuppet ring, originally dealing with boardgame articles. There was an ANI thread about it a week or so ago. It's related to User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja; I can't tell if all of these are her puppets, or if she's being impersonated by someone. I suspect the former, but since I'm not positive, and it was complicated, I'm only blocking the socks, not Nastasija Marachkovskaja.

I've blocked, I think, two of them, maybe three. There are a few more, but I didn't know it was going to turn into something, so I haven't kept close track, and I can't look into it for a while. In the mean time, if she hasn't been already, I'm going to block Nicoleta Sofronie as part of this little group, based on my interpretation of WP:DUCK. (Update: I see PPG already blocked thiso ne while I was typing.)

I recommend a good test of future socks is: If a new account edits, or otherwise pays attention to, the user pages of:

• User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja
• User:Aliena Kvacha
• User:Roger Parslow
• User:Nicoleta Sofronie

and doesn't respond to questions about what they're doing, they are not here to be productive, and I'd indef block them as part of this ring.

An adventurous soul could try to find the ANI thread, see who started that thread, and ask them for more insight, and add user pages to this list. Or do an RFCU to see if there are others. Or, look into it a bit more, and determine if User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja is a puppeteer or a victim. If/when I have time, I'll look at it in more depth myself. --barneca (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive410#Vandalism/sockpuppetry at board game articles is the archive link and I agree with the sock blocks. Woody (talk) 13:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I started the thread and it also included the user Billy Costa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) so those accounts might bear watching, too. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Woody, and Steven, yes that's the thread.

Based on her behavior previous to the creation of these socks, I'm blocking User:Nastasija Marachkovskaja indef as the master account. This is not an innocent user being harrassed, this is an account that engaged in very similar behavior prior to the socks' creation. I can't imagine a situation where this user is not behind the additional accounts.

There are more socks, but I don't see the need to list them all here anymore, per WP:DENY.

I'm adding all of the above user pages to my watchlist, and will indef block new accounts engaging in similar behavior per WP:DUCK. Since blocking account creation doesn't seem to work, I assume this is a dynamic IP. As such, there may not be much left to say on this thread. WP:RBI. If it gets bad, I'll ask for a Checkuser to look into a rangeblock, but right now it isn't disrupting the mainspace very much, so I don't think it's needed right now. --barneca (talk) 15:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: There is one account, User:Eremia, that I am convinced is the same person, but which doesn't seem to be doing any vandalism. I don't know enough about the subject matter they're contributing to know ofr sure, but it appears, at first glance, to be legitimate (or mostly legitimate). Since I'm sure it's the same person, should I (a) block the account, (b) watch the account, or (c) attempt to discuss the situation with them at this user talk page, and try to convince them to stop the disruption. Does option (c) ever work? Anyone interested can see user:barneca/watch/bvr. --barneca (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on the policies, but given the history of disruption, I'd say that any new socks are blockable on sight. The strongest evidence is this edit made by User:Sofronie to Eremia's user page without any apparant objection by Eremia. (Note similar username to User:Nicoleta Sofronie.) So far as I know, none of these socks have responded to any discussions anywhere, but I suppose you can give it a try. I guess the approach most consistent with AGF is to find an active account, inform/remind them of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and invite them to contribute constructively to the project. As an aside, if you google these user names, you'll find that most of them are either real people or characters from fictional works. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This person's got several issues, but their main one seems to be that card games and board games should be called card sports and board sports. So, she changes article text, moves article pages, and populates and depopulates categories to achieve this, across multiple, multiple articles. She is always reverted by whoever is watching that particular article. She has never, as far as I can find, discussed this with anyone on any article talk page or on her talk pages.

New clearly-disruptive socks of the same person are blockable on sight without warning. I think I've convinced myself that this person (on several different account names) has been told her changes don't have consensus enough times that continuing this on any account, regardless of whether that account is actually being used to vandalize, is disruption, and I think new accounts starting this same thing up right away can legitimately be blocked.

I plan on making this point known to her on the Eremia account's talk page, and if the changes and page moves continue, I'm going to block that account too. I'll tell her that if she finds a talk page to discuss this, and stops making multiple accounts to do the same thing, then it's a simple content dispute, and WP:DR is available, and I will leave one of her accounts unblocked so she can participate. If the sock creation continues, I'll block all accounts, whether or not that particular account is disruptive, and whether or not they are participating in WP:DR with that account.

Further review of this approach is welcome. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 20:47, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Endorse. Clearly disruptive and intolerable. Your approach makes sense to me. --Rodhullandemu 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I still agree with what you're doing, Barneca. It may also be worth noting that User:Aliena Kvacha has received a bloqué indéfiniment from an administrateur as a result of a decision from the Comité d'arbitrage at the French language Wikipedia, so these accounts may have some trouble with the English language. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Actually, in the process today of looking at pages this person has vandalized, I discovered that on the French Wikipedia (or, at least, some French speakers on this Wikipedia), a sockpuppet is called a "faux-nez", which still makes me smile every time I read or write it. --barneca (talk) (see note @ top of my talk if I don't reply) 22:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

"False nose?" That is 31 flavors of awesome. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 22:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:DemiLovato15 ignores repeated warnings (reverts them with messages like "stupid warnings are useless") and leaves insulting and argumentative messages liek this one on other people's talk pages as a result. -- David from Downunder (talk) 16:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

People being argumentative on Wikipedia?! Call the sheriff. </joke> Equazcion •✗/C • 16:33, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

In all seriousness, yeah this user does seem to need a good stern warning about civility. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a message regarding civility. Hopefully it'll do something. Equazcion •✗/C • 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See here. Just saying.... Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm just posting my actions here for review. This post at the help desk which is from a Pakistani religious organization who are very upset about the content of this userpage. If you click the version, it's actually an article about the organization in question, posted as the userpage of a Wikipedia user who (apparently) is part of another organization which opposes the first. The userpage makes a bunch of claims, such as:

“

It is obvious to say that the only objective of MF [the complaining organization] I is to create hurdles for International Spiritual Movement Anjuman Serfaroshan-e-Islam and to defame Gohar Shahi and provoke public anger against Gohar Shahi by producing blasphemous materials and ideas, claims by using the name of Gohar Shahi.

”

and

“

Its name has been probably deliberately chosen so as to give it a larger than life image, as a respectable 'international' organization, rather than the bizarre cult that it actually is.

”

Naturally, this is totally incompatible with userpage guidelines, and clearly is using Wikipedia as a free soapbox for his political/religious views. It was previously deleted when it was being used as a promotional venue for the second organization mentioned. Bizarrely, on March 6, an admin protected the page when an IP user tried to delete some of the material mentioned, and a number of other users reverted them as well. It's clear that not only is this material confusing to users, who think it is an article, but it's also non-neutral and probably violates BLP guidelines, since the members of the organization are easily identifiable in the article. I have blanked the page, and left a note telling the user not to re-add this. --Haemo (talk) 19:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I concur with your actions. I would also consider protecting the blanked page version should the material be re-introduced (outside of any sanction imposed on whoever reverts.) LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted and protected the page. Reviews, please? Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Again concur. I suggest you note your actions to the users talkpage, in case they wish to create a legit userpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:03, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done so, thanks. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 20:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Concur with the deletion. Inappropriate material for a userpage, so a valid deletion and protection, given that the account is pretty SPAish. _GB^T/C 20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Also concur. Necessary action. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Dimondlover vandalized three pages (Talk:Birth, Wikipedia talk:How to edit a page, and Help) by adding an individual's personal identifying information. I deleted the revisions from Talk:Birth, but the other two pages have enormous histories. I'm a bit out of my depth here as to how to handle this without causing problems. I don't want to crash the database by deleting and restoring all those revisions. Should this be oversighted? --Ginkgo100^talk 19:30, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I will have a go at deleting/undeleting the articles - they should work if less than 5000 edits and I managed a 6000+ edit history just yesterday... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC) * ...and done. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm here to request the blocking of True Steppa (talk · contribs). This person is disrupting the list of electronic music genres page by adding something that has no valuable data and there is no mention of the subject in question. Fclass (talk) 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Please do not forum shop - if your original block request at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Dispute at List of electronic music genres is not getting traction now then wait until there is a consensus either way. Anyone wishing to comment further should do so at WP:AN, per the link. LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

This is surely somebody's sock, but I can't tell whose with the tools I have. From the contribs, I'm guessing AntiEdit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Enjoy! SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 21:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• ... who is in turn a sock of blocked user:Bahameenballin. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 22:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

See here for checkuser request. Acroterion _(talk) 22:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Flock has asked its 723 twitter followers to update their wiki page. --TIB (talk) 20:57, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh goody. HalfShadow 21:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll watchlist it - but I doubt if it is going to be vandalised by the birdwatching fraternity. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll have a little faith here and hope that some of the contributors add to the article to improve it. Just canvassing for an article necessarily isn't bad, especially if the editors can be constructive, not destructive or disruptive. Wildthing61476 (talk) 21:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Especially when the person offers rewards for significant changes. --TIB (talk) 23:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've done some cleanup (copying the features pages verbatim does add text which sounds good), but the biggest concern should be copyright problems, not vandalism. I do think we have at least one or two new editors that might be coming out of this. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Eric.k.herberholz is at least trying to be helpful. Can't really hold that against him. HalfShadow 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there someone knowledgeable re: multi-racial categorizations? A contributor is reverting a number of such biographical designations [8], and I do not know if the changes are legitimate or not. Cheers, JNW (talk) 23:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought the rule was, unless they were self-described or in a really good source, get the people out of the categories completely. Notified him anyway. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No explicit rule. Going through 1, 2, 3 levels of abstraction about guidelines, it seems that for religious beliefs and sexual orientation, not unless the subject publicly self-identifies or the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources. It isn't explicitly the same for ethnic groups but I'd follow a similar pattern. Any other ideas?-- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Though I'm not terribly fond of such categorizations to begin with, I was struck by the contributor's inclination to 'take offense', especially since most of the cats being reverted were supported by the articles' biographical information. But as suggested above, I am unfamiliar with Wiki policy on this. JNW (talk) 01:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I know, that kind of immediate offense, quick action, and immediate stop when questioned at all is really suspicious. I already reverted one because he broke up a ref tag. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Your research is appreciated. Cheers, JNW (talk) 01:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

An apparent single purpose account is edit warring and continuously adding a link to the external links section of this article. Looks like obvious spam to me, but I'll leave it for an administrator to deal with. Apologies for not including the user, but it's probably obvious from the edit history that the editor in question is FadeIntoYou. Rray (talk) 23:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Notified User:Fadeintoyou about this discussion. I remove the link to a site that probably doesn't pass WP:RS which is purporting to be reviewing the site. I'll look more into it later. The edit dispute doesn't belong here, but the possible COI problem is worth looking into. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 00:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire entry is spam for Sportsbook.com! Are you kidding me? I'm trying to protect people from this criminal organization!Fadeintoyou (talk) 04:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

no what you are trying to do is push a single point of view, and it is getting old quickly. You have been advised several times as how to work with other editors on this matter but it appears to be going in one ear and out the other. Enough now. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 04:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, what YOU are trying to do is push a single point of view. Why are you so intent on defending their propaganda? What is your agenda? Fadeintoyou (talk) 05:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

For a few weeks 67.164.113.67 has been removing sourced content from Hans Reiser and does not discuss changes despite being warned. Switzpaw (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Re. denial of editprotected

Apart from all other issues pertaining to this, I can't see why my request was denied, except that admins are afraid to deal with controversial issues.

Prior to the hysteria surrounding the press release, the article was stable.

It was protected, and happened to have the image moved down at the time;

My requests to revert have been denied even though consensus had clearly been reached.

I know that, in a few days, this will be irrelevent, but in the meantime it appears to the outside world that WP has bowed to external censorship.

