General

Dear Administrator:

I, like you, am an editor; I create articles and make edits. But, many, I am sure many other people out there, are tired, frustrated and angry with the behavior of many Administrators. I am certain that it is appallingly easy to revert and article, that someone has undoubtedly spent allot of time and effort writing. I have, in the past spent hours, researching, planning, writing, checking and revising an addition to an article only to have the whole lot deleted forever three minutes afterwards.

I know that deletion of material is essential in a free-to-edit encyclopedia, but if you see an article that someone has anonymously devoted their time to writing, why could you not revise it, change it or give a reason for you action? They deserve one.

I know all Administrators are not all Drunk-With- Power-Trigger-Happy-Nazis, many of you do an excellent job and you know who you are.

In closing: Create, don’t Destroy. Make a distinction between “what is right, and what is easy”. Be enriched and enrich others with the knowledge of other people.

And keep that finger off the trigger.

Dfrg.msc 01:44, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiktionary:User:Primetime (apparently corresponding to User:Primetime here) was indefinitely blocked this year on the English Wiktionary for massive, systemic copyright violations. His primary sources were Webster's third new international dictionary, unabridged, by Merriam-Webster, Inc. and The Oxford Dictionary of English (2nd edition revised) (using either the on-line edition or a CD-ROM version - the specific version remains unclear for a portion of his entries.)

The main Wiktionary discussion can be found here: wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime. In his own defense, he relied on bizarre personal attacks, personal threats and repetitious flagrant lies (perhaps in the hope that repeating a certain lie over and over again would make it somehow become truth.)

For over a month now, he has used many sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary, confirmed by checkuser(!) request on meta:. Only the most recent batch of sockpuppets is listed on the meta page. He has become our single most assiduous vandal, recently prompting an automated block of some 6,000+ IP addresses used by the Tor anonymity network.

His signature vandalism patterns alternate between massive rudimentary copyright violations, and bombarding Wiktionary with massive quantites of unattested vulgar terminology.

His copyright-vandalism today on the English Wiktionary (via a new sockpuppet that he created some time ago, in preparation) was first traced to the Wikipedia entry for J, where has been steadily, incrementally adding content. It is apparent to me, that he is using a 'bot to upload material here on Wikipedia just as he used to on Wiktionary, as several tell-tale signs are in each of his entries. It is my personal theory that he is using 'bot technology to split apart his edits, so that no single edit triggers a VandalBot "copyright" warning on the anti-vandalism channels.

I hereby request assistance from all Wikipedia sysops in chasing down this prolific individual's copyright violations (here on Wikipedia, as well as on Wiktionary - as many entries on Wiktionary still have not been cleaned adequately.) I am somewhat unfamiliar with Wikipedia policies regarding copyright violation. But I cannot imagine that such systemic, wholesale copying is condoned here.

--Connel MacKenzie 07:34, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop; please leave messages on my talk page there.)[reply]

Here is a bit of advice to anyone who reads this: check carefully everything Connel MacKenzie says. He has been known to exaggerate greatly at times. This is a very complex, personal dispute between him and I. Unfortunately, I do not possess the knowledge to use "bots". (And, what does this have to do with Wikipedia?) I don't know what you mean by "vandalism," either. I've had some content disputes with you. I admit I moved some material I wrote here to Wiktionary, all of which you apparently deleted on sight. The autoblocker blocked my IP for a short time, so I was able to get a new user name (something suggested to me by Tawker in a public discussion). I created about 5 vulgar entries on Wiktionary which Connel MacKenzie deleted on sight (even though Wiktionary is not censored--supposedly--and they all had citations). So, that's hardly the "massive quantites" you're describing. Really, this is not relevant to Wikipedia at all. The reason I remain blocked is very complex but can be boiled down to three factors: (1) personal attacks, (2) evading my block, and (3) alleged copyright violation. Now, Connel MacKenzie is going through everything I ever created on Wiktionary (I made about 1172 edits) and reverting or deleting it on the unproven assumption that it's all copyvio material. Connel MacKenzie is a very bitter person. He's had more disputes on Wiktionary than any other user. Now he's the person who banned all of those accounts and he's the only one still complaining about me. The fact he is even bringing up such a matter here shows even greater malice on his part, in my opinion. If he were editing on Wikipedia, he would have been banned a while ago. However, there's no real formal dispute resolution process on Wiktionary, so he can just continue acting the way he does and no one can do anything about it.--Primetime 10:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Primetime! I could not have asked for a better demonstration of your immediate tactics of 1) resorting to invalid personal attacks, and 2) bold, flagrant lies. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find this dispute worrisome because it may have affected Wikpedia administration. I recently nominated "List of ethnic slurs" for AfD, due chiefly for its apparent violation of WP:NOT [not a slang dictionary]. Primetime argued eloquently, effectively, and somewhat duplicitously (as I've said to him) against its transwikification to Wiktionary. Primetime had said that Wiktionary editors were intolerant, and would not accept the material. This report describes additional aspects to the matter. I don't know if the claim by Connel MacKenzie has merit or not, but Wiktionary is a sister project and we should work in a coordinated fashion. -Will Beback 11:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that Primetime's indefinite block on Wiktionary was approved after a decision made by the community. It was not even issued by Connel MacKenzie [1]. Now Connel is indeed a very active contributor and sysop on Wiktionary, probably among our best (if there's such a thing as "the best" on a wiki), who's not afraid of discussion, some arguments in which he is a party indeed evolving into what one might arguably call a "dispute". That is, however, of no relevance here, and has more to do with the argumentative nature of the English Wiktionary. Primetime, though, has never conformed to the rules that apply to Wiktionary, and he and his host of sockpuppets have been banned from Wiktionary by the community, for the reasons given above by Connel. The majority of his former contributions have either been deleted (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel), or rephrased in order to eliminate the copyright violations originally entered by Primetime. New admissions from his part, once they have been identified as being Primetime's, are being deleted on sight (by a variety of sysops, not just Connel or me) due to his long-standing tradition of proven copyright violations. Vildricianus 18:56, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (Wiktionary sysop).[reply]

First, there was a discussion where the editors participating came upon agreement that my most-recent creations, created on three nights in March and January would be deleted. (See wikt:Wiktionary: Beer parlour archive/January-March_06#Primetime). Further, my most-recent contributions were already trying to be deleted or had already been deleted when some discovered that they were from me. Others no one ever found out were from me were deleted as well. Further, those didn't look anything like the single-phrase definitions they were complaining about for copyvios. When Connel MacKenzie did a checkuser on some accounts, he immediately deleted the remainder. He never did a checkuser on the accounts he blocked last night, though. Here's an explanation of why they were already trying to delete them:

Some editors have interpreted Wiktionary's criteria for inclusion as meaning that a single reliable source is enough to prove a word's usage. Others, however, say that only three quotations will suffice, despite the fact that the page states that "Usage in a well-known work" qualifies as proof. These same editors claim that other dictionaries do not count. To many Wikipedia users accustomed to citing disputed assertions with a single source, having to give three sources is upsetting and unwelcoming. Many entries have been deleted because they had only one or two sources.

Knowing the anarchic atmosphere of Wiktionary and the propensity of certain administrators to use these unusually-high standards to delete offensive terms, I created six entries with three quotes per sense and with full source information for each quote. (See Wiktionary:WT:RFD#nigger_baby.) Then a user named Jonathan Webley nominated each of them for deletion saying "I can't find these terms anywhere else". Shortly afterward, Connel MacKenzie chimed in saying "This series of anonymous submissions seems intentionally disruptive, and pointlessly inflammatory. Delete all. These are certainly no more than the sum of their parts (each submission) with a clear intent to enter as many forms as can be dredged up, and to bypass the comparatively neutral, explanatory entry at nigger." Then, another administrator deleted them and protected the pages. His assertion that they were the sum of their parts is an example of an exaggeration by MacKenzie as "Blue-eyed grass (genus Sisyrinchium), especially California blue-eyed grass, S. bellum" was not the sum of the phrase "nigger baby". Another example is this: wiktionary:WT:RFV#shit_stabber. I had three quotes and a dictionary reference for that one. Here's another one: Wiktionary:WT:RFV#give me fin on the soul side. Editors there have a tendency to delete terms they don't like on sight (See this entry that had a reference to a slang dictionary, but was deleted anyway the first time. When I recreated it, he nominated it for verification, then deleted it again when he found out it was from me.) As for "give me fin on the soul side" I had two quotes and a dictionary citation. They deleted it anyway, but I had it saved on my hard drive, so I recreated it. Then, they said two quotes and a dictionary references weren't enough, so I added more, for 3 quotes and 5 citations. Connel still wanted to delete it anyway, which shows his deceptive and bitter nature.

As everyone can tell, Vildicranius is good friends with Connel MacKenzie--even though Vildicranius is pretty new. However, Connel MacKenzie has been known to harass other users. On the Beer Parlour (their equivalent of the Village Pump) he had at least three discussion threads raised against him by Ncik: Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#A_further_complaint.2C_unrelated_to_the_one_above.2C_against_Connel, Wiktionary:Wiktionary:Beer_parlour_archive/January-March_06#Complaint_against_Connel even though I had been there only since November. He went after Ncik, who he chased away apparently, Eclecticology, then me. I'm sure there were others, though.

In conlcusion, I'm a financial donor to Wikimedia, so if I believed that something would harm our wikis, I wouldn't do it. On Wikipedia, I fight vandalism (I have over 830 pages on my watchlist) and try to be civil. I've worked countless hours, and have 3759 edits on Wikipedia under this user name as well as 366 under others. I tend to use Show preview and focus on articles, so the tally doesn't tell much, either. However, on Wiktionary, it's harder to get along. Many Wikipedia policies, such as the Three Revert Rule and No Personal Attacks are not policies on Wiktionary. To some users from Wikipedia, this makes the site seem like it is anarchic, and makes many administrator decisions seem arbitrary, as well. Everyone knows each other, so you either become good friends or really bad enemies.--Primetime 20:06, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, that last bit and this sound quite alike. And your palaver about being a financial donor is also recognizable. Same old tricks, Primetime. Vildricianus 22:42, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. I've said it before, and I need to say it again. Everything I just said is all true. Everyone should read what I just wrote. As for my donation, go here: [2]--I listed my user name in the comment column.--Primetime 22:58, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied defintions from existing dictionaries?

A quick look through your contributions here (at least ones highlighted on your user page) raise red flags, too. Take John Abbey, which you created with:

(Born Whilton, Northants., Dec. 22, 1785; Died Versailles, Feb. 19, 1859). English organ builder. The son of a local joiner, he first learnt his father's trade. Against family opinion he was apprenticed while still in his youth to the organ builder James Davis and later joined in partnership with Hugh Russell... [3]

We have the idiosyncratic, non-Wikipedia style of beginning, the fully-formed sentences, and, most peculiarly for an American contributor, the British usage of "learnt" -- which you changed in subsequent edits over the next hour. My guess is Britannica, but I have a friend who owns a copy, so I"ve asked him to check. --Calton | Talk 20:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. You can also search the introductions for each entry for free online. As you can see here: <http://www.britannica.com/search?query=John+Abbey&ct=>, there is no entry. As for formatting, I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers. For example, above, I did not give the link as this because I think it looks unintuitive and doesn't tell the reader where they're going.--Primetime 20:47, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hate Wikipedia formatting because it is not in keeping with style recommendations of writers.' Really? What "style recommendations of writers" are you referring to? What possible applicability do these "style recommendations of writers" have for THIS project? And what about these "style recommendations of writers" gives you an exemption from the Wikipedia Manual of Style? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is another debate, but I tend to follow styling guidelines of style manuals like Merriam-Webster's Manual for Writer's and Editors as well as Random-House's style guide. I also imitate for experimentation purposes several innovations, like enlarging the headword a point or two. I have had several disagreements and have explained myself in detail on why I don't always follow Wikipedia guidelines. Examples include pronunciation aids,^[4] as well as links.^[5]--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify where the article came from? Is it all your own original writing or is copied from another source? -Will Beback 23:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To repeat, let's cut through a lot of noise: Primetime, do you deny that on Wiktionary you copied definitions from existing dictionaries? Can you affirm that the text I quoted above is all your own? What was the source of your information? --Calton | Talk 23:15, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not copied from anywhere. I wrote most of my contributions. Many were written as school reports. Others are from the 1911 edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Some are reports I wrote for my classes at school.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article, Reinhard Sorge [6], also appears to be copied from another source. If it isn't then it is a severe violation of WP:NOT as it includes extensive literary criticism. -Will Beback 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now that's strange: that list of articles on on User:Primetime's page, which listed the articles he says he was principal contributer to? The one I browsed checking for copying? Primetime has suddenly removed them [7]. Why would that be? --Calton | Talk 00:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm tired of you guys going through each of my contributions and picking them apart. I don't have time for that.--Primetime 00:29, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Man, I'm slow: that list I mentioned? One of the entries is for the Dictionary of Literary Biography -- and the article includes an external link to a site which provides short versions of some of the articles. Looking up Reinhard Sorge...Hmm, do these look familiar?

Reinhard Johannes Sorge (January 29, 1892-July 20, 1916) is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. (from Primetime's version

Reinhard Johannes Sorge is considered one of the earliest expressionist dramatists in Germany. Although his death on the battlefield in World War I put an abrupt end to an all-too-brief six-year period of intensive literary productivity, Sorge, who was only twenty-four years old at the time of his death, achieved recognition as one of Germany's foremost religious playwrights and poets, one whose poetic mission was inspired by his fervent quest for God and by an ecstatic mystical faith. Sorge's protagonists are either projections of his own self into a dramatic character who combines the role of the writer as leader and healer with that of the prophet and seeker of God's truth, or personal interpretations of key figures in the history of Christianity such as King David, Saint Francis of Assisi, and Martin Luther. None of his plays was performed during his lifetime. From the BookRags site

Busted. --Calton | Talk 00:24, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I admit that it's from the DLB. That doesn't mean that everything I've ever written is a copyvio, though. Most of the articles I've written aren't even about writers.--Primetime 00:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another quick check: N. Scott Momaday (here versus here)...do I need to continue? Your long-winded rationale is pure misdirection, and while it's, I'm sure, literally true that not EVERYTHING you've ever written is stolen, it's enough to presume it's true unless you provide evidence to the contrary. --Calton | Talk 00:39, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

STOP! WHAT DO YOU MEAN? ARE YOU PROPOSING THE DELETION OF EVERYTHING I'VE EVER WRITTEN BECAUSE OF THOSE TWO ENTRIES??? WHAT PROOF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? IT'S IMPOSSIBLE FOR ANYONE TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE NOT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE! WHY ARE YOU GOING AFTER ME SO HARD?--Primetime 00:41, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Those first two entries are what I found sitting at my desk, from my computer, after only a few minutes work and without breaking a sweat. Imagine what I could do if I went down to the local university library and actually search in their hard-copy of Britannica, Grove's, DLB, Current Biography, etc. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A message on my talk page: ...Also, why are you doing this? You know that Wikipedia isn't liable for copyright violations that it isn't aware are occurring? There's absolutely no reason to be doing this! This is perhaps the most pathetic rationale for copyright abuse I've seen in a long time -- but more to the point, we are aware now. You've been busted: deal with it. --Calton | Talk 00:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Throw Fyodor Sologub (here versus here on the list. Man, this may take a co-ordinated effort to root out. --Calton | Talk 01:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block of Primetime

I have blocked Primetime per the above developments, and the obvious rejection of any wrongdoing from him. Currently set to indef, but if there are objections, please someone take the initiative to unblock. This is only a precautionary measure from stopping him from creating any further articles for now. If there are no objections, then it'd be a community indef block. NSLE _(T+C) at 00:58 UTC (2006-05-09)

I would like to remind you that wikt:User:Primetime has now dozens of known sockpuppets on the English Wiktionary. He is very adept at finding open proxies. He is also very adept at finding the newest "tor" exit points. Again, I request assistance from all available Wikipedia sysops now, to 1) verify whatever portion of his edits you need to, are copyright violations and 2) keep a very sharp eye out for new sockpuppets.

Despite everything he has said in the past six months or so, I do not believe his stated motives. Call me a conspiracy theorist if you must, but I think he is being paid to insert copyright violations into Wikimedia projects. I cannot comprehend any other reason why he would have pursued his attacks on the English Wiktionary, for months after being blocked. For example, wikt:give is still being actively vandalized. It obviously is not some desire to propogate "truth." It is instead, a very disturbing case. --Connel MacKenzie 01:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given his insistence of innocence until proven to have violated copyright I have to agree that this user has forfeited all right to assumptions of good faith. Insertion of fragments to 'build up' a copyvio in pieces shows foreknowledge that they are not allowed and a deliberate effort to evade detection. He needs to provide an explanation for why he was deliberately sneaking in copyrighted material and list every instance of doing so under all accounts before we should even consider unblocking him. I'm usually the one saying 'blocks are bad and cause more problems than they solve', but this guy needs to be blocked indefinitely and his contributions sanitized. If in doubt assume it is a copyvio and remove or rewrite it. --CBDunkerson 13:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the extent of his damage, has anyone in Wikipedia requested a blanket Checkuser on his IP address, for his Wikipedia activities? Looking at policy #6 from meta:CheckUser Policy#Wikimedia privacy policy it looks like such a check is permitted. But only for a couple days more. --Connel MacKenzie 23:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, a number of sock puppets of Primetime have been identifed and blocked. JakeT55 (talk · contribs), Britannica fan (talk · contribs), Gmills22 (talk · contribs), Gtregf (talk · contribs), and America's Sweetheart (talk · contribs). -Will Beback 07:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These seem to have been a panicked reaction to having some of his suspected plagiarism being deleted, with the sockpuppets used to try to add back the probable copyvios.