--  Chzz  ►  04:37, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Being vague here doesn't help anyone help out. Look at Talk:Virgin_Killer#Editprotected_revert_request, you request a reversion, claim that consensus has been reached at Wikipedia:Images_and_media_for_deletion/2008_May_8#Image:Virgin_Killer.jpg (extremely controversial, deleted and now at deletion review being discussed) and an admin rejects it (in part because of the oppose votes), so you forum shop. Recommend marking as resolved and head to WP:DR if you want to complain some more. If not, discuss it on the article page but it's dumb to do that until the discussion about the image itself is done. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if I was vague. I didn't want to spam this forum with detail that can be obtained by research, and this specific request for an edit should not be related to ongoing isputes re. the image. I disagree with the admin rejection due to oppose votes, as consensus is clear. I agree it's dumb to discuss on the talk page, as discussion re. the image deletion is irrelevent to this request. I fail to see policy that substantiates denying this specific request, and discussion with admins has led to "I agree but I can't do it because it's controversial" (unfortunately not a citable quote for obv reasons). --  Chzz  ►  05:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the section shows your view isn't the only one. If you were unopposed, it wouldn't be controversial. Even then, there is a reason why there's a process to get the mop and bucket and it is because we supposedly have better judgment =) Let the DRV and everything else sort itself out (which I think will require a ARBCOM decision in the end) either about NFCC (unbelievable) or about how far to take WP:CENSOR. I think we're done here though. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

At the article Monica Seles I inserted information about her receiving Hungarian citizenship in 2007 with three reliable references. User:Tennis expert removed it with an offensive edit summary. I warned him not to use such an edit summary again, also referred to my detailed explanation on the talk page. I reinserted the information with a fourth(!) reliable reference, translated all the titles into English, even inserted a quote from one of the articles.
He deleted the warning from his talk page, then reverted my edit again, this time explicitly using the word vandalism in the edit summary. He called my edit "pushing agenda" on the talk page and despite my explanation again denied the verifability of the sources, because "these are not English news agencies". It's also kind of strange that the same user never questioned the blog of a young Serbian woman as a reliable source.
I'd like to ask an administrator to reinsert the well-referenced information with all the references. Squash Racket (talk) 05:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You're clearly in the right here on the content, but I'm not going to involve myself in an edit war. I have warned him. --Haemo (talk) 05:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I reinsert the info once again, but that means I'll have two reverts (which I don't really like). As he uses such phrases as "enough said" and "rv vandalism", I don't know if he will be able to finally stop. Squash Racket (talk) 05:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I left him a note on his talk page regarding this thread. Hopefully he can be involved in this thread and maybe come to a conclusion. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

And he reverted it D= [9] <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 06:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying me, Tonkleheimer, as Squash Racket did not do me the courtesy of doing so. Turning to the substance of this disagreement, Monica Seles is a very famous tennis player who was World No. 1 for several years and who very publicly became an American citizen in the early-1990s. She has lived in the United States for over 20 years and, before she stopped playing on the tour in 2003, she often played on American Fed Cup and Olympic teams. She is now one of the most beloved female professional tennis players in that country. Therefore, if she had become a Hungarian citizen in 2007, there is no doubt whatsoever that an English language newspaper or website would have prominently publicized that fact. But not one has. Various editors have tried for at least 6 months (possibly including anonymous IP accounts of Squash Racket) to add Hungarian language information, which appears to be nothing more than rumor-mongering or wishful thinking, about her alleged new and secretly obtained Hungarian citizenship. Various established editors, including myself, have reverted those attempts as not being supported by reliable sources and highly unlikely to be true. If anyone is reverting against Wikipedia policy, it is Squash Racket. Personally, I strongly suspect that Squash Racket is a sockpuppet of the banned user VinceB, who was well known for nationalistic agenda pushing concerning Hungary and for harrassing editors who resisted that agenda. See this. By the way, I have no idea what Squash Racket is talking about concerning the "blog of a young Serbian woman." Clearly, blogs are not proper sources. Tennis expert (talk) 06:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As two administrators immediately answered you on the talk page, one of them reverted you and you deleted my first message, I didn't feel the need to send a message (I hope you understand). If you have insecurities about who I am and have some kind of evidence, you should ask for a Checkuser. Although Deskana already said (back in the day) I was NOT editing from the same IP ranges as this banned user that you are trying to associate me with who basically didn't respect any Wikipedia policies ever. Very nice. Also take a little look at my contributions for a fair view.
It is enough to translate the titles of the articles (I already did that, you can check it with an online dictionary), you don't need to speak Hungarian. The references (for example this one) are reliable as explained on the talk page. And I have not asked for a block on you for your overall conduct.
"Clearly, blogs are not proper sources", but you never questioned the reliability of that Serbian blog, while immediately removing the reliable references that I added. Squash Racket (talk) 07:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant to the point here, but I would highly suggest a hidden comment saying that there have been rumors of a secret Hungarian citizenship and to see the talk page before inserting it. It doesn't matter if 100 users every day add that nonsense, you should be assuming good faith at all times. Put a comment there, remove it if it's still insert and say, "see the talk page." That should be clearer than this conduct. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:15, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

No, Squash Racket, I don't understand your starting this thread without contacting me. Deleting a prior message of yours does not imply anything. As for the Serbian blog, I still have no idea what you're talking about. I delete blog references and links to external fan websites all the time. The whole problem here is that your sources are not reliable. Clearly. I'm sure that there are many in the English media who can read Hungarian as well as you. They would've noticed reports about Seles "secretly" obtaining Hungarian citizenship. Because she is such a well-known and beloved public figure in both Europe and the United States, they would've investigated those reports to determine their credibility. But not one has reported the rumor that you are so stridently saying is reliable. And aside from all this, you are insisting on adding information against editorial consensus that has been so explictly demonstrated over the last many months. Tennis expert (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, here is a translation: Titokban (titok=secret) lett (has become) magyar (Hungarian) állampolgár (citizen) Szeles Mónika. Here is the reference. The blog is still among the references (and nobody questioned it, although you say you were "protecting" this article for months from different IPs).

I repeat: I haven't asked for a block on you even though despite an administrator's warning (and mine) you still openly call my edits vandalism. Squash Racket (talk) 07:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Might an admin move 1UP Forum in mainspace back to User talk:1up king, and 1UP Resources back to User:1up king, over the original move redirects? The user appears either unaware or uncaring of policy on user vs. mainspace and WP:FORUM, per the comment: Ok, I did some redirects so I could proper titling for these pages. So this is now the 1UP Forum, and the page with all the links and content is the 1UP Resources page. Enjoy! BTW: you can now use the Wikipedia search to find these pages!!. Thanks. -- Michael Devore (talk) 06:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a good reason why we should be keeping "articles" full of non-free images around so that users can link to youtube and flash games? I'd suggest deleting the whole sucker and tell the user to quit screwing around and use the encyclopedia. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget that. I deleted the whole sucker and told him to stop screwing around. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:25, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I did think about speedy tagging them, but since WP is a lot more forgiving about user pages and talk page content, I figured no big deal, it's most important to get the content out of mainspace. Without admin intervention I would have to tag the pages, hope an admin agreed with the CSD, blank the redirects, post to the (new) talk page asking the user to cut out the moves and why, tell them that "no, they can't have their own private forum", and then they would very likely ignore everything I said. Seemed easier to ask for a move over redirect back to status quo and work from there. But the double delete works for me, too.-- Michael Devore (talk) 07:31, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst Colonel Warden can have his moments, in this case I think he's right. A proposed merger of Multiplayer video game and PC Multiplayer is fine (and even necessary), but Multiplayer game has nothing to do with either of these articles, bar the fact that the video game element could be mentioned in that article. Regardless, this is a content dispute, which is on the third door down on the left. Black Kite 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the definition of the term that is completely inappropriate. Regardless, thanks for pointing to the dispute resolution page. I'll take it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The matter seems resolved here but we may just note for the record that I have discussed the matter extensively on the relevant talk pages and that my position rests upon reliable sources such as the OED. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Fascinating. Rankiri and other editors were in effect claiming the Oxford English Dictionary to be wrong, while Warden was simply holding the line against utter insanity. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). Please read the arguments before making fool of yourself: "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/multi?view=uk

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please white list my account as I am receiving two messages a minute from Coren Bot which wrongly keeps taggin my new Burmese settlement articles of which I am adding two articles a minute. No response from User:Coren who operates it. Its driving me crackers. Will somebody help give the Bald Guy a break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it's saying you're copyvio-ing from a Wikipedia article - which would be true if formatting and non-substantive information in the article violated some copyright. Each article is a one-line stub that takes its format from the first article on your list, so I don't think there's anything problematic about any of them. Would there be any objections if I rollbacked the bot's tagging of those articles? As for whitelisting your edits, or edits in this area, or that source - I don't know. I'm not seeing a way on the bot's page, so my impulse would be to ask Coren. I'm hesitant to shut down the bot, but this isn't the first issue raised in the past few days. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles I spot checked are indeed copyvio-free, so I've removed all of the tags on your Burma articles. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I checked several as well, and, I don't see any obvious copyvio's. Would you like for me to protect your talkpage for the time being, until we can get ahold of Coren? SQL^{Query me!} 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The whitelist appears to be at User:CorenSearchBot/allies -- at least I found my name there, and I'm not getting the notices anymore. – Sadalmelik ☎ 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added your name to the whitelist - I've seen your mass article creations in the past and can understand how the bot might get confused because of them. If Coren objects, I'm sure he'll remove you, but I doubt he'll have a problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't even know about that whitelist :P SQL^{Query me!} 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy days are here again in the land of Wiki bots I guess... Is anyone going to take a position on Corenbot's instant tagging of mirror scrapes, highlighted a few posts above, or is it just going to be ignored because it's seemingly accepted that a bot op can be absent from wiki for days on end while still running a bot (or months it would appear since my talk post about it). MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish: instant tagging is good, it lowers the amount of false positives. The error rate is low, and real people review every tagging. There are two white lists to prevent such things to continue when a false positive is raised. Do you need something else while I'm here? Otherwise you can come and help, you know, build a free encyclopedia? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Has been previously banned
• Suspected of sockpuppetry: USEDfan, 66.195.30.2, Booowooo, Usedfan1989
• Repeated warnings for disruptive edits
• repeated failure of understanding the concept of NPOV.

--SilverOrion (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That name isn't shown as registered. Are you sure you have the spelling and the case of the name correct? Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Try User:USEDfan. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try giving the guys at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets an insight, so they can investigate. Lradrama 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just a content dispute now? And no one should be doing any unilateral moves like a DAB or rename if it's contested--everyone has to respect consensus from admins on down at all times or face consequences. Talk it out, if someone acts disruptive or keeps moving/renaming, thats what the 3rr cluestick is for. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are repudiating WP:BOLD. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. I wrote: "if it's contested". If it is, the bold move (fine once) gets thrown back, and discussion decides. Like it is now, and like it should be. No one user on any one matter has any sort of sticking permanent power; we all have to bow down and accept a formed consensus when it forms. If that consensus is undesired by the one party, they have to change the consensus. If consensus is to not rename or DAB Fluffing, then anyone who goes down the BOLD route repeatedly is against consensus and could be validly sanctioned. Hypothetically, if you started an edit battle over this, as an example, and consensus did not support you, you could be sanctioned or blocked (3rr, disruption), as could any admin or editor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried using all sorts of usernames without success, suggesting that there is something wrong with your website section for setting up new accounts137.186.61.69 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)lakeside

Reasons why people tend not to be able to use accounts are;

• the usernames are the same / similar to others already in use
• a vandal who has been blocked from creating other accounts

Lradrama 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page Jeremiah Wright controversy has been subjected to undiscussed edits by several users. Recently there was a discussion leading to a compromise text in the "comparisons" section. Several users who, of their own accord, did not participate in the discussion have persisted in reverting the compromise text to their version. Additionally, they have shown a lack of willingness to have a civil discussion about the academics section, or to reach any type of compromise. The administrator who was handling this has been inactive for several days and this page needs attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was just fully protected by PhilKnight. Sasquatch t|c 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked/banned user:W.GUGLINSKI (or a meatpuppet) is back as user:Dankal.naveen, posting the same crap again, now under Heisenberg's Scientific Method. I don't really think we need another AfD on this, but an admin (User:Tikiwont) declined a speedy and the author removed his prod tag. Previously this was dealt with by indef-blocking his accounts.

See User talk:Tikiwont for the most recent discussion. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 17:21, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Just sent it to AfD ... only other course open, as speedy was declined and the prod was contested. Blueboy96 17:40, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

e/c. makes some of the below moot. oh well.

After reading this article, and the several now-deleted articles by User:W.GUGLINSKI, I am quite sure this is the same person; subject matter and writing style and talk page behavior matches up exactly. So, I think there are two issues:

1. Since this probably doesn't match any speedy criteria exactly, is an AFD really needed, or should an IAR speedy be done. I definitely think the latter, but would like to hear from Tikiwont first (I notified him of this thread).
2. Is it time to formalize this guy's level of unwelcomness here? Especially if we have to go thru an AfD every time he puts a new piece of OR up under a different account?