I say "probable" copyvios, but I'm 95% certain they are, even absent hard evidence. For details on the frustrating saga, check his talk page. At this point, confirming the other plagiarism is more an intellectual exercise than a necessity, as far as I'm concerned. --Calton | Talk 08:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article J

By sheer coincidence, I looked at this article about a week ago. I grew suspicious at the very atypical tone of the piece, and so I checked the history. What I found was something atypical of copyvios, namely a long series of edits to a section made by a registered user with a userpage, so I shrugged it off. In light of this, however, I've Google-tested some pieces, but found no hits; could anyone perhaps check a copy of EB and/or other likely reference works to see if it's stolen from there? —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a list (compiled by going through a list from his own user page) of likely copyvios on his talk page, with a request that he account for them. Let's see if his repentence is serious. --Calton | Talk 07:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare histories of wikt:j and J. Also those of wikt:C, wikt:c and C. They have multiple Primetime or Primetime sockpuppet edits. There are probably more cross-project parallels. Vildricianus 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've received e-mail from Primetime, and it's apparent that he doesn't have the slightest clue what he's done wrong. Until he does, I strongly urge not unblocking him. --Calton | Talk 10:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's perhaps a reason why he keeps doing it. However, I think he's cleverer than that. At Wiktionary, he has tricked various users into believing he was completely innocent, prior to his unmasking and the consequent indefinite block. Vildricianus 10:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have M-W Third on hold at my local library again, and will pick it up tomorrow afternoon. --Connel MacKenzie 07:21, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to be from the OED. The 20 volume set can't be checked out, but the next time I'm there I'll confirm that this partial citation (halfway down the page) does in fact match the start of this edit. --Connel MacKenzie 03:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC) edited[reply]

By the way, it looks like this will be archived/deleted soon? Tracking down 1,700 entries is probably going to take quite a while. Are topics on the archive pages considered "active" or should this be moved somewhere else? --Connel MacKenzie 03:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Crypticbot, the bot that archives this page, reports the date of the oldest response when it archives sections, so I think it will ignore this section as long as you keep posting here. But if you want to keep track of the reverting of Primetime's copyvios, it'd be better to make a subpage of your user page for that purpose. Kimchi.sg 04:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my question is now, who on Wikipedia (I'm not a sysop here) is going to start the effort of combing through all his entries, to indicate which have already been deleted/cleaned up? --Connel MacKenzie 01:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Been there, done that: admins Michael_Snow (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and Will_Beback (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) have have already whacked the most obvious offenders. See User talk:Primetime for a blow-by-blow account. --Calton | Talk 02:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The OED was the source for J. --Connel MacKenzie 08:15, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update

Primetime (talk · contribs) has been indefinitely blocked by Jimbo Wales hisownself (see here). Note also that Primetime has resorted to sockpuppets to add back what's been deleted (see Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Primetime) and has gone admin-shopping (see here) seeking to reverse deletions of his additions. --Calton | Talk 05:04, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the category here on Wikipedia is redlinked. Today's latest English Wiktionary "Primetime" sockpuppet: wikt:User:Yurejkf (kindly self-identified in this comment.) I hope Wikipedia is better at staying on top of these than we are at Wiktionary. --Connel MacKenzie 04:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a name change - I've fixed it now. Thanks for the heads up. -Will Beback 05:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There also is Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Primetime, resulting from today's slander from Primetime? --Connel MacKenzie 18:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Increasing (desperate) personal attacks. Does WP have a more appropriate place for ongoing, long-term vandalism of this sort? --Connel MacKenzie 01:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Long term abuse Ashibaka tock 23:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. In the meantime: Jhyt50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). --Connel MacKenzie 22:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've added Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Primetime. --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Primetime used to be called Rickyboy (talk · contribs), and was blocked indefinitely in July 2005.[8][9] -Will Beback 06:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From his talk page Besides, even if they were violations of copyright law, they would still be justified because people shouldn't have to pay to learn things [10] -- huh, exactly the nonsensical reasoning Primetime employs. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also User:Richardr443, of Letter writing fame. In retrospect, that article was clearly plagiarized, and perhaps a copyright violation. -Will Beback 07:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC) (Now confirmed- copied verbatim from World Book. -Will Beback 12:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ooh, lovely, I remember him very well. I blocked the Ricky accounts indefinitely, in case he had any designs on reusing them. Dmcdevit·t 08:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder if Colorado State Univeristy would like to know that they seem to be harboring a prolific plagarist? --Connel MacKenzie 13:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And in case it merits mentioning, Primetime has added my email address to a dozen or more spam sites, and has ordered junk mail to the home address of another editor. This fellow seems to believe in unrestricted combat. -Will Beback 12:20, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to hear that, and I'm suddenly glad I didn't respond to him through e-mail. --Calton | Talk 13:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a "Be On the Lookout" warning on Talk:Oxford English Dictionary, where his latest sockpuppet -- Ftym67 (talk · contribs) -- was trying to convince the editors there that the OED is public-domain and A-Okay to copy from. Not that anyone there seemed to be buying it, but I thought a warning was in order. --Calton | Talk 14:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if Wikipedia admins would review/copyedit wikt:Wiktionary:Blocking policy#2006/06/08 (the letter I will soon send to abuse@CSU) to verify I've not overstepped any inter-project boundaries. --Connel MacKenzie 15:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did send this, about two hours ago. They seem to have begun their own investigation now. On another note: Give seem to have retained the copyvio material from the OED still, perhaps after a page move? --Connel MacKenzie 22:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recently, the talk sub-page Talk:Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement/Hexadecimal_metric_system was victime of an unjustified speedy deletion.

Several days later the page was undeleted by Administrator Xoloz. See the respective Wikipedia:Deletion_review.

Now the page is deleted again, WITHOUT ANY DELETION PROCESS !??

Even if I userfied the content by a move – like it was proposed – there are several back-links now broken, cf. Talk:Ancient_Roman_units_of_measurement.

Thanks for resolving this problem due to an obvious case of savage deletion by an anonymous administrator.  -- Paul Martin 18:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

17:43, May 29, 2006 Xoloz deleted "Talk:Ancient Roman units of measurement/Hexadecimal metric system" (R2 content was: '#REDIRECT User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system' (and the only contributor was 'Paul Martin')). Jkelly 18:22, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. However, I ask its undetetion. Yes the only contributor of this subpage was me since it illustrated a discussion topic. -- Paul Martin 18:31, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing deleted was a cross-namespace redirect. Your subpage continues to exist at User:Paul Martin/Hexadecimal metric system. Jkelly 18:33, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. However there is no reason to delete the redirect page with aktive back-links. -- Paul Martin 18:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes there is, with few exceptions we don't do cross namespace links, there is no point in userfying to just leave a mainspace redirect. --pgk^(talk) 18:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that what links here? still works for the deleted page, so you can go back and fix links. Regarding the section header... "Savage"? Is that a technical term? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Any admin who savagely deletes something should also be defrocked immediatley :D Will (^E_@) T 20:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indubitably - who ever heard of a savage in a frock?!? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"we're collecting money to buy frocks for savages - every little bit helps."  Thanks for your humor GTBacchus.  -- Paul Martin 21:55, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No User:Sceptre, I don't approve your quick postulation. It's true – with you – I think it's fundamental to have good proceedings.
Nevertheless, "be defrocked immediatley" without clarification is neither a good proceeding.  -- Paul Martin 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was referencing a discussion last month which said that Cyde should be defrocked for the userbox deletions. Will (^E_@) T 16:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For User:Pgk: The page - after undeletion - was regulary moved to the user space. So its a simple redirect page. I don't understand what you mean by "cross namespace links". Nor this is a "mainspace redirect", but a talk-page redirect.

For User:GTBacchus:  With "savage" I mean "out of process". During the Wikipedia:Deletion_review it's me who accepted the proposal of User:RN with the redirect on May 18. The page was undeleted as a subpage of the discussion page without any condition. Because the user demanding initially the speedy deletion recontacted me after undeletion, I moved the page. So its a farce in several acts?? 1. Speedy deletion 2. Deletion review 3. Undeletion 4. "Cold" re-deletion...  I continue to ask for regulation. -- Paul Martin 19:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Friend, 'twas I who redeleted the link from talk-space to your subpage. I have no problem restoring it, actually; I had assumed, given your userfication, that the redirect was useless, and I redeleted per R2. This is a cross-space redirect, and we need a good reason to leave it in place, as those are generally frowned upon. When I had originally processed the DRV debate, I was expecting the subpage to remain, and not to be userified. It was the change in circumstances of the userfication that made R2 applicable. There's no "farce" in the redeletion, as the content was saved and transferred in the interim. Xoloz 20:16, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Xoloz for your reply. Before I can answer – excuse my ignorancy – could you remember me what R2 says.  -- Paul Martin 21:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion#Redirects. Cross-namespace redirects are deleted as a matter of policy, so I believe that Xoloz can keep his frock. -- SCZenz 22:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for Savage Deletion?! ;) RadioKirk talk to me 22:05, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, I decided to move back the page to its original place. And so I will corrige the back-links to the user page within the next days.
I understand the motivations of user Xoloz, even if I prefered a new advise. I also hope that everyone can live with the solution I choised.
-- Paul Martin 22:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

placed a "WoW" tag on User:Shadow ruler. DOn't know if it's legit. Thanks :) Dlohcierekim 19:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mike Rosoft seemed to think so, then changed his mind, then reblocked. You might ask him. User:Zoe|^(talk) 21:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt that he's a WoW sockpuppet, as none of his contribs have anything to do with "on wheels." Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 00:15, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See [11]. This ban may be lifted at any time by any administrator who disagrees with it, though I would request that they register their reasons for doing so here and/or on my talk page. Thank you.--Sean Black 02:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW I totally agree with your action. Metamagician3000 02:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved Homeontherange's original request from the arbitration page to WP:AE and asked him to use that page in future. --Tony Sidaway 03:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq has just violated the ban[12]. Homey 04:21, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing said anything about the Talk page, only the actual article. --Avillia ^{(Avillia me!)} 04:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, you're correct - template says he can still edit the talk page.Homey 04:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for votespamming for the articles' AFD Will (^E_@) T 22:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This block was in clear violation of several wikipedia policies. Please see this: User_talk:Sceptre#Vote_stacking and replace the block with a warnning. I appologize from having to work from this and can not log in, but it seems despite the unblock template put on my talk page no one is paying attention. Singed: Zeq editing from: 85.65.186.191 10:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq, did you post the above while you were blocked by Sceptre? It's a serious offence to cirumvent blocks in this way. Homey 22:09, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YINever (talk · contribs), as well as his anon-IP 141.153.74.246 (talk · contribs) are the sockpuppets of TJive (talk · contribs), who claimed that he left Wikipedia for good. Not only he keeps adding right-wing POV into articles, he has put suggestions on his user page [13] and wells as talk pages of certain articles [14], suggestion that I'm apparantly a "Communist web spy employed by the Chinese government". He has restored vandalism deleted by admins, calling it [15] "restoring valuable comment in proper place". User has also vandalised several articles to fit his political agenda, removing references [16] [17] without discussion, adding weasel words into articles to blackwash leftists [18]. --PatCheng 04:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:RFCU#Not_Clear_-_Nobs01_or_TJive.3F. --Rory096 04:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what he intends to accomplish here, considering there is no actual policy violation described in this rant.

BTW, I "claimed that [I] left Wikipedia for good"? Mind showing where? --TJive 04:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. User:YINever apparently is a new account and intent of deletion of his talk page warnings and revert war over The Epoch Times article. RevolverOcelotX 01:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See the same below. YINever 01:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked the guy indefinetly as I think that's what we're supposed to do with cases like this one, but I'm posting this notice here to check if my action was right. The guy's edits are nothing but vandalism, so he definetly deserves to be blocked for a time. But, the reasons I indef blocked him are this (the guy on picture is Ante Pavelić), and this. Did I do the right thing? Is it OK to indef block a guy for putting a picture of Adolf Hitler on his user page? --Dijxtra 10:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support the ban. I've also requested Bormalagurski to translate the message he left on Da Croatian Sensation's talk page - I don't like a Serb leaving a message on a Croatian nationalist's talk page in a language most admins on the English Wikipedia are not going to understand. --ajn (talk) 10:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I provided the tranlation. --Dijxtra 10:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, possibly a borderline case but glad he's blocked now rather than in a hundred edits and an ArbCom case time. The Land 21:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for blocking this pro-ustashe user. -- serbiana - talk 23:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Puzzled at identifying that picture as Hitler, though. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 00:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A sort-of associate of Hitler, really. Ral315 (talk) 02:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted in my initial posting, the guy on the picture is Ante Pavelić. --Dijxtra 13:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think putting a picture of Pavelic warrants a ban. Should we start banning people for having the picture of Mao or Guevara on their userpage? Lapinmies 11:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very interesting developement just occured. A user (which never edited no articles even near the Balcans thematics) contacted me complaining that he can't login because of my block of User:Da Croatian Sensation (he stepped on an auto-blocked IP, obviously). I appologised and asked him to wait for 24 hours so the block expires. He agreed and pointed out that this already happened when another user got blocked. I took a look at the user he mentioned and was puzzled to discover the user which obviously shared the same IP with User:Da Croatian Sensation is, in fact, Serbian editor currently blocked for a limited period of time. I think we could have a case of sockpuppetry (where Serbian editor got blocked, then got annoyed at being blocked and then engaged in sockpuppetry trying to discredit the Croatian side) and I think that it would be appropriate to reset this user's block. I myself wouldn't like to do that since I'm from Croatia and would probably be accused of making all of this up, but if some other admin wishes to investigate this case, I'll provide username of the guy which contacted me complaining about the auto-block so somebody can contact him... --Dijxtra 14:11, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nescio breaks 3RR during ongoing discussion to force his pov on a style issue. Please revert to pre-3RR state and tell him to use the discussion page.

His reversals:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56417812&oldid=56417436 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56483358&oldid=56482943 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484383&oldid=56484028 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56484899&oldid=56484554 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Haditha_incident&diff=56485696&oldid=56485296

Please use WP:AN/3RR for 3RR reports. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 12:43, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry and thanks, done.

Incorrect accusation. Further, to block for something years old (hyperbole) seems a bit much. Nomen Nescio^{Gnothi seauton} 23:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here we are again. This is a continuation of this, which I alerted everyone to a few days ago. I had blocked SuperDeng and Kurt Leyman for 72 hours for this continuing fight of theirs. Specifically, Deng had reverted 40 of Kurt's edits in a 3 hour period (which you can see in Deng's contribs. Well the block expired and Deng went right back at Leyman, as he has been doing for 2 months now. This is the edit that is causing the problem. Deng has been accusing Kurt of vandalism all along. Well. The edit I just cited is not vandalism. In fact, Kurt's edit is better than Deng's. And it's more than just the Second Battle of the Atlantic article. We also have Battle of the Netherlands, where Deng has reverted Kurt by changing "wounded or missing" to "missing or wounded". And he's done this twice. And I and others have tried reasoning with Deng. We've pointed out policies. We encouraged a RfC and then a RfAr (to which he responded with "arbitration are back logged and from them time I make a request which I will untill someone actually looks at it he will have vandalized hundreds if not thousands of articles"). So he won't even follow basic dispute resolution. Yes, he tried a request for comment but that's been it. So, because of all of this, I've blocked Deng for 1 week. If someone disagrees, let me know. --Woohookitty^(meow) 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Has Kurt Leyman been blocked too? - FrancisTyers 15:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not yet. I am keeping my eye on him. The stuff that Deng reverted was not vandalism. If Kurt goes back to his old habits, I will block him. At the moment, it's not warranted. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strike that. :) Kurt was also in violation of 3RR. So I blocked him for 5 1/2 days. It's for a lesser time because Kurt has one less 3RR vio and he hasn't been stalking anyone. On the other hand, I really wish that when they see each other editing something, they just stayed away or alerted an admin to take care of it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 00:58, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only there were someone crazy enough to volunteer to mentor them both. - FrancisTyers 01:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. Well I told Deng that he should try arbitration and he told me that the arbcom is "too backed up", which isn't a reason. Instead, he's decided to be a vigilante...and no matter what Kurt has done, we can't done that. --Woohookitty^(meow) 05:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can try mentoring Deng but I would leave it to others to deal with Kurt. --Irpen 05:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Teach him civility. He actually just lectured me on what wikipedia is. I have 26,000+ edits! He has a condescending, "I'm always right" attitude with everyone. He refuses to compromise. He doesn't listen to reason. Oi. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef-block him. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:31 UTC (2006-06-03)

Actually, could you do it? Part of the problem I've had with him is that he seems to think that I'm some sort of rogue admin, even though I've never had another admin overturn any of my blocks. I'm not a block happy admin. I tend to use that power relatively sparingly. Anyway. I think we need to show some solidarity here. I'd appreciate it. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:33, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefinitey blocked SuperDeng, with message on his talk page - someone please watch there and protect it if needed, or respond accordingly to any unblock request, cheers. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:38 UTC (2006-06-03)

Thank you! I should kiss you. But I won't. :) And yes, I added it to my WL earlier this evening. --Woohookitty^(meow) 10:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is my impression that although hotheaded, arrogant and disruptive, Deng is still an asset to wikipedia. He made a great number of very good edits related to the Eastern Front during the World War II and in his vendetta with Kurt in quite a number of cases he indeed is fixing some subtle vandalism. As a matter of fact me and Irpen had been planing to give him a barnstar on the V-Day for his editing, then delayed this because of his disruptive behavior.

User:Irpen has agreed to be his mentor, I never tried mentorship before, but I could try my chanses as a co-mentor if it is needed. Please give him a second chance, if it works, it would be worth the nervous energy spent due to his scandalous behavior. abakharev 04:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a shame that Kurt, with his pesky pro-Nazi trolling and no valuable contributions at all, has not been permabanned as yet. I support the idea of mentorship for Deng, however. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's come to my attention that User:Bormalagurski is an administrator on the Serbian Wikipedia (http://sr.wikipedia.org). I seriously wonder whether this is a good idea, given his extremely poor conduct on the English Wikipedia (see my comments under #User:ChrisO's blocking of User:Bormalagurski above) and his continuous pushing of a hardline nationalist POV despite repeated requests to abide by WP:NPOV. It's absolutely not the sort of behaviour one should expect of an administrator. If he was an administrator on this wiki he would certainly have been desysopped. But should administrator misconduct on one wiki result in desysopping in another, or do we treat each wiki as a separate realm insulated from all of the others? -- ChrisO 22:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This may indicate disturbing things about sr, but I don't imagine "we" have much influence on who sr decides to give admin rights to. Jkelly 22:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can just mention this on Serbian Wikipedia Village pump, and users will discuss there after your report and arguments. --Pockey 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It could be an imposter, I suppose a coordinated checkuser could determine if it is likely they are the same. Prodego ^talk 23:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that there is a lot of pushing around of the term "nationalist" when anything about a east-European contributor or anyone who is involved in such articles. Still, there maybe actual truth in this one, as there as been evidence given higher up the page. Will (^E_@) T 23:23, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately we do have a problem with some users - many of them emigrés, not actual residents of the countries involved - using Wikipedia to push ultranationalist POVs, casting their side as victims and the other side as villains. This is true of users representing all sides in the Balkan conflicts, in my experience. Because of this, many of our articles on the Balkans are very badly written, unreferenced and full of POV commentary. I think it's highly likely that this is a multi-wiki problem due to the users involved being active on several wikis. However, I'm not aware of any mechanisms for dealing with multi-wiki problems, hence my question above. -- ChrisO 23:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I was around on sr.wiki, adminship was automatic. Pretty much everybody who stuck around for some time (a month or two) and had some number of edits got adminship. That, imho, explains a lot of it. --dcabrilo 23:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine that many, if not all of the small wikis will go through teething problems as they grow. sr is still very small (though by no means the smallest), it has about 32,000 pages and about 3,700 registered users, with 39 admins (see stats page). --bainer (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Paraphrasing User:Telex:

<spectie> don't they realise that the national language wikipedias are 
only used to coordinate POV attacks on the English language wikipedia?