--barneca (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indef blocked user:Dankal.naveen as an obvious sockpuppet of user:W.GUGLINSKI. The AfD can play out however it will. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Article deleted per WP:CSD#G5. Will restore article for Afd if the SSP case turns up as "not a sock" . Clsoing afd in a sec....Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Afd closed already by User:TenPoundHammer. Marking resolvedKeeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A user named Colonel Warden(talk), while usually not a vandal per se, seemingly took my earlier unrelated merging proposal too personally and now repeatedly reverts my edits of the page with no regard to the provided arguments. I don't know how exactly the process works, but I would like to ask an intervention by somebody who has the authority to make resultant the edit war stop. My earlier arguments about the inappropriateness of the use of "several" can both be seen either on Talk:Multiplayer_game and on the history page of Multiplayer_game. Again, since Colonel Warden, who quite obviously has no visible background in video gaming, contradicts his own proposed definition of the term and and doesn't provide any explanation for his actions, I can only threat this as an act of vandalism. Thank you. Rankiri (talk) 23:26, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Whilst Colonel Warden can have his moments, in this case I think he's right. A proposed merger of Multiplayer video game and PC Multiplayer is fine (and even necessary), but Multiplayer game has nothing to do with either of these articles, bar the fact that the video game element could be mentioned in that article. Regardless, this is a content dispute, which is on the third door down on the left. Black Kite 23:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• It's not the merger, it's the use of the word "several" in the definition of the term that is completely inappropriate. Regardless, thanks for pointing to the dispute resolution page. I'll take it there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 00:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• The matter seems resolved here but we may just note for the record that I have discussed the matter extensively on the relevant talk pages and that my position rests upon reliable sources such as the OED. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:17, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment Fascinating. Rankiri and other editors were in effect claiming the Oxford English Dictionary to be wrong, while Warden was simply holding the line against utter insanity. --Firefly322 (talk) 12:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Several", according to the Oxford dictionary is "more than two but not many", multiplayer, according to the very same Oxford dictionary (according to Colonel Warden - the reference link is invalid), is “Designed for or involving more than two (esp. many) players". The use of "several" is obviously invalid and contradictory. Besides, the prefix "multi-" can mean "many; much; multiple", "more than two", and, more importantly, "more than one". When I checked Oxford Online Dictionary, I found no Colonel Warden's alleged definition of "multiplayer game", or even "multiplayer". What I found is the Oxford's definition of "multi-" that says "combining form more than one; many (multicultural). Please read the arguments before making fool of yourself: "2-player multiplayer game" is a valid phrase, both from semantical and popular sense.

http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/multi?view=uk

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=multi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rankiri (talk • contribs) 16:18, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Zscout370 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)
• Redrocket (talk · contribs · logs · block log)
• Relevant links: Redrockets talk page, Zscout370's talk page

I would like a review by the community of the recent actions of User:Zscout370. Zscout370 blocked User:Redrocket, an established editor with over a years experience and 5500 edits, for 12 hours with the block reasons of "you were told not to post real names, yet you still did". To give a quick background on what happened, User:Hdayejr was attacking User:TPIRFanSteve (see [10], [11], [12], the user's contribs and here especially) and Redrocket helped revert some of the attacks. Hdayejr was subsequently indefinitely blocked. He has returned as many IPs and a user name, all of which have been blocked (see the checkuser case). TPIRFanSteve wrote a comment on Redrockets talk page, saying thank you for his help with "Mr. D***" (revision since oversighted). Another sock of Hdayejr, User:Harvey1976, posted on WP:AN/I (archive link) complaining about the users last name ("Mr. D***") being posted on Redrocket's talk page. This discussion was quickly dismissed, archived, and Harvey1976 was blocked indefinitely for socking and vandalism. At about this time, IPs (obvious socks) came to Redrockets talk page and tried to remove the name, with Redrocket reverting the edits based on the fact that the user in question was banned from editing and Redrocket deemed it unacceptable for the IPs to alter a comment made on his talk page by TPIRFanSteve. At about this time three editors commented on Redrockets reverting saying that he should not restore the users last name, even though the user is banned from editing. After which Redrocket replaced the users last name with his user name [13] (the revisions before his are oversighted) Then Redrocket explained the reason he was making the edits (obviously in good faith) here and logged off. Zscout370 responded to the comment with "I don't care..." and blocked Redrocket for 12 hours.

So ultimately a banned editor who has harrassed multiple editors on and off-wiki wins and gets an established editor blocked for restoring a comment made on his talk page that was being removed by IP editors (Redrocket was not the original editor to post the name). Now not only was this block purely punitive, Zscout370 failed to assume good faith on the part of an established editor, failed to properly communicate with Redrocket, as seen by his short 3 comments on his talk page, and his "block and run" (Zscout370 has failed to reply to Redrocket as of this posting, nor has he replied to my concerns or of the concerns of two other editors and another admin on Redrocket's talk page, he has only made a total of 4 edits since his block 19 hours ago as of this post). This block was grossly uncalled for, unjust, unfounded in policy, and was not preventative, as Redrocket was not actively editing when blocked, and he is an established editor, who should have been given more than one chance even if his edits were deemed inappropriate by Zscout370 (I mean come on, we give the worst vandals four warnings). So in the end we have an established user blocked because of miscommunication and trolling comments made a banned user (so much for not feeding the trolls) and an "over-zealous" (as deemed by his quick block) admin who did not take the time or energy to figure out the situation and give Redrocket the benefit of the doubt. Now we have a user who is crushed and feels betrayed, and probably questioning whether or not to leave this site (I know I would after a situation like this). Is this how we really want to treat the editors here?

In the end, the block will probably forever stand in his record, but there are some things that should be done to help Redrocket. I personally expect an explanation, admission of error, and an apology to Redrocket from Zscout370. Also, Zscout370 (or another admin) should block Redrocket for 1 second, explaining that the previous block was uncalled for and unfounded. Ultimately the community needs to clear Redrocket's name, and warn Zscout370 that blocks of this nature will lead to a bad path.

Thank you for your time in reviewing this matter. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:06, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support suggestion, as written. Block appears to have been unjustified. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I am not an admin, and since I have not been floating around long enough, I don't really know, but would my support/turn down of this have any meaning? Or is it only other admins?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 02:38, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Any user can comment on this noticeboard, and all comments will be met with the same weight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 02:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

By all means, offer your opinion! I, after all, am not an administrator (yet... someday, perhaps), but I'll often browse this board and weigh in if I have an opinion. As long as you're following WP:CIVIL and contributing something to the discussion, it's "all groovy," as the chill'uns say.  :) --InDeBiz1 (talk) 02:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Then I offer my opinion. The blocking admin was completely in the wrong, as he did not even follow policy leading up to the block. I see one warning, and the block was issued because RR posted the username. I do not see repeated warnings like the user stated happened. As Gonzo said, last time I checked, it was not only policy to remove edits made by a banned user, but it is also policy to warn a user 4 times, visibly on the offending user's talk page, so that others may verify said warnings. Such of course, in this case, was not done. Further, RR was not even the offending party, it just happened to take place on his page.

So, what happened here, an edit-war with a banned user on another established editor's page gets the established editor banned? My personal opinion is not only what Gonzo requested, but that the admin in question has his use of powers reviewed by other admins.

What is an admin that can't follow policy? I may be going to far here, but straight to the point, a temp de-sysop until the user in question knows WP policy like the back of his hand.— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 03:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

We also need to remember that admins get the same respect as Redrocket should have had, and only after continued misuse and warnings should action be taken. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 03:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Comment There is no policy I am aware of which entitles one to 4 warnings before a block. See WP:WARN , which says "Level 1 – Assumes good faith. Generally includes "Welcome to Wikipedia" or some variant. Level 2 – No faith assumption. Level 3 – Assumes bad faith; cease and desist. Level 4 – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, last warning. Level 4im – Assumes bad faith; strong cease and desist, first and only warning." We should not use a level 1 warning for such an established editor, because the "Welcome to Wikipedia" is insulting. Three warnings would be more typical. A new vandalism-only account typically gets three warnings before a block. I would certainly expect no less for an established and productive editor. I think that the real world name of an editor should be removed. At the same time, the block seems excessive and premature and should be lifted. Edison (talk) 04:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, it appears that the real name of the editor in question is in his actual username. Read it. If a username is User:johnsmithjr, and I say "cut it out Mr. Smith", um, am I revealing anything that the user didn't already reveal themselves?!?!? I mean, its not as if it would take any investigation to figger out the real last name if the real last name is in the actual username!!! --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:21, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Amen. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 04:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If it helps, here is the diff of when I removed the need for oversight on AN/I. [14] I was the one who emailed for oversight. I have no opinion on the matter right now but just wanted to show this to anyone who cares. =D <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, thanks for the diff, you gotta love the wonderful trolling going on by the IPs trying to get Redrocket blocked... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:08, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree in that I also don't believe the block was appropriate. Enigma ^message 05:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment From User:Redrocket: I've written this several times, but found myself going into too much detail. If I leave anything out, please feel free to ask questions.

In his first contact with me, ZScout370 said I had been warned before about the edit. I had not. User:Hdayejr had previously raised the issue at ANI here [15], which was quickly closed and the user's sock blocked. Other editors reinstated the edit on my page (which has been oversighted, so I can't provide links), and I was not consulted at all about this.

I was never warned by anyone except the sockpuppets and IPs of a multiply-banned user, which should be disregarded as per wikipedia policy. The previous ANI came and went, and was closed in less than three hours with the edits still on my page. No legitimate editor or admin had any problem with the comment left prior to this discussion.

ZScout370 made his comment, so I went to his page. Nowhere on his page that I could find indicated that he was an admin (no admin icon in his top right corner, no admin category link on the bottom of the page) so I assumed he was another editor. Assuming good faith, I went to his page here [16] and tried to explain.

ZScout370 came back to my page (after I was off-wiki), saw my explanation, and blocked me with no further discussion other than what was listed above ("I don't care...). Most maddening of all, he got off wiki with no chance for discussion. He only made four more edits (as far as I can see) in the next 24 hours, and only stopped by my page to dismiss the comments of other editors by saying I "had been told many times," which is untrue, and "The block should expire soon, as I only had it for 12 hours."

That's not a satisfactory response, in my opinion. I got a drive-by block, my first in more than a year of editing.

I feel this admin was completely out of line here. He took the word of an IP sockpuppet (which was tagged as such prior to my block here [17]), and didn't bother to discuss it, explain himself, or even look at my contributions and block log to see that I've never had any trouble on wikipedia.

Gonzo Fan 2007 is right, I'm more than a bit pissed off at this. I've tried to do things the right way since day one here, and I've always hoped to one day make admin. I had a dispute that had no clear answer (privacy for banned user whose ID was their name) and I tried to discuss it with admins, and they ignored my attempts to talk it over in favor of slapping me with a block.

This is a perfect example of what gives wikipedia a bad reputation, and drives away quality editors.

I appreciate the work of Gonzo Fan in opening up this topic for discussion, and also Sarcasticidealist. These admins cleaned up my talk page last night after the banned IP editor that ZScout370 blocked me in defense of returned and revealed the real name of another editor several times, including once using a racial slur against him, if I recall correctly. Gonzo Fan 2007 has oversighted those edits, but he can verify that the attacks have continued even after my block.

I also appreciate the attention and opinions of other wikipedia editors in this matter. Redrocket (talk) 08:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• I would point out that Redrocket is not entirely correct here. I warned him twice as well (and I have got an admin icon on my page, since that appears to be important) - once in this edit summary after I reverted his second re-insertion of the real name and just in case he didn't notice that, on his talk page as well. Yet he inserted the real name again.Black Kite 09:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  If I may fill in some details, your edit here [18] didn't actually revert the user name (or any other edit by me). This edit has summary "rvt - stop it, you've been warned already" and actually reverts a chunk of my talk page written by the banned sock of User:Hdayejr, which I assumed was a message to him. Following that, your next edit here [19] was the comment "Which bit of "do not post real names" was the part that was tricky to understand?" which sure seems to be assuming bad faith.

  • No - remember that the diff is misleading (I posted it to show the edit summary) because your actual edit where you re-inserted the name has been oversighted, and thus is not visible. That edit of mine did remove the name you re-inserted. Also, the talkpage comment may appear to show bad faith, but I tend to do that when editors are reverting after being told what they are doing is wrong. I would point out that I am not commenting on the block here; merely that you did not mention the warnings from two admins, not just one.Black Kite 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    • I see your point, and I actually thought about the oversights last night after I had logged out. You're right, I did revert after ZScout's reversion, and I tried to explain what was going on to him here [20]. I thought once I made it known that the editor making the case was a banned sockpuppet, the matter would go away (as it did in the previous ANI discussion). An abusive user who's been banned for over a month still socking and starting arguments on wiki and trying to claim anonymity, even though his name is contained in his banned username, doesn't seem to be (by the first ANI) a cut-and-dried case of a privacy violation. While I was trying to explain, the anon IPs of User:Hdayejr continued to make changes on my page, including personal attacks such as this [21], and I'll freely admit reverting him again as a sock of a banned user. I tried to explain myself to every legitimate editor who came to my page, and it's quite frustrating to not get anyone to comment.