Joking aside, this is a real problem. The Macedonian Wikipedia certainly has its problems too. Unfortunately there is not much that can be done, as insufficient non-X speak the various language[s]. - FrancisTyers 00:53, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see why this is an enwiki admin's problem. He's not an admin here, and never will be. He cannot possibly have exhibited administrator misconduct here having never been one, and we most certainly have no authority to desysop someone on another wiki by mincing about it on this page. If you have some problem with the user, as evidently you do, then use our dispute resolution procedures. If you're not asking for admin intervention, then don't use up time on the admin noticeboard with it. -Splash - tk 02:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Splash. I can't see how I can lose my admin priviledges on sr wiki, if I do something bad on en wiki. It just doesn't make sense. I have contributed a great deal to sr wiki, with over 6000 edits, and many new articles. ChrisO's goal of spreading his own POV, and his hate of me, has went too far, with him trying to ban me from a different Wikipedia, even though he has never seen what kind of edits I have made there. And anyways, for a user to lose his admin priviledges, a vote must be organized, and I doubt that the sr wiki admins will vote to expell me for misbehaiving on en wiki, and contributing greatly to sr wiki. Also, note that I've never made a single vandalist act on sr wiki, so think about who's the source of the problem here. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 04:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can contribute a deal over one milion edits, that is not important. Your conducts on sr Wiki is something what is problematic: protecting pages whitout motive and consulting other admins, threating for blocking other users also whitout reason. So, if you thing that you are St. Mary whitout sin on sr Wiki, you are note right. --Pockey 13:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, you're the one to talk. You were an admin on sr wiki, but you lost your admin priviledges after behaiving very... well, don't wanna make personal attacks... -- serbiana - talk 20:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost? Dont write nonsense. --Pockey 21:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a new admin at Hindi wikipedia. I wish to know how to edit the commands/links listed on the left side of the default wikipedia main page (of Hindi wiki). There are certain commands not used in Standard Hindi language. I am talking about the navigation / search and toolbox panels. I also want to edit the insertbox at Hindi wikipedia (at the bottom of the edit page) to inlcude more useful characters. Please reply at my talk page. Thanks in advance.Cygnus_hansa 23:12, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't speak Hindi, but in English, it is located at MediaWiki:Sidebar. I am not sure about the special characters box. Don't know if this helps at all, but it's the best I can do. Sorry. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha... the character field is located at (in English) MediaWiki:Edittools. Hope this can be of some help to you. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, it does work.Cygnus_hansa 15:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of unresponded to RFCUs, could we got some more admins on this? -- Mr. Tibbs 07:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Admins do not have checkuser rights. Not all, at least. NSLE _(T+C) at 07:43 UTC (2006-06-03)
  • I'd checkuser but I don't have that right. A good 20 or so have it, so it seems stange that only one user has to keep it all together.Voice-of-All^Talk 08:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • 13, all but 5 of whom are current arbitrators. Also, the are serious misconceptions in the community about what is involved in running, and most of the other checkers have either done their time (like David Gerard and Kelly Martin, who each were the sole public checker for months at a time), or aren't willing to put up with the unhindered abuse the is involved in the process. It is not a job that can be done in five minutes, nor is it one that brings rewards of any kind; it earns you near constant abuse, including legal and death threats. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been the only one running checks on RfCU for the last several weeks (Mackensen was running some as well before that, but I believe he is on break at the moment). Right now, I'm not running any checks, pending improvement of some issues at RfCU. If other checkusers would like to pick up where I've left off, they of course can, but if I'm going to go back to running them all, I need some clerks and some admins to back me up; those interested are welcome to ask how here or on my talk page. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 08:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have checkuser abilities, but I can help to a limited extent. If people are happy for me to do this, I'll filter through WP:RfCU and reject the requests that don't meet the policy stated at the top of the page. It'll make it easier for the checkuser-users... --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:25, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Typically a substantial portion of the requests on RFCU are out of policy, so that would likely be quite useful. Kelly Martin (talk) 22:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer that non-checkusers didn't reject requests; sometimes something looks too small for checkuser, but there is something going on underneath that needs investigating. Also, people tend to get upset when their requests are rejected by checkusers; I imagine this would only be more so if it was done by a non-checkuser. Most of the work I need help with is clerk-type work, so I've set up a clerk system to help keep things running. Those interested in helping with clerk work can find more information at Wikipedia:Requests for CheckUser/Clerks. In addition, I've cleaned out the backlog. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:HighwayCello keeps interfiering with all edits. Its like hes using me.

• It just Happens to be images I upload that he used (I din't create them but I uploaded them)
• It just happens to be articles I edit, he edits.
• It just happens that HighwayCello looks at every page I edit.

He seems to be following me around Wikipedia.

He might be checking my contributions to see what articles I edit, and then edit them (even though I don't know if that part is true)

Every time I make a talk comment in any of the talk pages withing the Pokémon portal, he tries to interfiere. When tried to tell an administrator at User talk:Actown, to do something about it, HighwayCello tried to reverse the action so he would blame me instead of HighwayCello. Thats another thing, he just happened to be posting comments on User talk:Actown.

He was rejected as an administrator (Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/HighwayCello) but is trying to pretend to be one by telling me what I can't do on Wikipedia when there was no message on any Wikipedia project page.

Please do something about this.

To HighwayCello: Please do not reply to this message as I know you'll try to reverse this message so the administrators will blame me instead of you.

I Love Minun 10:42, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's appropriate to say don't listen to him just take what I say as the truth. --pgk^(talk) 12:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I've mentioned on User:Iloveminun's talk page, it sure seems like User:Iloveminun is the one doing the personal attacks. I ask that User:Iloveminun please cease the same. -- Samir धर्म 14:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you point out which personal attacks you would like me to cease, since I'm not aware of any I have made. --pgk^(talk) 14:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So sorry Pgk, my comments were directed at User:Iloveminun. I've amended the above, as it seems ambiguous even to me on a second read -- Samir धर्म 16:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are making accusations about me, I have every right to defend myself. Full log - User:HighwayCello/Minun. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats ancient history. What you are doing is a lot worse.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iloveminun (talk • contribs) .

And nobody owns any page. You can't ask someone not to write on a page. It's not right (punning of me). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 18:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Admins --> Wikipedia talk:Selected anniversaries/June 3 --feydey 12:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done, thanks. feydey 14:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For future reference, reports of errors on the Main Page should go to WP:ERRORS for a fast response. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Chooserr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I have removed two instances of solicitation of funds for political purposes, through linking to an external donation web page, from each of Chooserr's user page and talk page. Chooserr had been editing but his response to requests by other editors that he remove the links was negative and defiant. --Tony Sidaway 14:39, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Negative and defiant? As soon as he logged on he replied to the person who'd warned him, and as he demonstrated on Tony's talk page, nobody bothered to explain to him that there was actually a policy violation there. Then Tony gives him this reply, and Chooserr does this and then on second thought, this. Congratulations, Wikipedia. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:37, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're being unnecessarily charitable towards Chooserr. Everybody knows this isn't where you come for fundraising. --Tony Sidaway 19:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody knows? Chooserr's had that link on his page for about six months, and nobody's ever said a word to him about it. How does he know that the "wide latitude" we allow in user space doesn't include what we've been allowing him for six months? It's not like an admin's never looked at his page. You think I'm being too charitable; I think you're being way too brash and disrespectful. Tony, you talk to people like they're misbehaving dogs and you're their master; it's disgusting. Would it kill you to treat people respectfully? -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be nice if occasionally an administrator wasn't pilloried for removing blatantly unsuitable material from the site and warning the editor in question. Your own part in this was unfortunate; you restored the solicitation link after another editor had correctly removed it after the warning. Don't make it worse by blaming others. --Tony Sidaway 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with you removing blatantly unsuitable material. I have a serious problem with your apparent inability to maintain courtesy. You contribute a lot to the Wiki, and we all appreciate that, but you are not above WP:CIVIL. If it's not readily apparent to you that you could have handled this situation much better, then I question your good sense.