• However, after that post, I did not revert the user's real name again. You and another admin (Ricky81682 both made comments, so I spent the next hour or so writing up a full description of the sockpuppet's history and posted it to my talk page (after the ANI thread was taken down). I informed and invited you to comment here [22], which you ignored. I also added the the username of the banned user, not his actual name, as I explained above. Redrocket (talk) 09:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't know what happened after I warned you the second time, because I logged out; I wasn't ignoring it. Black Kite 10:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

    • Understood, and I shouldn't have made that the issue. I don't blame you for not being on wiki, rather I'd like my actions to demonstrate the good faith I had in the system. I'd like to hope that my comments to ZScout, my posting to ANI (and then to my talk page), and then my notification of you and Ricky on your talk pages would show that I was trying to explain and discuss this matter. Likewise, I'll say again after you and Ricky posted, I did not revert the changes. I wanted to show that even though a banned user was manipulating my userpage, I was still willing to talk this out and not edit war. However, no one did that, and ZScout just logged back in to block me and dismissed me with "I don't care." Redrocket (talk) 14:45, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Black Kite, I am disappointed in your response here. If someone registers their account name as "Asmithjr" and then gets referred to as Mr. Smith, that's can't possibly be any violation of any privacy or anywhere near anything like "outing". Their name is self declared, and we can use any, or all, or part of it, to refer to them without worrying about privacy. The only reason it came up is because said user was evading their ban to continue and perpetuate the harassment of an editor. The only reason Redrocket was involved was because he was trying to help said editor cope with being harassed. Which is what we, as admins, should be doing -keeping editors from being harassed, not facilitating it, and certainly not by adding to it. You should be apologizing to Mr. Rocket (Sorry Red) for your role in this, not defending an inappropriate block, which unless there's something more (and I've been waiting -I don't think there is anything more) was a bad move. R. Baley (talk) 15:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Another part that concerns me about this incident is that if the original concern was an "outing" of a user, the original "outing" is still available on Redrocket's talk page history. If I follow things correctly, it was not Redrocket who originally "outed" the editor in question's name, but instead was TPIRFanSteve. Why was nothing said to TPIRFanSteve and only to Redrocket? I agree with R. Baley and Jayron32 in that I don't think an editor's privacy was breeched since the editor's real name was part of his username. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 16:58, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Gogo, something else for everyone to keep in mind is that the reason HdayeJr was able to wikilawyer in a plausible manner about privacy concerns is because he has been consistently violating our anonymity policy by outing Steve (sorry, TPIRFanSteve) with his original account and subsequent ban-evading, harassing sock accounts. Privacy violations are something with which he is very familiar, because he has done plenty of it . . .and purposefully, I might add. Protect our good-faith contributers, R. Baley (talk) 18:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

For background, last night Hdayejr once again came to my talk page and revealed the name of TPIRFanSteve multiple times before he was blocked. It's been oversighted by Gonzo. Redrocket (talk) 18:24, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

An anonymous IP did leave TPIRFanSteve's name on your talk page twice. Gonzo deleted the first one and I just deleted the second. They weren't oversighted. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 19:01, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

So basically we have anything but a clear cut case, where there is a big question of whether anything wrong was actually committed, and even if there was it was obviously in good faith with the user in question trying to communicate with everyone else, and then we have an admin block said user? And then, after the block, the admin "runs." I think the above comments show that this block was inappropriate, now what are we going to do to make this right? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 19:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Comment I would really like to get ZScout's side of the story at this point as everything I have read so far points to this being a truly unjustified block of Redrocket. Any possible actions/sanctions on ZScout shouldn't be taken without his/her input on this matter, just to give them a chance to explain their actions Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I really don't care what the community decides to do about ZScout, I have made it clear that my main reason here is protecting and repairing the damage done to an established editor. My "what are we going to do to make this right?" is echoing the comment made by Mr. Baley, how are we going to "Protect our good-faith contributers." How are we going to make this right for Redrocket, was my main question. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you there, it's a shame that an editor like Redrocket gets runs through the ringer like this due to a known troll's wiki-lawyering. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

To add to Mr. Fan's comment above, I'm not that plussed about seeking any "sanction" or "action" either. Zscout has been an admin longer than I've been editing (over 2x's as long. I think). And there would have to be a whole lot more there (problems revealed) to get me worked up to that extent. I'm assuming a lapse or misreading of the situation at this point. That said, harm was done, though I think its extent has been greatly mitigated by this thread. I believe that the best resolution, would be for Zscout to leave a note in the block log (per the blocking policy) clearing Redrocket and linking to this ANI thread. It would look best (for *everyone*, I might add) if Zscout did it him/herself. R. Baley (talk) 20:31, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

If you're looking for me to make contritions or apologies, none are coming. I am not going to block this user again just to say the last block was an error. I am not going to seek for this block log to be wiped. When it comes out to outing people's real names, there is no tier warning that we have to follow. If you out someone, we warn you once to knock it off. If not, blocks will occur. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:36, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, how do you out someone who's already appeared to have outed themselves with their username? From what I gather and reading the thread, the user that was "outed" has his lastname in his username. Wildthing61476 (talk) 20:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

How does one out someone who has outed themselves. Judging from your response, I question whether you read through this thread, and RR's contributions. Second, what happened to communication, even assuming good faith?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 20:44, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Zscout, if this is going to be your response to a bad block, please don't block anyone else ever again. Bad blocks stir up drama that we don't need. Friday (talk) 20:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No matter what happens on here anymore, everything will resort to drama. Had to block two users for edit warring on Kosovo and I been demanded by at least one person to clear their block log. I am not here to play babysitter. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, so say your real last name was "Scout," am I outing your identity by calling your "Mr. Scout?" And I think you seem to forget that the user whose "identity" was being outed was the same editor who has actually outed TPIRFanSteve, has harrassed "Steve" on and off-wiki, has been banned multiple times, and his abusing sock puppets. And who do you block? The editor who is trying to help Steve and stop a banned editor from abusing Wikipedia, the editor who made a good-faith effort to open the lines of communication, the editor who has made quality contributions for over a year? And no your not a babysitter, you are an administrator. You have the ability to block users, an ability that should not be used lightly or on a whim. You should have a solid reason for blocking per the blocking policy. Many editors and admins have called you on this block stating it was inappropriate, and your response is to call us on making drama. Seriously? If you want the "drama" to stop then right the wrongs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

No; my real name is on here, so even if you said it, I won't personally be outed and I won't be upset by it. I am not going to write the wrongs, since the things that were asked of me, I either cannot do it or I refuse to do it. I can't clear block logs, that is a job of a developer. Plus, blocking the same user again just to say the last block was a mistake is counter productive and will just make that log even longer. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

First off, not asking you to clear logs, that usually doesn't happen except for extreme cases. Secondly, the length of the block log is not important, it is the symbolic righting of the wrong, something that is clearly written in our blocking policy. Zscout if I may, can I have an explanation of this block? I think we would all very much like to hear why you felt this block was needed? Cause so far everyone in this thread agrees your block was inappropriate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hold up. So, Scout, you say that it is okay to list the real name of a user if that said user has revealed said name? Is it just me or does that seem like a double standard? I can't cite the diff, because the user's talk page was deleted, but it was stated by another user that the banned user revealed that his name was within his username. So, by your definition of outing, you banned RR for nothing?— Dædαlus^T@lk / Improve 22:13, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I second Daedalus's question. It seemed liek an unjustified block to me, but by just saying what you said Scout, you basically admitted that it taht it was a bad block, albeit rather backhandedly. Wizardman 22:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Zscout370, my friend, I'm sure you're a good admin and excellent editor. But, here, sadly, well, it seems you've made a bit of a mistake. So, let's keep this brief. When in a hole, stop digging, and undo the damage and end the drama by going to Redrocket's talkpage and saying sorry. And change the block log to clear his/her name. A quick block with an edit summary explaining that the whole thing was a bit of a slip. Problem solved. If you want to dig your heels in over this, well, that's your choice. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:40, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to point out, User:Friday has already blocked Redrocket for 1 second to clear his name and point to this discussion ([23]). I also would love to hear the answer to Daedalus969's question and second what AlasdairGreen27 said. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 23:26, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to thank Friday for making that comment on my block log, and also echo what Gonzo said above. I have tried to engage ZScout several times in discussion (both pre- and post-block), and he has not left a single comment for me to explain what happened. I feel like I've wasted a great deal of time on this topic trying to explain things, and the admin involved refuses to communicate. As I said at the start of this, it's quite frustrating. Redrocket (talk) 20:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Can somebody please white list my account as I am receiving two messages a minute from Coren Bot which wrongly keeps taggin my new Burmese settlement articles of which I am adding two articles a minute. No response from User:Coren who operates it. Its driving me crackers. Will somebody help give the Bald Guy a break? ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that it's saying you're copyvio-ing from a Wikipedia article - which would be true if formatting and non-substantive information in the article violated some copyright. Each article is a one-line stub that takes its format from the first article on your list, so I don't think there's anything problematic about any of them. Would there be any objections if I rollbacked the bot's tagging of those articles? As for whitelisting your edits, or edits in this area, or that source - I don't know. I'm not seeing a way on the bot's page, so my impulse would be to ask Coren. I'm hesitant to shut down the bot, but this isn't the first issue raised in the past few days. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The articles I spot checked are indeed copyvio-free, so I've removed all of the tags on your Burma articles. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:29, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, I checked several as well, and, I don't see any obvious copyvio's. Would you like for me to protect your talkpage for the time being, until we can get ahold of Coren? SQL^{Query me!} 14:41, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The whitelist appears to be at User:CorenSearchBot/allies -- at least I found my name there, and I'm not getting the notices anymore. – Sadalmelik ☎ 14:54, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I've added your name to the whitelist - I've seen your mass article creations in the past and can understand how the bot might get confused because of them. If Coren objects, I'm sure he'll remove you, but I doubt he'll have a problem. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 14:59, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hah, I didn't even know about that whitelist :P SQL^{Query me!} 15:56, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Happy days are here again in the land of Wiki bots I guess... Is anyone going to take a position on Corenbot's instant tagging of mirror scrapes, highlighted a few posts above, or is it just going to be ignored because it's seemingly accepted that a bot op can be absent from wiki for days on end while still running a bot (or months it would appear since my talk post about it). MickMacNee (talk) 00:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

If you wish: instant tagging is good, it lowers the amount of false positives. The error rate is low, and real people review every tagging. There are two white lists to prevent such things to continue when a false positive is raised. Do you need something else while I'm here? Otherwise you can come and help, you know, build a free encyclopedia? -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Has been previously banned
• Suspected of sockpuppetry: USEDfan, 66.195.30.2, Booowooo, Usedfan1989
• Repeated warnings for disruptive edits
• repeated failure of understanding the concept of NPOV.

--SilverOrion (talk) 08:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

That name isn't shown as registered. Are you sure you have the spelling and the case of the name correct? Nate • (chatter) 08:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Try User:USEDfan. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You might want to try giving the guys at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets an insight, so they can investigate. Lradrama 15:19, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this just a content dispute now? And no one should be doing any unilateral moves like a DAB or rename if it's contested--everyone has to respect consensus from admins on down at all times or face consequences. Talk it out, if someone acts disruptive or keeps moving/renaming, thats what the 3rr cluestick is for. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 16:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• You are repudiating WP:BOLD. Guy (Help!) 17:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Not at all. I wrote: "if it's contested". If it is, the bold move (fine once) gets thrown back, and discussion decides. Like it is now, and like it should be. No one user on any one matter has any sort of sticking permanent power; we all have to bow down and accept a formed consensus when it forms. If that consensus is undesired by the one party, they have to change the consensus. If consensus is to not rename or DAB Fluffing, then anyone who goes down the BOLD route repeatedly is against consensus and could be validly sanctioned. Hypothetically, if you started an edit battle over this, as an example, and consensus did not support you, you could be sanctioned or blocked (3rr, disruption), as could any admin or editor. Lawrence Cohen § t/e 17:13, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I have tried using all sorts of usernames without success, suggesting that there is something wrong with your website section for setting up new accounts137.186.61.69 (talk) 14:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)lakeside

Reasons why people tend not to be able to use accounts are;

• the usernames are the same / similar to others already in use
• a vandal who has been blocked from creating other accounts

Lradrama 15:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page Jeremiah Wright controversy has been subjected to undiscussed edits by several users. Recently there was a discussion leading to a compromise text in the "comparisons" section. Several users who, of their own accord, did not participate in the discussion have persisted in reverting the compromise text to their version. Additionally, they have shown a lack of willingness to have a civil discussion about the academics section, or to reach any type of compromise. The administrator who was handling this has been inactive for several days and this page needs attention. Trilemma (talk) 16:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page was just fully protected by PhilKnight. Sasquatch t|c 17:20, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

From [this] post/admission of being a sockpuppet, it is clear that User:Socppt11 is yet another sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking (and most recently User:Lagrandebanquesucre.--Gregalton (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP suggests we probably should not have User:Justmeherenow/Hooker Gone Wild hanging around in userspace. Guy (Help!) 22:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Delete it and send a copy to the editor via special/emailuser. Explain in the email. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 22:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Delete it and send copy to the editor via special/emailuser if they so request. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• That works also :) I was just saving an extra possible step. Regards, NonvocalScream (talk) 23:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ive gonned it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:45, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I repeat here what I wrote at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Rajkumar Kanagasingam.