As for my action, I explained it sufficiently at the time. Removing a link that had been sitting there for six months is not so urgent that it overrides our basic need to treat each other well. An administrator had left a warning, asking Chooserr to remove the material himself, and then acted on it before Chooserr had even logged on again, as least as indicated by his Contributions page. Then another editor vandalized the page by inserting different linkspam. Having a choice of which version to revert to, I chose the version where Chooserr still had a chance to remove the offending link himself, because what's the point in giving someone a chance to fix something for himself, if you're going to just do it before he actually gets that chance? I err on the side of respect, because it pays to maintain an atmosphere in which people treat each other excellently.

Again, to be very clear, you have mischaracterized my statements. I am not criticizing you for removing the link. I am criticizing you for talking down to other human beings. It's unnecessary, rude, counterproductive, and against policy.

Oh, another thing: I'm not "blaming" you for anything. I'm just saying be more respectful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a minor correction, GTBacchus. Timothy Usher did leave a request (I wouldn't call it a warning), but you're incorrect in stating that an administrator did. Timothy is not an admin. Jumping in to remove it before Chooserr had logged on was, of course, unfortunate, as it made it more difficult for Chooserr to do so without losing face. AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For those of you just joining us, Alienus (talk · contribs) has been embroiled in a long struggle with this user; see his talk page. Isopropyl 21:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I've failed to maintain courtesy, GTBacchus, then you're right to reprove me. I agree that Alienus was very, very naughty and he's been given warnings by Nandesuka and (when he told me about that warning) me. There may be some minor details of timing here but I won't go into those, just observe that at the time I removed the links he'd been told about the problem and was being pretty stroppy about it. It really doesn't take an immense amount of thought to realise that what Chooserr was doing is absolutely prohibited, anywhere on Wikipedia, even on Chooserr's talk page and user page.

Chooserr has a pretty massive block log and does seem to have a history of biased editing [19]. Had he come here to produce unbiased edits but had only popped a fundraising link onto his user page by accident, then of course a lighter approach would have been appropriate. But Chooserr isn't about that at all. He uses his user page to advertise his pet causes, though he does so in a reasonably Wikipedian way:

• American Life League
• The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights
• Pro-Life Alliance
• SPUC
• Student LifeNet

• British Weights and Measures Association
• Foundation for Endangered Languages

Now Chooserr has been up to this for six months. Hooray! Let's allow him to continue to engage in political fundraising for another three weeks or so. Or should we just remove the bloody horrible thing and tell him not to abuse Wikipedia again? --Tony Sidaway 00:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First I was "pillorying" you for removing inappropriate material, and when that turned out not to be true, I'm suggesting that you put off removing the material for three weeks. Where will you go when that turns out to be false?

I'm actually quite familiar with Chooserr's history. I remember him new at Wikipedia, getting blocked left and right, and I watched him learn how to edit here, and how to use the talk page instead of revert warring, and how images have copyrights that we have to worry about, and I have seen him become a valuable member of the editing team on some articles that we both work on. He hasn't been blocked since the last time I blocked him in February, because he's improved, and he's helping build the encylcopedia. The linkspam on his page - you were right, it had to go - but I see a human being there, and I have no problem having a conversation explaining to him about why the links aren't cool. You know, changing the culture one person at a time? Apparently, you don't see a human worthy of respect, all you see is "abuse"; and who has time for a conversation or a civil interaction, when you could be bossy and contemptuous instead? It's efficient, that contempt stuff.

So apparently, I'm asking that we screw around for three weeks, and "allow abuse" or something; that's right, Tony. Christ. You really think the small effort of treating someone respectfully is a big waste? That's all I'm talking about. You're right about everything, of course, but you could treat people better, and you should, because it matters. Stop contributing to an atmostphere of combativeness. Play well with others. This is all I'm saying. If you want to blow a bunch of smoke about how I'm harassing you for removing unsuitable content, or what a "bad user" Chooserr is anyway, and how he was being "stroppy" (what a load of horseshit), I don't buy it, and I don't give a fuck either. None of that is an excuse for you to be a dick. Stop poisoning the well, because I care about this project a lot, and I don't like you marring it with your antisocial attitude. If I see you shitting on people, I will call you out on it.

Now, are you going to find another way to miss the point, and drag this out longer, or what? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen the odd user page or two asking for donations via Paypal in return for their wiki contributions. Is this also frowned upon? -- Longhair 00:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly not. I don't know. --Tony Sidaway 18:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Depends who you ask. Me, if it helps build the encyclopedia, then so be it (but certainly don't spam asking for it). Hell, I wouldn't mind some pocket money myself for the hours I've put in here. Snoutwood (talk) 18:24, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Chooserr - Enforcing policy doesn't require trampling on other editors

Chooserr had those links for months. I haven't checked the history to see how long exactly. I had noticed them before, and had found them inappropriate for a Wikipedia user page. However, I have seen user pages and user talk pages with pictures of penises (and I don't mean just the one recently reported at WP:AN/I; I have seen user pages which attacked or belittled other users. I saw no reason to barge in and trample on another editor — especially when it involved an editor who might feel ganged up against. This has been discussed before at one of the admin noticeboards. Chooserr has been blocked (or had blocks increased) for doing things that were not against policy, but were disruptive (welcoming too many new users, saving his talk page every minute while blocked, in the hope that someone would see his unblock request on Recent Changes). I am quite sure that I could have stopped some of the problems without resorting to a block — just by asking nicely. Editors who have openly wiki-stalked him, reverting his good-faith edits with "rvv" or "mindless, incoherent troll" were never blocked. For those reasons, I prefer to be extra gentle and extra tactful when dealing with Chooserr. I have found, also, that he responds much better to people making polite requests than to people bullying or threatening him. (Don't we all?)

At 16:35 (UTC) on 1 June, Alienus removed the link from Chooserr's talk page with no prior warning or request. The edit summary said this is offensive enough on a user page; it doesn't belong on a talk page.[20] Note that Chooserr did not edit Wikipedia between 31 May and 3 June, so presumably did not see it at the time.

At 20:01 on 1 June, Elliskev reverted, with rvv.[21]

At 20:05 on 1 June, Elliskev sent Alienus a {{tpv2}} message.[22]

There was some discussion then at Alienus's talk page, and at Elliskev's talk page. It later spread to Timothy Usher's talk page. At one stage, Elliskev removed Alienus's message (asking him to AGF) from his talk page. Alienus promptly sent him a {{civil}} message and commented on the rudeness of deleting a message, although he routinely deletes any message he receives from Nandesuka using popups. Elliskev deleted the {{civil}} warning as well, though after discussion with Timothy, he restored these messages.

At 02:31 on 2 June, Timothy posted a message to Chooserr saying that the link was inappropriate, and politely requesting him to remove it.[23]

At 04:05 on 3 June, Timothy posted to Chooserr: As you've not responded, I've done it. [24] Note that Chooserr had not edited at all since the request was made, and so had presumably not been online.

At 04:06 on 3 June, Timothy removed the link, but kept the words "Make Abortion History".[25]

At 05:15 on 3 June, Alienus vandalized Chooserr's talk page by linking "Make Abortion History" to the donation page of Planned Parenthood — edit summary: a link is fine, so long as it's not to anything partisan.[26] The page now looked exactly as it had looked before Timothy removed the link, but the link was to the donation page of a pro-choice website, rather than of a pro-life one.

At 05:23 on 3 June, GTBacchus restored the page to Chooserr's version — certainly not out of approval of the link (Chooserr and GTB disagree on article content), but presumably because he felt annoyed by the vandalism and harassment, and felt that the removal of a link which had already been several months on a page which visitors browsing Wikipedia would be unlikely to see was a less urgent matter than treating another human being with respect.[27]

At 05:51 GTBacchus pointed out that Chooserr had not even logged on, and that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now".[28]

At 05:53 on 3 June, Timothy posted, "Okay, let's wait until he's logged on."[29]

There was also discussion on Alienus's talk page showing that Alienus was defiant, unrepentant, and flippant.

Most editors who logged on to find all that in the page history would find it a bit galling to remove the link. Once again, I agree it shouldn't have been there, but for Alienus (who is in constant dispute with Chooserr, and who at the time had offensive comments about three editors on his own talk page) to barge in and remove it without request or warning, for Timothy to jump the gun by removing it before Chooserr had had a chance to respond, and for Alienus then to vandalize his page by linking to something that promoted the opposing POV must all have have contributed towards making Chooserr feel that he didn't want to remove the link. I saw the history of his talk page just before I went into work on Saturday morning, and decided I'd ask him myself to remove the link: I felt fairly sure he would agree, and it would all blow over. I have found that Chooserr responds well to being treated with ordinary human respect — something which unfortunately does not seem to have been tried by Alienus or Tony in this case.

In fact, at 06:50 on 3 June (his first edit in three days) Chooserr wrote to Timothy, thanking him for his comments, saying that they were obviously well meant, and that he might remove the tags.[30] I wouldn't call that "negative", "defiant", or "stroppy". Nine minutes later, he posted a fairly mild message to Alienus, asking him not to vandalize his page.[31] His next edit, at 07:25 was to his own user page, where he removed two links to external sites requesting donations for the pro-life cause, and kept the remaining one. I would call that a step in the right direction, not being "negative", "defiant", and "stroppy". I would also consider it to be evidence that reasoning with Chooserr would be better than bullying him.