Conclusions

It's clear that there are issues here and at the counter-accusation Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Iwazaki that go far, far beyond whether Rajkumar is (again) using sockpuppets or not. My first impression is to recommend a short-term block on Bermudatriangle because I interpret his accusation against Sennen as WP:POINT, where the accusation on this page, especially connecting Bermudatriangle with Dhirroses, is based on reasonable evidence. This dispute has already gone to WP:ANI once (I'll look for the link), and I think it may be headed back there. Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• ANI link from May 5: [24]
• ANI link from May 2: [25]

Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:39, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sennen is asking for an indef-block on Bermudatriangle. That may be too harsh, but not by much. I think Bermudatriangle has been disruptive and probably should be blocked temporarily until we can figure out how to mediate this dispute. Do you agree? Shalom (Hello • Peace) 15:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Shalom, thanks for looking into this. Without going too far into the basis of the dispute (occurring at or around the Princess Diana article, with respect to the inclusion/non-inclusion of the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace") . . .a cursory evaluation on my part makes me think that Bermudatriangle could be blocked without much detriment to the encyclopedia. Comparing the edit history of the 2 accounts in dispute ("wannabekate" for Bermudatriangle and "wannabekate" for Sennen_goroshi) looking at the 2 ANI "reports" as well as the SSP reports, leads me to a couple of conclusions: 1) BT is a 2 month old single purpose account with 2 trips already to ANI (more edits to ANI than any article or article talk page) which makes me think this is a SPA and possibly sock and has already been blocked once, 2) OTOH, Sennen_goroshi has edited fairly consistently since July 2007, made over 1500 edits, with an average of 2.8 edits per page across almost 600 different pages. Conclusion: probably non-tendentious and not a SPA (caveat: Sennen goroshi has been blocked twice for edit warring in the past, last time was in march. Neither block was related to this topic.) 3) Bermudatriangle seems to be here to advocate for the "Princess Diana Institute of Peace" not edit the encyclopedia generally and people who are volunteering their time here in a good faith manner shouldn't have to deal with that.

We could go slow and start out (at the very least) with a 2 month topic ban for Bermudatriangle for anything related to Princess Diana, to be interpreted very broadly. Also, any perpetuating of the dispute on BT's part (wrt Sennan goroshi) during this time would be met with increasing blocks. Or we could move fast, and I wouldn't be bothered by an permanent ban to be enforced with an indefinite block either. I slightly favor the "go slow" approach, should an admin be willing to closely supervise, otherwise an indefinite block is called for. I would appreciate more editor input (the links Shalom provided don't take that long to look over) and thanks, R. Baley (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I am in two minds about commenting on this, I would like to make unbiased comments, but I am sure a little bias will be evident in my comments, due to the circumstances. I have been involved in my fair share of disputes on wikipedia, and for the most part they were resolved by admin intervention, the other editor and myself growing up, or simple consensus. I had no issues with these editors, and despite having a dispute, I could see that overall wikipedia was better off due to their presence. There have been two editors, who I just considered to be a waste of bandwidth and time, one of them is on a 12month ban, the other is Bermudatriangle. I might have a slightly different attitude if I had seen one single constructive edit, one attempt at compromise or the slightest respect for what wikipedia is trying to do - but unfortunately I have seen none of the above - I can understand someone coming to wikipedia in order to edit articles that mean something to them, but Bermuda is not editing a variety of articles, he is here to push an organisation that I feel he is the founder of, or according to his own statement (if I didn't misunderstand) to gain publicity for an organisation that was founded by someone he was at university with. There is no difference between his edits, and someone shamelessly promoting their own website. It is a bit cold, but nothing would be lost by him being indef blocked/12 month blocked - it might give a few other editor time to make edits, rather than deal with this. I for one, know I have spent the last week or so, filing reports, dealing with accusations, etc, rather than making edits. But then again, I'm sure a little bias crept in, so I would love to hear the opinions of others. Sennen goroshi (talk) 12:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Sennen goroshi is advocating too much to ban me indefinitely. But another User's experience with User:Sennen goroshi is a fine evident how she/he is disruptive on wikipedia.

It is ridiculous to note that I am the only one, taking interest of the Princess Diana Institute of Peace, then what about the following edits/comments by various other editors.[26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36]
[37][38][39][40][41][42][43]Diana, Princess of Wales.Bermudatriangle (talk) 15:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Strange....now that the sockpuppet report against myself has been dismissed, and this report has been filed, Bermudatriangle has stated on his user page that he is retiring, but may be back from time to time.. I consider this to be someone who is claiming to retire, in order to avoid the sanctions that have been discussed on this report, but is also going to come back now and then, to possibly make the same disruptive edits as before. I have seen this before, an editor ceasing to edit for a while, just to avoid the stigma that is a block, and coming back once the dust has settled, with his untainted account. If someone wants to retire, their account should be closed, and if they retire mid ANI/Sock/3RR report, the sanctions should still apply, so they can be referenced to in the future. Sennen goroshi (talk) 04:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't know what the right action is, but the edit war over pictures in Latin America has gotten ridiculous. An edit history should never contain: [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60].

This has been going on since February. There have been some efforts by registered editors to impose some kind of sense: GDP, alphabetical, north-south, something. Nothing seems to help. A couple of anonymous editors from varying IPs keep shuffling it, and efforts to fix it just wind up shuffling it further. Kww (talk) 01:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not reading that mess but you can head over to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection next time. Is it just varying IPs playing around? If so, next ones I'll post a note on the talk pages and then just semi-protect the page from them. If there's some established users in that mess, I'm more hesitant to full protect. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean it the way it came out. Kww, summarize. Is it just the IPs? If so, I could look at the history and figure it out. Is it a few reverts a day, or are we talking silly goofy vandalism that's hard to pick up? If it's the goofy type, Latin America is properly important enough to stop that for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thought I had. I'll be more explicit. A few anonymous IPs (each dynamic, but from obviously from two different pools. 201.*.*.* from speedy.net in Peru, 76.232.*.* likes Santiagao, 75.62.*.* favors Mexico City, etc. ), keep pushing their own cities to the top of the image list, and deleting and rearranging their rivals. This happens three or four times a week, and provokes a little edit-skirmish of image rearrangement to see who winds up on top for a while. Registered editors have been trying to enforce some kind of sanity, but sometimes that just makes it worse. It's been going on for months. We get valid anonymous edits, so I hate to see semi-protection. It may be that "put up with it" is the best answer, but I decided to ask if someone had a better idea. Kww (talk) 11:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

A brief semi-protection may convince the warring ip's to resolve the matter by discussion (of course, choosing a third way that demotes both the other options in favour of another while protection is enabled is far too WP:POINTy to be considered...) and the other ip's can always use the talkpage to suggest improvements elsewhere in the article. Seriously, a 24 or 48 hour semi-protect may be just the answer - or at least the start of finding the answer. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd kill for love to have the ability to range block individual articles. --barneca (talk) 12:11, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

As for WP:POINTy solutions, I've considered always making sure that the top image is a picture of a slum from the relevant city.Kww (talk) 12:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

One editor has attempted the solution of deleting all city images. We'll see how that works out.Kww (talk) 03:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We seem to have a new user: Sarcasticidelist. This name is right similar to that of an established user. So far this new user has one contribution, which is adding uncited negative information to an article that has been reverted several times before. Greanted, the previous reversions were due to the fact that the uncited information was also always accompanied by obvious vandalism, and this time it isn't. Loren.wilton (talk) 04:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Sarcasticidelist (talk · contribs) Equazcion •✗/C • 04:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Many lovely additons to the encyclopedia, including adding "pornography' as a see also to the incest article, and bondage porn to the top of the violence against women article. -PetraSchelm (talk) 04:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Abreactive

The user had never been warned. I have a hard time WP:AGFing this, but I figured we should at least warn him first. If he continues past now, we can block him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He's now undoing your reverts of his edits. Nuke from orbit, I say. Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Anyone is free to review my block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dunno if this is proper procedure or not, but given this lovely diff on his talkpage, I suspect we've got a genuine troll going here. Support block. Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:11, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with the unblock request -- It was probably not a good idea to block a user with whom you're engaged in a content dispute. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want, I'll unblock him and reblock to clear that conflict; I've just declined the unblock. It's obvious he was trolling, adding categories like child pornography to the Child article, List of gay pornographic magazines to Magazine, et al. It's pretty bluntly disruptive. Tony Fox (arf!) 05:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don;t think I was involved in a content dispute with him in any way. I didn't even edit a single on of the article's he edited until I warned him to stop. When he refused to stop, reverted his additions and blocked him. Just because he said in his unblock request that I was abusing my authority does not make it so. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the content dispute. Jayron was reverting some of this person's disruptive edits, and the troll was reinstating them. Beyond that, the user's contribution history starts about an hour three hours ago, and every single edit has been adding links, categories, and claims connected to pornography to unrelated articles. Looks like a troll SPA to me, and thus a good block. Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC) (Edited to correct timeframe, Rdfox 76 (talk) 05:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC) )

I didn't notice edits like the Child contrib. Apologies, I stand corrected. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Could you possibly remove or ammend your comments on his talk page then? You may be giving the false impression that you thought his addition of "child pornography" to the child article was a good idea. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've already struck that comment and apologized to you there Jayron. Again though, sorry about that, I should've looked more carefully into those edits. Equazcion •✗/C • 05:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Its alright man. No harm, no foul. Its why I asked for a review of the block. It's all good. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

In addition to the name autofellationists, which I'm not 100% sure is a word, I see some similarities in the deleted versions of Category:Autofellationists. Anyone else get that feeling? WODUP 05:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tagged the account as a sock of User:DavidYork71, and changed to indefinite block. NawlinWiki (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

We have User:After Dark 2008 and User:AMP FILMS violating WP:NOT, and clearly being operated by the same user. Could someone handle this please? Also, User:AMP FILMS is clearly a violation of the username policy. Cheers, -The Hybrid- 06:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AMP Films softblocked for a username violation. After Dark 2008's userpage deleted for spam. Have watchlisted the relevant pages and will monitor it. _GB^T/C 06:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd like someone else to take a look at a new image that's just been inserted at Decapitation, specifically that of freshly-decapitated Jack Hensley. While Wikipedia isn't censored, I'm wondering if this particular image might not be pushing the envelope?--Ramdrake (talk) 23:22, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that the image is not used in the article for the individual. Seeing as there are a fair number of illustrations of decapitation in the article, I suggest there is no need for that one particularly - and there is always the question of portraying illegal activity (acts by terrorists - as in this case - are unlawful by definition). I would give the pic the chop. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

what is the rule that says we do not include illustrations of illegal actions? There are, by the way, only two photographs in the article, as distinct from prints and paintings: the other one show a person about to be decapitated. This one shows not the decapitation, but the decapitated head. It appears several screens down in the article, not at the top. DGG (talk) 03:19, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There is no "rule", but a matter of consideration. If there is an image of a decapitated head resulting from a execution conducted by a sovereign power after due process of law then that may be considered more valid. The case of Hensley was that he was murdered by terrorists, who then issued that image in furtherance of their terrorist agenda. By using that image, even for the best of intentions, may be considered as providing further exposure for the terrorists. Consider it this way, would it be appropriate to use an image taken by the perpetrator - as opposed to a police file picture - in the article rape? I feel some sources are just more "legitimate" than others, independent of the licensing considerations. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

By my thinking this is a stark image of a murder victim, likely too much for many unprepared readers. I've rm'd it although further input is welcome: I don't know what consensus would be on a borderline image like this. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTCENSORED is not a liscence to be gratuitous. The question is if the picture is necessary and appropriate for the article. Probably not. There doesn't need to be 27 pictures of decapitation, the ones that are already there carry the concept of "head separated from body" quite well. The picture does not actually add any additional meaning to the article. The picture appears to have been added solely to be sensationalistic for its own sake, and not to actually add value to the article. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've removed the photo from the article as an insufficient fair use claim. The article is already adequately illustrated with free images; there is not compelling reason to use a copyrighted photo there. Suggest deleting the image. Durova^Charge! 03:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a user who has seemingly gone off the deep end on the subject of Fenway Park, making unsupported analysis and then vandalizing my user page and making threats of a sort. [61] What's up with this guy? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Have warned them for the vandalism of your userpage - will monitor their contributions. Anything else like that, feel free to take it to WP:AIV. _GB^T/C 07:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

On it as well. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 07:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