When I got home from work, I discovered that Alienus had added "Well, he's logged on and entirely unrepentant" at 14:05[32] (No sign of any repentence from Alienus for his own trolling, vandalism, and insult.)

At 14:13, 14:19, 14:20, and 14:34, Tony Sidaway made four edits to Chooserr's talk page, removing the link, calling it "completely inappropriate", threatening "to block [Chooserr] for linkspamming if [he] insist[ed] on abusing Wikipedia in this way". That must have been especially galling for Chooserr since Alienus had not been threatened with a block. (He was subsequently threatened by Nandesuka.) Tony may have been unaware of the vandalism, but was able to make (false) statements here about Chooserr having been "negative and defiant".

At 18:28 on 3 June, Tony told Alienus that his edit (linking Chooserr's page to a Planned Parenthood donation page) was "out of order", and asked him "please" not to do stuff like that again.[33] (No "completely out of line", no threats to block.)

At 19:07 on 3 June, Tony, in response to Chooserr's protest that he would have taken down the link himself if someone had shown him it was against policy, said "You've been told now. Happy?"[34]

I have just two questions for Tony and Alienus:

1. Would it have been possible to get that link removed without threats and vandalism?
2. Assuming that it was possible, would it have been preferable to get it removed without threats and vandalism?

I'm quite, quite sure that I, or GTBacchus, or FreplySpang would have been able to get those links removed without trampling on Chooserr, without making him feel that someone who had vandalized his talk page was vindicated (note that Alienus claimed elsewhere that his action had been redone by another admin), and without resorting to threats of blocks. Tony, you've managed to get that link removed, which is good for the project, so you probably feel that this has been a success, but in my view, the only people who could be happy at the way this was done are people who don't think that real human beings with real feelings matter. GTBacchus has come out of this extremely well. Nobody else has.

AnnH ♫ 11:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware of Alienus' vandalism. In fact alienus later told me about Nandesuka's warning (which contained a block threat [35]). I told alienus not to do it again, feeling that a further block threat was superfluous as he'd stopped. Personally I would probably have blocked alienus without a warning had I been aware of the vandalism at the time. He is an experienced editor and should know better.

Alienus' vandalism to a certain extent explains and mitigates Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude. I think it's possible, though it seems incredibly unlikely, that Chooserr didn't realise that what he was doing on his talk page and user page was quite beyond the pale. --Tony Sidaway 13:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you probably were not aware of Alienus's vandalism at the time, and I agree that since he was unlikely to do it again, a further block threat was superfluous. My problem was with the block threat that you issued to Chooserr. If Jimbo came to your talk page to tell you that he'll block you if you vandalize his user page, there would be an implication that he suspected you of intending to, which would be unfair. Your non vandalism could then be seen by others as simply a result of that threat (that you knew you wouldn't get away with it), which would make you lose face, and would be undeserved. In my view, the threat of blocking Chooserr was also undeserved — much more so than a threat to Alienus would have been, as Alienus did something that was definitely malicious and definitely intended to taunt Chooserr, whereas Chooserr was simply linking to something unsuitable which he probably thought he could link to. As GTBacchus says, he had had it there for months, administrators had frequently visited his page, and nobody had said anything. Chooserr edits articles closely related to his own interests, and shows little interest in Project pages concerning policy. He may have heard that we allow a "wide latitude" concerning user pages. In any case, I don't agree that what he was doing was "quite beyond the pale". If it had been, someone would have protested earlier. I do agree it was inappropriate, but feel sure (and GTBacchus and I both have more experience of Chooserr than you do) that it was in good faith. I personally believe that putting images of penises and/or human excrement on one's talk page is "quite beyond the pale". And I think that what Alienus did was "quite beyond the pale".

What worries me, Tony, is that while you have acknowledged that Alienus's vandalism was a mitigating factor, you still use language like "Chooserr's uncooperative and defiant attitude", which ties in with your original language of "defiant", "negative", and "being pretty stroppy about it". You haven't offered any diffs to show that he was defiant, negative, or stroppy, and GTBacchus and I have both given diffs to show that his first post after being made aware of the objections was a polite one to Timothy saying "I thank you for your comments. They are obviously well meant, and I might remove the tag(s) . . . I'm not trying to cause trouble", and that he then removed two of the three links he had. He was probably still thinking about the remaining one. Nobody had shown him it was against policy. All he had been treated to was vandalism, taunts, and people taking the matter out of his hands while he was offline and before he was aware of any objections.

I recall as long ago as last summer I began to notice that you sometimes voted to support RfAs of people with whom you had been in dispute, and I thought, "that's decent of him; he's obviously fair." It wasn't just once or twice: I noticed it many times. And now I see you most unjustly (in my view) threatening someone with a block and reporting him as "defiant", "negative", "stroppy" and "uncooperative" without any justification whatsoever. Everything I've seen about you suggests that you care deeply about the project — but we're dealing here with a real human being who has feelings.

I used to have a Catholic user box on my user page, plus a pro-life one, plus a homemade one that said I was obedient to the Pope, plus another one that said I agreed with Humanae Vitae. At that time, many people had user boxes. I was completely unaware that Jimbo didn't want it. When Jimbo made his very courteous request, clarifying how he felt, appealing for our cooperation, etc., I thought about it for a few days, and then took away all my boxes except the homemade "obedient-to-Benedict" one. I felt he'd find that less objectionable because it wasn't in template space, and I had made it myself, so it didn't encourage a "clubbing together" of editors. He never (as far as I know) specified his views on boxes in user space, and I watched to see if he would. Eventually, when redesigning my user page, I removed even the Benedict one. I think it would have been quite inappropriate to describe me as "negative", "defiant", "stroppy", and "uncooperative", and to have threatened me with a block while I was thinking about it. But the end of the story is that the boxes were removed, and nobody bullied me or took away my dignity. Chooserr's story didn't have such a happy ending.

By the way, Alienus has continued to hassle Chooserr, by removing an extremely mild post from one of Chooserr's friends[36] and by sending him a {{welcome}} message in its place, because the page looked "empty".[37] He's gaming the system, because he feels he can't get blocked for sending someon a welcome message, but it's pure impertinence, coming from someone in dispute with Chooserr, whose messages Chooserr definitely doesn't welcome, and when Chooserr has been here for over six months. He was then what I would call defiant and uncooperative, when GTBacchus asked him would it not be better to leave Chooserr alone, feigning innocence, pretending not to know what GTB was talking about, saying that he didn't see how the welcome message could be seen as any kind of insult etc. See here.

Anyway, the main point of all this is that in my view Chooserr was not negative, defiant, uncooperative, or stroppy, and should not have been threatened with a block. When it was brought to his attention, he answered nicely, took away two of the links, and was presumably still thinking about the third, at a time when nobody had shown him any policy that forbade it. It would be nice of you, Tony, if you could leave a message on his talk page telling him that you see that nobody had shown him the policy, that he wasn't refusing to remove the link, and that you shouldn't have threatened him. AnnH ♫ 20:40, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I could have misread Chooserr's attitude. It did seem to me that continuing to have that link up and continuing to edit without doing anything about it spelled deliberate defiance in very unambiguous terms, and what appeared to me as a patronisingly-worded "I'll think about it"-type response was very negative.

I think I got it wrong here. I'll apologise on User talk:Chooserr for the tone of my warning message. --Tony Sidaway 23:33, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Tony. That was very nice of you, and I'm sure that Chooserr appreciated it. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tony. I wholeheartedly agree with your action, but also with Ann's description of your tone, and am really pleased to see this being resolved favorably on both fronts.

And Ann, as for no one looking good but GTBacchus - you've criticized me for removing it before Chooserr came back online, but the link violated policy - why should it have remained just because Chooserr was taking a wikibreak? I also condemned Alienus' gratuitous post-removal vandalism. Both were out of line. Though I don't, as you note, have the power to block for vandalism, I do have the ability to remove links that shouldn't be, and I used it.

I personally don't understand the level of hostility towards pro-life here - it seems to me an issue upon which good-faith disagreement is natural and hardly cause for demonization - but maintain that it shouldn't be exacerbated by irrelevant (to wikipedia) statements in userspace. Since then, Chooserr has taken issue with another editors' user-page discussion of his transsexuality (pardon me if I've abused the increasingly arcane rules of jargon), which I personally (key word) find kind of disturbing as well, though as Tony rightly asserts, it's well within current policy. I honestly don't know why we need any of it. Who cares if you're pro-life? Who cares if you're Muslim? Who cares if you're transgendered? It's all off-topic and pointlessly divisive.Timothy Usher 06:02, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy, I disagreed with your removal of the link while Chooserr was still offline, but if it was criticism, it was of the mildest kind. I didn't feel shocked or angry, just "I wish he'd left Chooserr to do it himself." People prefer to be asked to do something without the "and-if-you-don't-I-will" threat. I agreed with GTBacchus's remark that "respectfully waiting for a reply" was "more important than making [the link] be gone now", but I wouldn't push the point. There's room for disagreement there, based on how much we think the link violates policy and how urgent we think its removal is. Remember, it was there for six months, and several administrators (pro-choice ones as well) visited his talk page and didn't protest. You say it violated policy, so why should it remain while he's on wiki-break? Well, I'm convinced that such a solicitation is against what Jimbo Wales intends Wikipedia to be, and that's good enough for me; but I'm not convinced that it violates any explicit policy. Wikipedia is not a soapbox deals with what you shouldn't have in an article; it doesn't say what you may or may not have on your user page. POV edits violate policy, but you can't remove them a fourth time in 24 hours: you have to leave them there. I personally think it's more urgent to get rid of something that shouldn't be in an article, because visitors who look up something in Wikipedia are unlikely to navigate to Chooserr's talk page. I think that allowing Chooserr to do the right thing of his own accord would have been preferable to urgently removing the link. It wasn't as if the link was to a site that gave personal information about other editors. And it wasn't as if Chooserr had been gone for a month. Can we agree to disagree on this? My "disapproval" of what you did was so mild that I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it anywhere if the whole business of Chooserr's "negative and defiant" attitude hadn't been brought up here. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. For those of you just joining us, my name is Al, and AnnH has been talking about me here. Whatever her motivation, the net effect has been to shift the focus away from Chooserr's inappropriate advertisement and towards my response. Of course, this is a logical fallacy to begin with, as nothing I do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts.