FWFW, a quick google search will turn up a number of statments that Fenway has the smallest seating capacity of any league stadium. That may or may not be the same as saying "smallest field", depending on how one might define field. None of the sources I came across seemed particularly reliable, and non offered numbers. The cite that Esprit offered didn't back up his claim (at least not without a second cite giving dimentions of the other fields). However, I do wonder if maybe this could have been handled a little better with some AGF and talk page discussion. Loren.wilton (talk) 07:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried to point him to the talk page and he wouldn't go there. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AIDS cranks. (You may care to save a copy of that thread in case it suddenly disappears.) Now, going into full-blown overreaction would be bad. However, a whole bunch of good Wikipedians watchlisting and keeping a very close eye on said articles would be just the thing - David Gerard (talk) 23:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Ho hum. Once again we see that Wikipedia is just about the most important place to get your mad theory or fringe POV promoted. Guy (Help!) 11:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

He has vandalized many articles like Kane, Mike Adamle, kofi kingston and rat. Adster95 (talk) 11:37, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Reported to WP:AIV. In the future, blatant vandals should be reported there. They'll be taken care of more quickly that way. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked -Thanks for reporting him. ^Mitch32^contribs 11:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Persistently in the last few days (since May 5th) has made unconstructive edits to pages relating to villages in Kent, UK. Examples include: St. Nicholas-at-Wade, Monkton, Kent, Minster-in-Thanet. This user has invented a term to describe villages in the local district "west thanet settlements" which does not exist (it also gives no results when searched for in Google). A lot of other users have reverted this user's edits and some pages have been given protection. Can we block this user please as reverting all these pages is becoming very time-consuming! Stnickvillager (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC) Edited and added signature! Stnickvillager (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• Hamletpride (talk · contribs) Equazcion •✗/C • 12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Have you tried discussing this with him? I don't see anything on his talk page about that term. If you could provide a link to some relevant discussion that would be helpful. Thanks. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This user FScalano (talk) has been edit-warring on Roy Eugene Davis [62], and posted a blatant personal attack in an edit summary here [63] and when warned, did it again. [64] --Aunt Entropy (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for 3RR ... I know this is harsher than normal for 3RR cases, but the abusive edit summaries led me to throw out a longer block. Blueboy96 19:07, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start off by apologizing if I am in the wrong place, but I googled admin help wikipedia and it sent me here, so sorry if I am not in the right location. Okay, so here goes...I've been unfairly accussed of sock-puppetry. I removed the tags from my main page and talk page. I've been signed up on wikipedia for several months now, so I have engaged in a few discussions, but my talk page doesn't have much. On it, there was a brief hello made to 'Keetoowah' I really didn't think anything of it, just thought some one goofed up and didn't realize their mistake. Or perhaps they thought that I was a Laser Quest player that goes by that code name. (When we play we have code names we go by, so I thought some one may have saw my edits to the Laser Quest page and thought that they were seeing the work of a player that they knew. In any case, I just didn't think much of it. Until today/tonight. I logged in to possibly take a wikipedia test that was suggested to me by another user as a result of discussion in an article. I found that my page had been tagged as a possible sockpuppet account and I about popped a gasget. I removed the tags (which I am not sure if is allowed or not, but I was really insulted so I acted in what may have been in haste). I looked through pages to find what they may have had as any basis to accuse me of being a sock-puppet and I found two things which may have caused their confusion. First, that seemingly innoucus 'hello' on my talk page; and then a minor edit that I did to the Mark Levine (conservative radio personality). I admit that I was a bit blunt on this persons talk page that I did not appreciate the unwarned of accusation, but it was rather fustrating to find that I have to spend my time doing this rather than participating in a test/quiz that might better hone my editing abilities and give me more credibility as an editor. I am doubly fustrated because the user appears to be a new user who has done nothing but accussed people of sock puppetry since he joined. Here is a link to his recent edits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Artisanalle and here is his talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Artisanalle I hope that you guys can help in this matter, and I thank you for your time. Rocdahut (talk) 07:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I am quite sure that the sockpuppetry accussation is coming from a possible sock itself, Artisanalle is obviously not a newbie and the "communicated trough backchannels" argument doesn't seem particulary relevant to the fact that the user is completely aware of this project's policies, perhaps we are seeing a "good hand/ bad hand" case? - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Have waded through the contributions of the various editors in this - ignore it. If it were a proper, non-trolling accusation then Artisanalle should have listed it at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets, rather than just slapping tags on your user page and talk page. Had he listed it there, it would have been rejected without action - there's nothing substantive linking you with another account. _GB^T/C 07:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the feedback/help. Just one more question, what do you mean by "good hand, bad hand?" Is this a wiki-rule or part of a saying that I am unfamiliar with? Rocdahut (talk) 07:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a look here - put simply, it means operating two accounts...one for good edits, one for bad edits. _GB^T/C 07:49, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, you guys are uber-quick. Much appreciated for the info and help. I got a bit panicky/aggrivated when I saw the accusal, and was relieved when I saw your guys' response. Thanks. Rocdahut (talk) 07:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It a sockpuppetry practice where the puppeter will create two accounts, one for disruption and another one to redeem himself, from what I have seen this is mostly used to create confusion, for example the puppeter (via his "good account") may appear to be in confict with the "bad account" when in reality they are both under control of the same user, this is most likely done to extend the "good" sock's life. - Caribbean~H.Q. 07:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Confirmed Eleemosynary. Thatcher 16:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have rolled back all of the edits that Artinsanalle made accusing other users of being sockpuppets. If someone independent wants to review those accusations and adjust accordingly, please do so. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried removing the animation from the lead of this article, but was reverted twice. The user reverted my removal on the basis that the image was "inspiring" [65]. I'm now trying to discuss the issue on the other editor's talk page, but I'm having a tough time getting through to him. As you can see, the animation has absolutely nothing to do with the article, except for the fact that it has something to do with science. I could really use some help in talking to this person. Equazcion •✗/C • 11:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The user, User:Peterlewis, just removed the discussion below. Not sure why. Equazcion •✗/C • 12:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved, for now. Thanks to User:Gwen Gale for the assistance. Equazcion •✗/C • 14:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – User:Ave Caesar fixed Henry Chase Hager as a redirect

I've noticed the Henry Hager article has been recreated at Henry Chase Hager twice despite the deletion/merge decision at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Henry_Hager. Not quite sure if something should be done in order to prevent this from happening again. I'm sure it likely will since as interest in the Bush wedding is at its peak. --Ave Caesar (talk) 12:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I noticed this says "resolved" but the redirect has been undone once. Shouldn't it be protected for a short time? --Ave Caesar (talk) 13:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The AFD is nearly a year old and now Henry Hager may have new notability, at least as much as Jenna Bush. Both are notable primarily because of presidential connection. One is the President's daughter, the other is the President's son-in-law.

Possible proposal: Joint Article (Jenna Bush and Henry Hager) Possible proposal: new article on Henry Hager Possible proposal: redirect Jenna Bush to Henry Hager (probable opposition in the US, probable support in some countries)

Let's re-write Henry Hager and then after a few days of editing (but not before) an AFD is appropriate for those who don't like Mr. Hager. BVande (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

An AfD is never appropriate just because somebody doesn't "like" a subject. Corvus cornix_talk 21:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• What admin action is required here????? Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:AniChai#User:AniChai. My comment has some details of how the organization mentioned on this user page is considered terrorist on the US [66] --Enric Naval (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not necessary to post here, I don't think, the MfD should take care of itself. —TreasuryTag—t—c 15:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Dimovskifilip (talk · contribs) seems to be bulk-uploading foreign language articles (I think Bulgarian). Does anyone know what the protocol is in this situation? If it were just one article I'd poke it in the direction of WP:Translation, but I doubt they'd appreciate a whole pile of them. Any thoughts? — iridescent 17:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I've got some language-recognition software which says they're Macedonian. Hut 8.5 17:42, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These can be tagged with {{notenglish}}, and the editor warned or pointed to the appropriate project. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Both have been done as of now. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 21:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

This user, who has just been blocked 32 hours, edit's all seem to be the adding of blocked templates to new users. Revert them all right?--Jac16888 (talk) 18:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes please. Sorry - I blocked him and am being called away for a while - so can't offer. Thanks, Ian Cairns (talk) 18:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

thought so. Best to add real welcome templates to all, could someone work their way down from the top please, while i go up. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's a good idea. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 18:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I zapped as many as possible for recreation afterwards, to try to minimise the harm. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All the phony block temps have either been deleted or replaced with welcome messages :)...damage reverted.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:55, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

great work. thanks for your help--Jac16888 (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

All the deleted ones recreated with real templates. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:05, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone want to take a shot at User:The Authority is me (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), who has started doing the same thing? RichardΩ612 Ɣ |ɸ 19:16, May 11, 2008 (UTC)

Another one bites the dust.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

::and another one please User:I am the Law . com--Jac16888 (talk) 19:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

scratch that, already blocked--Jac16888 (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Great work here people, keep it up. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I request that an admin take a look at this AfD and do a speedy close per WP:SNOW. The self-identified subject of the article (who also created it), User:Jjeandell now wants it deleted and stated so in the AfD. It is clear that he is very upset about the AfD. There were already some disruptions related to the AfD, such as removal of recorded votes of others[67] as well as attempted blanking of the main page Jason Jeandell. It is clear from the discussion in the AfD that the eventual result will be a delete, and it is better to close it now to avoid further drama and embarrassment for the subject. Nsk92 (talk) 21:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

•  Done Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks. Nsk92 (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Cult free world just came off of a two day block here for personal attacks and immediately launched into disruptive and tendentious editing again here.

No less than seven other editors have been working carefully to follow Wiki policies and build consensus and Cult free world continues to change the article without discussion, without consensus, to mirror the version that appears on his blog. This user has exhibited that he is incapable of (a) working with other editors to build consensus, (b) following Wikipedia policies, and/or (c) editing in a manner that does not promote his POV. (Please note this article is now in mainspace, not his userspace anymore, so is subject to all of the normal Wiki policies now, which he was able to bypass when it was in his userspace.)

There have been numerous complaints by many different editors on this user, he persists in disruptive, tendentious editing without any semblance of trying to work with other editors in a meaningful way, and he has failed to contribute meaningful to Wikipedia. Please, can it end? Renee (talk) 14:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I was tempted to hit the "indef" button, but have blocked CFW for one month - I will reduce the length of the block if he pledges to edit in a constructive and collaborative manner. Neıl ☎ 14:40, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good block, though I consider such a pledge from this user unlikely - but possible. Any objections to a resolved tag? UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

PLease can you provide diffs, if what Renee says is so I would think it would be a 3RR issue or something. CFW's entitled to his opinion of what the article should look like to be at his best, but he shouldn't be revert or edit warring, perhaps. However there are problems with some other editors on those articles perhaps being members of the group involved or similar ones, and having a WP:COI. If CFW was really that prone to this he wouldn't have survived this long on wiki.Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC) diffs please Merkin's mum 14:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Merkins, the diff listed above is a pretty good indication of what CFW was doing. I'm a bit surprised CFW hasn't been blocked indef for making edits like that right after a block for the same reason. I'm trying to be fair here, but I believe the same edits will occur in a month given CFW's track record. Wildthing61476 (talk) 14:47, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes I'd like to see it discussed a tiny bit more before marked as resolved, because if CFW was that bad he wouldn't have survived this long. On articles about New Religious Movements it's sometimes hard to make sure they aren't owned by the groups involved. Are there any editors on the anti-cult side of the article who are also finding CFW's approach unwise or wrong? Merkin's mum 14:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, my thoughts on a resolved tag were quite premature - I thought it was more cut-and-dry than it apparently is. I still think a block is in order, and concur with the block issued in this instance. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 14:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

sorry-there were lots of edit conflicts there lol. The link was to the revision history. All it shows is another editor saying CFW's version is not "sane". That doesn't sound much like people trying to get on, to me. Merkin's mum 14:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I've edited this article off and on. It is very sensitive terrain, and CFW has consistently exhibited all the tact of a bull in a china shop here, as can be seen with this latest set of edits. I concur with Renee that building consensus is impossible with this user. Several editors have tried and been accused of either being brainwashed or on the payroll of this group. As an aside - This behavior is suspiciously identical to that of User:Shashwat_Pandey who used to frequent the same sets of articles and was blocked indefinitely for sock puppetry.Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 15:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are some difs from this page started May 1, [68], [69], [70], [71]. If you review the talk page here you'll see seven editors trying to work together, and then CFW posting original research, his interpretation of things, and ignoring other editors' attempts to get him to work together. He had been building this page on his user page and many of us (mistakenly) tried to work on that, only to find out that the rules for userpages were different (because he posted previously deleted content, I filed an MFD per admin advice here, and an admin reviewing a sanitized version kept it despite a 12 delete/7 keep vote (because it was userspace), and then CFW promptly reverted it to his OR, primary sourced version here. He posted an RFC for his userpage version of the article here and then ignored almost every editors responses. Every single editor who has worked on the previously deleted Sahaj Marg pages believe he is User:Shashwat pandey and User:Rushmi (see sock report here). The reason he looks "okay" in the beginning is because he had been booted off in two previous identities and he was attempting to come into the article via this third identity (again, review the sock evidence please).

I have made many mistakes with respect to this user because I mistakenly believed that userspace was held to the same Wiki policies as mainspace. When I learned that it wasn't I began to ignore the user and his space until the article was posted in mainspace, where I began to work on it. I am a good faith contributer to Wiki and have worked on dozens of articles, including creating several myself. I don't think this user will change and urge an indefinite ban. Despite having multiple POVs on the Sahaj Marg talk page, we were making progress and it was relatively peaceful. User:Cult free world has demonstrated time and again, across three identities, that he is only on Wikipedia to promote original research and a POV. Please indefinitely ban him. Renee (talk) 16:01, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

p.s. The term I was looking for was sleeper sockpuppet (in answer to the question of how did he last so long). i.e., when a previously disgraced/blocked editor goes away and comes back working on other somewhat related articles, and then magically, out of the blue, decides to "create" an identical article out of 5x previously deleted material (and this one talked about it on his blog). If he goes away again I think we have to be very careful and watch for another sleep sockRenee (talk) 20:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it too much to ask for secondary neutral sources as a Wiki Editor? My observation is that this user just ignores other editors. I also observed that this user incorrectly draws hasty conclusions on sub-judice matters. This user also tends to get personal with allegations which are unwarranted for in the Wiki world. With so much negativity, perhaps its wise not to have this user as well the article on the Wikipedia and bring an end to everything!! -- Mayawi (talk) 16:23, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

← A good block, and one well deserved. He has been the issue of many threads at AN/ANI, and his unwillingness to cooperate and work with others in a constructive manner is determental to the project. His disruptions and trolling actions only leads me to believe that the user will not reform until faced with such sanctions that will severely limit his abilities to edit -- and an indef. block is certainly not out of the question if the behavior does not make a turnaround. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• +1 for blocking, long as you like. This user is not here to improve the encyclopaedia, he's here to remodel it to support his external agenda. Consider my limited patience well and truly exhausted. Guy (Help!) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• endorse the block. This editor has shown no desire to work collaboratively or to improve the encyclopedia in any way, beyond pushing his point of view and berating those that don't agree with him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:15, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• Consider this a non-admin endorsement of this block. CFW has shown that the previous block did not change his editing habits, and the project is better off not having an editor who choose to use his personal agenda as a NPOV. Wildthing61476 (talk) 17:18, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• This was lenient; an indefinite block would appear well and truly warranted here. MastCell ^Talk 17:48, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
• :I was of the view everyone should get one last chance - previously he'd only had a 48 hour block for this sort of thing and a jump to indefinite would, perhaps, have been over-harsh. If he reverts to type when the block expires, then I'll be the first to press the indef button. Neıl ☎ 00:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong; I'm sure this block is preventing disruption. I just can't help but feel that there was a good contributor in there that we failed to reach. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 04:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

SheffieldSteel - It's never a happy moment when a volunteer editor gets booted out. I agree that CFW is diligent in his work. The issue wasn't his ability as a contributor - I would be the first to point to his intelligence and tenacity. The issue was, is, and I'm very sure will continue to be his attitude. This isn't editing - This is raw rage at work. What kind of person comes off a 2-day ban only to immediately repeat the offense? I've worked with this user for a while now (across 3 socks), and the sheer levels of toxicity he injects into the articles he touched has to be experienced to be believed. If you haven't seen it, good for you! I have, and I stopped editing in disgust a little while back. Took me very little time to dig up a few pearls to help you see what I'm talking about - [here], [here], [here], [here] or [here]. Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 01:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef block. Enough is enough. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse - Thought about this and Utraexatzz and wildthing are right - He'll be back in a month and he'll go back to where he left off. He's been at it too long to change within a month and nothing he's said or done indicates he realizes he's doing anything wrong. Also, it's very odd that a page that had never been vandalized (even in all of its previous versions) is suddenly vandalized by an open proxy just yesterday...(see here). Coincidence? I don't think so! Marathi_Mulgaa (talk) 19:04, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Look, why don't we try topic-banning the guy first? See if there's anything worth saving? --Relata refero (disp.) 05:44, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. Topic ban, rigidly enforced. If CFW violates the ban (which I have complete confidence he will), then he hasn't a leg to stand on. He'll still call us a bunch of cultist censors, though. Guy (Help!) 17:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse. Though I'm not sure if it will make a difference. Here is the user's response to his ban -- he doesn't understand there's a problem. Renee (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban. After researching his early difs, it's clear he's here just to promote an agenda through increasingly devious means.Renee (talk) 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse This user had been a suspected sock of previous users (now perm blocked) who have repeatedly tried to publish strong POV info against this topic - Sahaj Marg, Shri Ram Chandra Mission, SRCM. Because of lack of firm evidence (old users) this sock report got closed just short of confirming this. Despite all that, I tried to work very patiently with CFW [72], here, here, only to still not get his cooperation. In light of the fact that since last sept. there have been several attempts to post such information which ended up in deletes after a long discussion [73], [74], [75] I would vote for a topic ban. Can someone tell how broad would the ban be? (New Religious Movements" and "Cults" or just Sahaj Marg/Shri Ram Chandra Mission/SRCM). Duty2love (talk) 16:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse indef ban. I have tried to work with him now as two of the three different socks, and looked over his actions of the other sock. Nothing has changed, despite having wikipedia policies explained literally a hundred times to him, he just pushes on with his agenda.His behavior is the same each time... except this time those who disagree with im are "members of cult groups trying to suppress information" as opposed to "brain-washed zombies," which I suppose is a kind of progess? I don't see any change happening anytime soon. And of course, like the governor of California, he'll be back. And most importantly, over these three socks, has he contributed anything? of value? Sethie (talk) 05:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse Enough is enough, this user is refusing to follow the policies and has been warned about it enough. I would suggesta topic ban or a indef. block. STORMTRACKER 94 ^{Go Irish!} 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• endorse-ish + comment- there is a place for people with what could be seen as an anti-"cult" sentiment on wiki, to counteract those who are here to create hagiographies of their guru or puff pieces about their group, despite serious concerns perhaps having been voiced about whatever group is concerned. I miss User:Smee...on the other hand, it does sound like CFW is this other bloke who is already indef blocked. You could try a topic ban, but he might well be back in several more different guises until he gives up. I just wish a compromise could be reached, with the help of editors not in the group concerned. If people have said things about a group which are in newspapers etc, these should be mentioned. But if someone won't listen to reason and compromise a tiny bit, no-one can work with them.Merkin's mum 00:46, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The problem with a topic ban is that he'll just come back as a sock, as he has done twice before. Sethie (talk) 23:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And each time he came back it was under more devious means. The first time he came back he pretended to be a new user and was adopted by Sarcasticidealist (see this). As User:Cult free world he came back as a "sleeper sock," working on other pages for a while before starting a "new" Sahaj Marg page that coincidentally contained previously deleted content. He did make a few slips -- on his first two days of editing in this identity he removed "Sahaj Marg" here (Jan 1); it was reverted, he removed it again here (Jan 3). Then, on Feb 16 he "happens" to mention Sahaj Marg here and here. When a brand new user posted a "new" Sahaj Marg page and it was immediately deleted under G4, CFW harassed the deleting admin about it here and then went here and referenced the original AFD. How would a naive editor "know" that a new page had been published? know about the previous AFD? know who worked on the article before? This sort of deviousness demonstrates he's here to push an agenda and not contribute to Wikipedia. Renee (talk) 02:04, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Rau J is continually making reverts to the article, well above and beyond the "Three Revert Rule." Just in the last 24 hours I believe he has made 5 or 6 reverts to the article (plz. check the edit history for confirmation). This editor is substituting his own interpretation of the song and claiming it is the "right" one, based on a cite to the "song itself." How subjective, uncivil, and improper. JeanLatore (talk) 17:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. It looks like he's removing original research, not adding it. Could you double check that this is the right person? Maybe you have him confused with another user. Could you elaborate on the problem? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

• He is simply re-placing with his own "research," and at the rate of more than 3 times a day. JeanLatore (talk) 17:57, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
  • It's not research. It is a paraphrase of the lyrics to the song. Rau's Speak Page 18:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
• Don't you realise that your "paraphrase" of the lyrics is original research -- its your interpretation. How are we supposed to know whats going on in your head as you process/interpret the lyrics in your "paraphrasing" ? JeanLatore (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they mean me. The person who has reported me is the one adding OR, check the edit history. They have also accused me of being uncivil, please read our discussion on our respective talk pages and the articles talk page. I feel that will shed some light on this incident. Rau's Speak Page 17:55, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, I have now protected the article. Sort it out on the talk page. It is unreasonable to continuously revert the article over and over, even if you believe you are right. Of course you believe you are right. That's not the point. And this applies to BOTH of you. Sort it out on the talk page. You could both be blocked for 3RR at this point. Lets not go that far. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 18:02, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's reasonable. Thanks for not blocking us. Rau's Speak Page 18:08, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please reconsider the page protection. This should be a last ditch effort, it freezes all contributions to the article, not just those of the parties involved in the reverting of one section. This is going to stultify the article, as there have been many people contributing to the growth of the article, and not just the "meaning" section. Important other facts cannot be added to the article at all now. JeanLatore (talk) 19:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The page protection will prevent us from being blocked, be grateful we are not right now. And all of the edits have involved the meaning and the "structure" section, which repeated stuff from the meaning section, contained OR, and had nothing to do with the actual structure of the song. Rau's Speak Page 19:34, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Please use the article's talk page to discuss changes for the time being. Additions can be proposed and worked on there. Given the amount of back-and-forth reverting that has gone on, this seems the best course of action. There article's talk page has not been protected, so discussions of changes can happen there... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 21:47, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I am in favor of the block. Although previous attempts at a discussion there have proved futile. Rau's Speak Page 22:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

You are only in favour of the "block" (protection) since it is YOUR version that is protected! And your snide attitude has made it futile. In any case, I propose that we add a "platypus" section to the article. Any seconds? JeanLatore (talk) 00:20, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I would be in favor of it either way. And it is futile because you eventually stop responding. And propositions for the article do not belong here, they belong on the actual articles talk page. Rau's Speak Page 02:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Articles are always protected in The Wrong Version(TM). This does not indicate an endorsement of that version by the protecting admin. Rather, it means that you seriously need to engage in some civil Talk page discussion regarding what the right version actually is. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 00:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I wasnt sure where to put this one as there is the potential that multiple things are occuring. This is an Odd way to start wikipedia dont you think? I have suspitions "Artisanalle" is an ip adress who was in dispute with "Ynot4tony" a few days ago. In an edit summary the ip adress accused Ynot4tony of being a sock puppet of "Keetoowah". Maybe the ip adress decided to make an account. The fact that he can use sock templates, can link to other pages and uses indents suggests hes catching on very quickly for a newbie lol.

Here was the ip adresses edit summary here. I left a warning on his page at the time asking for him to be civil.

Adding to that confusion the ip adress above was himself accused of sock puppetry by another ip adress. here. How confusing.

Not sure what you guys thing, even if Ynot4tony was blocked for his incivility towards me, i dont think its nice to go around slapping sock puppet tags unless you have evidence. I have my suspictions that this editer who keeps socking people has another account or was that ip adress i warned.Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I now realise that "Artisanalle" has himself been accused of socking. What a mess. What should be done?Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 14:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Cheers, thanx for dealing with it. Realist² ('Come Speak To Me') 22:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... Take a look at his user page: "Wikipedia is not neutral! This is a great propaganda against the Macedonian people and their history! Don't believe anything on Wikipedia, pseudo-historians are extinguishing the truth, be aware of it!!!" The Cat and the Owl (talk) 21:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Aren't people allowed to post even the most asinine (well, up to a degree) comments on their user pages? 3rdAlcove (talk) 22:14, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, no, not really. See Wikipedia:User page. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see anything that qualifies as inappropriate content. I really doubt the Project is going to be brought into dispute by one disgruntled user. (The header on my talk page is no kinder to Wikipedia and nobody's yet complained.) — iridescent 22:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally I don't this bit of soapboxing is really that disruptive, but I wonder if we should allow such content in the page of someone who has been blocked twice for posting personal attacks related to his agenda. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You got a point.The Cat and the Owl (talk) 22:27, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Though almost all of his contributions relate to Macedonia, most of his recent contributions have been helpful. But contributions such as [76] project a POV that I'm uncomfortable with given the blocks and the user page. I'm not sure he's entirely here to help the project as much as push a POV. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that diff you highlight is possibly a language-barrier thing - I read it as "although living in M they consider themselves B". Maybe I'm AGFing too much, though. — iridescent 23:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Alihasnain has stated the they "now [lead] a group of internet users who would vandalise wikipedia until their demands are met." (fromuser_talk:alihasnain

The rest of their user talk page is reproduce here:

snipped, Nakon 00:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

---End of text---

I recently reverted one case of vandalism (on Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi)

A block or ban is justified by this user's free admission of their intent to vandalize in the future Mattman00000 (talk) 23:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Anyone else think this actually funny? Moment any of them starts vandalising they'll be blocked. Do they really think a few cases of vandalism from this "group of internet users" is going to bring out changes that basically go against every single thing wikipedia stands for? Some people take these things (and themselves) far too seriously. Recommend an indef block for Alihasnain for starters --Jac16888 (talk) 23:53, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinitely blocked. Nothing more to see here. Sandstein (talk) 00:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have also blanked his talk page per WP:DENY. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox is going to the Wikipedia Review, the same site that fosters the outing of Wikipedia editors (and their extortion negotiations), and is coming here to do their bidding. The most recent case: I was trolled for three months from an IP range who lodged defamatory accusations and threats of physical violence against me on the English, Italian, German, Dutch, Spanish, French et. al. Wikipedias, and Wikinews and Commons. A brief, non-extensive documentation of that trolling is here. Trolls at the Wikipedia Review are now [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=17989&hl=Shankbone taking the harassment and trolling of that IP range on the Polish Wikipedia and using it to assert] I have a COI, namely when the troll went around writing that I lived with Michael Lucas. SqueakBox goes to the WR, reads the trolling comments, and then acts accordingly on Wikipedia. In addition to participating in a defamatory and off-site trolling threads, he is lodging accusations against me on Talk pages and in edit-summaries to remove content. --David Shankbone 17:48, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Without commenting on this case (of which I know nothing), taking a cue from WR isn't always wrong, as they can be quite good at spotting copyvios, spam etc - I did this edit for example specifically after seeing it mentioned at WR. — iridescent 17:52, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The role they have played in both propagating that Erik Moeller is a supporter of child abuse--including attributing to him in quotations comments that he did not make--and the extortion negotiations with Newyorkbrad has left them highly problematic. Now they are propagating false information that I live with pornographer Michael Lucas and that I am helping him to promote his new film (this is the same site that began discussing whether I had sold my Wikipedia account to the Rubnenstein Public Relations firms). So, supporting the WR on Wikipedia is problematic these days. --David Shankbone 17:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like the most baseless accusation I have come across in a loong time. For the record I never do anything at the behest of any other editor and this bad faith accusation should be closed down right now. Shankbone is understandably annoyed that I removed his inappropriate image but its an editorial judgement and appears to be him promoting himself on wikipedia. The only link to WR is that I was informed of the page when I was readint hwere this morning., so iw ent and took a look, read the talk page, looked at the talk history and made my own independent decision. I am pretty narked that Shankbone makes this bad faith accusation against me. Thanks, SqueakBox 17:57, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

So, he's repeating a personal attack against - the old "promoting myself" on Wikipedia - I guess by going out there and getting hard to get photographs. I ask for a block for repeated personal attacks, content removal and edit-warring. --David Shankbone 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please provide the diff that I before ever accused you of promoting yourself on wikipedia or withdraw the comment, I completely deny this accusation. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tits" an editorial judgment? Now who's provoking a COI? (Joking, it's a typo.) Seriously, though. DS went through a ton of unsubstantiated shit over the Lucas thing months ago. I remember reading stacks of it here and, frankly, all over the site. While WR might be, and in fact, has at times, pointed out needed changes, as Iridescent noted, using them to source COI and such is playing into their attacks on WP editors. When they talk about actual policy, or real factual problems with articles, they're worth considering; when they go after editors with baseless shit like 'he's a fag, let's get him', they aren't. Common sense should've told Squeakbox that. ThuranX (talk) 18:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

David, you call WR them but you edit post there extensivley,m you link to there from here and then you violate BLP with your accusations re an individual connected to WMF. Take a look at my contribs and you wills ee I do things a little differently. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:02, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not said anything about Lucas and have no interest in that subject nor was my edit remotely connected to that. please can we keep some good faith here. Here is what I said ont eh talk before removing what I felt was an inappropriate pic at pornographic film and which Shankbone was already edit warring over rather than, at the time, commenting on the talk page. I strongly object to Shankbones ridiculous claim that my editorial judgement on this has anuything to do with Lucas or wikipedia review. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

And if Shankbone is going to give this treatment to anyone opposing him putting his own hard gay porn pics into wherever he chooses on this site than I believe the problem would reveal itself as being Shankbone himself, please can we not see a repeat of this kind of behaviour. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, more accusations that are not true. You repeated in your post at the Wikipedia Review the false accusations about my living with Michael Lucas, and then responded to them. You repeat the false and inaccurate charge I have a COI--what is the COI?--by the very act that I photograph for Wikipedia. I wasn't edit-warring - IP accounts removed content. You said there was consensus against use of the photo, but nobody said to remove the photo, simply a preference for 'non-gay' porn - and they did so by claiming I have an agenda, which in itself is a personal attack. You repeated that accusation here, and on the Wikipedia Review. I'm asking for a block. Lastly, I find your comments homophobic. You are advocating for photos that are not-gay (when in the photograph you can't tell the gender of of one of the people, and indeed can't see any private body parts) but not actually supplying any. --David Shankbone 18:16, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: this is a content dispute over whether there should be a gay pic on the front of Pornography? Or is there something esle going on here? As best I can tell, David stuck that image on there, for what reasons I don't know, and then SqueakBox removed it because it was gay, and then all hell broke loose here with accusations about bad faith zombies acting at the behest of some other web site.

So: is this just a content dispute, or can someone indicate why it isn't? Loren.wilton (talk) 18:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not a content dispute, I've pointed out the policy and guideline violations (please read): personal attacks, content removal, participating in off-site trolling and then repeating allegations here. Additionally, you are incorrect about the article (please actually review the diffs that are provided) - the article is Pornographic film. --David Shankbone 18:21, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I mis-spoke the name of the article involved, apologies. Yes, Pornographic film.

I'm not about to go off and read accusations on WR or on other non-english wikipedias, I don't see how they relate to the current situation physically present here. I see one diff in the above text, which is to a talk page where SqueakBox gives his justification for removing the picture. From that I went and looked at the actual editing in the article.

What I see in the editing is David adding the picture and Squeakbox removing it, repeatedly. That looks like a content dispute to me. I don't see any shadowy people lurking behind curtains anywhere except in the original accusations by David at the front of this section here.

In a porn store the gay vids are often in a separate section labeled 'gay" so that people not so inclined can avoid them. WP isn't censored, but it does exist within the bounds of society, and I can see why someone might think a gay image, even if appropriate for the article, might not be appropriate at the top of the article, without the "gay" section notice. I'd personally be inclined to move it down the article farther, and to include "gay" in the caption. Loren.wilton (talk) 18:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Its a content dispute about the appropriateness of some of Shankbone's placement of his pics. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

These charges made by Shankbonme are false and made in bad faith. This is not how to conduct a content dispute and this editor needs to calm down. I have made no personal attacks, content removal is not a policy violation, and nor have I part5icipated in off-site trolling on a site which you linked to here and in which you have recently participated far more than me. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:25, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No, the charges stick, and the WR thread I provided more than shows you repeat the false accusations, quoting them, then come back here and repeat false allegations that I have a COI and that I have an agenda. Those are personal attacks. Content removal violates guidelines. I have defended Wikipedia at the Wikipedia Review, which is why they attack me and why I have a thread thanking me from long-time users and admins, including User:Alison. --David Shankbone 18:30, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

David, may I make a suggestion? How about not using your name in photo/interview captions? A quick google finds "David Shankbone" in a pretty good number of articles. Unless you, personally, are significant to the article, your name shouldn't be there. --B (talk) 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Interesting point, perhaps an ifd for allt eh images would be in order, assuming they do not meet speedy criteria (such as if Shankbone speedied them all), and they could easily be re-uploaded. And yes his name in the pics certainly is part of why I see these are Shankbone promoting himself on wikipedia in a way that I am not comfortable with. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

As a point of clarification, I wasn't even referring to image filenames, which, though I disagree with it and would rather see filenames that give more description of the subject, isn't that big of a deal. I was referring to his name in articles themselves. --B (talk) 18:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I have never included my name in the articles themselves for photograph captions (I have for interviews, because I am included so it only makes sense), and you won't find an article where I have done that - go look. Regarding my name in file names, if you spend the time, effort and money I spend in obtaining the highest quality, difficult-to-obtain images that I do, then you can name them what you please. But this issue has been addressed multiple times and consensus--strong consensus--is the photographer can name them what he or she wants. We're trying to encourage contributions, not discourage. So, now here I am defending myself again against old charges that are false, have been addressed, when I have only worked to improve the project. It gets really tiresome. --David Shankbone 18:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I already spend plenty of time, effort and money on making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. i certainly don not need you to tell me what to do while I am a volunteer here. The difference is, of course, that i do not then consider the considerable investment I have made as an excuse to promote myself or my real life work on wikiepdia. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's what I'm talking about here. Instead of captioning it "John Reed and David Shankbone discuss politics after 9/11 and Reed's take on Orwell's neoconservativism", you could have said "John Reed discusses politics after 9/11 and Reed's take on Orwell's neoconservativism." --B (talk) 18:58, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Here are 480 examples of Shankbone in our text. That is one helluva lot,a nd I wonder how many of them are appropriate, and also how many of them were added by Shankbone himself. Those this si really an issue for the COI noticeboard. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The only places I have added my User name are with interviews, since I am a participant - this is a standard with interviews. I have never added my name to photography captions. More personal attacks that SqueakBox is too lazy to look into, so he just lodges them. Doing more of the WIkipedia Review's bidding, I see. --David Shankbone 19:09, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Please do not accuse me of being lazy and then claim it is me who makes personal attacks against you. Your logic is quite frighteneiong, especially from someone on the receiving end of your wrath. So you are spamming your user name into many articles, are you? Oh well. i suggest you just leave me in peace and stop being so horrible. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You are clearly lazy since you make base-less accusations and continually repeat them. More personal attacks. If you are going to make an accusation, provide evidence of Spamming. Again, request a block for repeated personal attacks and off-wiki harassment. --David Shankbone 19:18, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Well done for defending wikipedia at WR, that is why i sometimes post there. none of your charges stick, if you want an example of a bad faith personal attack it was your posting this thread and claiming all sorts of malign motives in me for daring to remove one of your gay porn pics from a no-gay porn page. This and your unrepentant attitude are very disturbing, can you please not take any anger you may have at charges that I have mentioned elsewhere. You are acting like you own the encyclopedia and making completely baseless accusations. Is this how you handle all your content disputes or just those involving your pics. Thanks, SqueakBox 18:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

• I have to say, as a regular reader and occasional poster at Wikipedia Review, that the allegation of Squeak acting on the behest of WR is one of the funniest things I have recently read - I am uncertain who of the two parties should be the more outraged at the suggestion... LessHeard vanU (talk) 19:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Also, am I the only one who thinks that Pornographic film is currently an unsourced mess of original research ("It is probably reasonable to assume" indeed!), and all this sound-and-fury could probably be better directed towards cleaning it up? — iridescent 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Well, yes - except reputable sources regarding pornography generally (and films especially?) are, "it is probably reasonable to assume", somewhat difficult to obtain - as opposed to the wealth of material available for the criticism of the making and viewing of pornography. Against this is the fact that it exists, has existed since antiquity, that some of the earliest motion pictures depicted it, and is a widely consumed media and major industry. That is should have a WP article is beyond dispute, but providing good sources is likely to be a perennial problem. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:10, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

User:SqueakBox continually reinserting personal attack into talk page[edit]

Twice now[77][78], and probably by the time I type this, a third time, SqueakBox has inserted a personal attack completely unrelated to the discussion at Talk:Pornographic film. Once again, asking for a block for repeated personal attacks, content removal, edit-warring, participating in off-wiki harassment. --David Shankbone 19:32, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

That's phrased a bit rudely I agree, but hardly warrants a block - it's hardly bad faith of him to say that you're trying to get him blocked, when you're here - er - trying to get him blocked. — iridescent 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

You call him lazy above and say "it's pointless to continually respond to SqueakBoxes allegations" in your edit summary. That's not exactly a good way to have harmonious editing. --B (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

David seems to think different rules apply to him. And I did not appreciate the lazy jibe one bit, check my contribs to see that I work hard for this project. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I think both users need to take a break from each other. If they do not do so on their own volition, a one week unsolicited wikibreak may give them pause. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I ahve already removed pronio film from mywatchlist and absolutely agree, this sisue s should be closed as resolved right now. I have other fish to fry. Thanks, SqueakBox 19:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

"User:SqueakBox is going to the Wikipedia Review, the same site that fosters the outing of Wikipedia editors (and their extortion negotiations), and is coming here to do their bidding." Are you suggesting that wikipedia should monitor and regulate what sites editors visit? LZ (talk) 06:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)