I'll try to be brief, because this is Chooserr's incident report, not mine. What I'd like to state for the record is that any editor reading this would be unwise to take AnnH's summaries of my actions at face value. With all due respect, her descriptions are misleading in a negative fashion.

Now, I realize that, due to her rather strong Christian POV (which is coincidentally shared by Chooserr), she and I have a history of conflict. Coincidentally, she's acted a few times to encourage others to block me and extend my blocks, and has generally sided against me whenever we've interacted. I guess we disagree on a bunch of stuff. However, I don't believe that this is sufficient basis to excuse her violation of WP:AGF, much less her apparent willingness to play fast and loose with the facts.

I'll give you one quick example and then walk away. As some of you know, there's a particular trio of editors who I've had much more conflict with than is healthy for anyone. The result has been a trio of blocks, after which I resolved not to repeat my error by continuing to interact with them. As a result, I put a short, polite message at the top of my page explaining why, to avoid confrontation, I would simply remove any comments from them rather than respond and further antagonize them.

If you read it for yourself, you can see that the message expressed some frustration, but was still quite civil [38]. Note that nobody, not even AnnH, ever complained that it was uncivil. More significantly, as that diff shows, the moment one of those three extended the olive branch, I immediately accepted it and removed the message.

That's the reality. In the world according to AnnH, I had "offensive comments about three editors on [my] own talk page". See what I mean? Similar distortions can be found in each and every case where she brings up my name.

With all due respect, I feel hurt by Ann's remarks and wish she hadn't made them. In the end, all I can ask is that you use your own eyes and judgement instead of depending on hers. I'm only peripherally involved in this Chooserr issue and don't wish to be drawn in any further, so I'm going to walk away now, as promised. Please don't be distracted by this silliness; the Chooserr issue still needs to be resolved, and no amount of focus on me will help. Thank you for understanding. Al 06:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anyone in this conversation but valuable editors, of undoubted good faith, and certainly none of us needs to be characterized as "the bad guy". -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you should inform Ann of that fact, since she seems interested in characterizing me as the bad guy, so as to spare Chooserr. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think I just said, in my above post? I just called you a "valuable editor" and said there's not need to characterize you as the bad guy. Why did you think I posted that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm pointing out that this is something that Ann in specific ought to read. Al 16:56, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When in a hole - stop digging. Agathoclea 17:35, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alienus, it is perfectly appropriate to bring up your vandalism of Chooserr's talk page in this section, where Chooserr's attitude was being discussed. You say that it's irrelevant because nothing you do can excuse Chooserr's prior acts. I think it has generally been agreed now that Chooserr was unaware that he was in violation of any policy when he put the link there, and your vandalism is very relevant to the discussion of Chooserr's attitude after he was requested to remove the link (an attitude which was Tony has now agreed he may have misjudged). If you don't want your feelings hurt by reference to your vandalism, I suggest you don't vandalize. I don't think there are many Wikipedians who will argue that changing Chooserr's MAKEABORTIONHISTORY link so that it looked the same as before but now linked to the Planned Parenthood donation page instead of to a Catholic Pro-life charity was not vandalism. If an Ulster Protestant puts Ian Paisley on his user page in a list of admirable people, and I change it so that it links to Pope Benedict XVI while still saying Ian Paisley, that is vandalism, pure and simple. Nandesuka called it vandalism and threatened a block, Timothy called it vandalism, Tony called it vandalism and said he would probably have blocked you without warning if he had seen it at the time, and GTBacchus reverted it and told you that it was "not cool". I suggest that instead of edit warring at my talk page to put bogus {{civil1}} warnings there because of my post above, you explain why I'm mistaken in calling it vandalism.

By the way, I acknowledge that you did remove your reference to the three editors who were (according to you) responsible for your last three blocks when Nandesuka extended the olive branch. However, what I said was that at the time that you removed something from Chooserr's talk page on the grounds that it was offensive, you had something on your talk page that was offensive. You may not think it was offensive, but then Chooserr probably didn't think his link was offensive either. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on UK time so have just read all this (one of the userboxes I think is useful) and I think it's sad to see so much stereotyping of other editors. One very interesting interaction I had on Intelligent design brought it home to me how without realising it we do interpret other editors messages by guessing their intent. I have also seen persona non grata editors have their very valid suggestions ignored or challenged as other editors have chosen to disregard their edits no matter what. Tim was right that the link did not need to stand - this is a wiki so no one owns space. Ann is right that tact always works best and Al is right that this report is about Chooserr's inappropriate link. Unfortunately conflict does happen but we should be prepared to AGF and not always fall into the trap of viewing the edits of people we share a POV with favourably and those of editors we clash with as "attacks" or "vandalism". Sophia 09:21, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said Sophia. May I add it does not go down very well in calling people sock/meat-puppets because they agree with opponents edits. Constant defence fighting does not help ones image. Agathoclea 10:27, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also it is often said that "converts are the most dangerous". So after convincing C that POV links on ones userpage in a no-no it is not surprising to see him looking for the same mistake elsewhere. Agathoclea 10:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some believe that others should suffer as they do. Others believe that their own suffering is bad enough and need not be repeated. I lean towards the latter, myself. Al 03:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I want to second Alienus' characterizations of AnnH's tendency to not simply report the facts relevant to the case, but to expand them against antoher editor with a bad faith spin that can be viewed as a distortion. This is not to say that AnnH is not reporting what she genuinely believes to be the case. I always assume good faith, but I note that this occurs only when she is commenting about editors with whom she finds herself on the opposite side of the ideological fence with (what she has called enemies). So, in her view, Alienu's message about his conflict with the three other editors could very well be, in her eyes, "offensive messages left by AI...," but she does not use NPOV language to state this belief of hers, but states it as if Alienus is guilty as a matter of fact of doing these bad things, being in essence uncivil by leaving offense remarks about other editors, etc. This is why Alienus feels attacked here, because he is being attacked. Its also true that this is supposed to be about a specific incident regarding Chooser, but AnnH felt the need to bring up other "evidence" to try to paint a negative picture of Alieus, which is not really related and which distracts from the issue. This is something that is also a common technique that AnnH uses. I've seen it many times. Therefore, I highly recommend that whenever AnnH comments about a user that she has direct POV conflicts with, take her views of the matter with great caution as you will need to shift through what is relevant and what is not, as well as to filter out the significant bias in the editorializing and spin that is sure to come from such a partisan editor.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I expand them "with a bad faith spin", and you "always assume good faith"? Hmmm. How would you describe my "bad faith spin" if you weren't assuming good faith? And is your reference to my bringing up unrelated issues something to do with the fact that I sometimes bring up the way you pretended to have no conncetion to BelindaGong (who was reverting and voting for you) until a checkuser exposed that it was the same IP, and that while you were blocked for puppetry, you were asked if you had any connection to any of the other new users who were reverting to your version, and you denied it — forgetting that you were logged on as one of them![39]

Giovanni, I won't bring up these "unrelated issues" except where:

1. We're working on an article, you run out of reverts, and an account that shows that its purpose on Wikipedia is to revert and vote for you (and that has the same linguistic idiosyncrasies and spelling mistakes which I won't alert you to, but which I'll e-mail to any admin who requests it) shows up and supports you; or
2. I'm dealing with a separate administrative issue, unrelated to you, and you turn up to tell all the other administrators about my history of bringing up unrelated issues. They might just be puzzled and want to know what you're talking about.

It would be preferable to stick to what's relevant to the case of Chooserr, Giovanni. I don't know why you want to bring up past issues. You never come out of it well when you do. AnnH ♫ 14:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandal Marknw continues to vandalize Unification Church-related pages, inserting the same blatantly anti-UC comments on every page he finds, and spams talkpages despite multiple warnings. I am now monitoring his edits but it would be good if an administrator would block him. KI 19:28, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a vandal. See Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 19:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) It seems to me that the guy is acting in good faith--not particularly constuctively, but in good faith. Rather than reverting his edits, try contacting him and discussing the changes he wants to implement and why. In any case, I don't see a need to block here over a content dispute. Sorry. AmiDaniel (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that User:KI is acting tempermentally. He has blanked his talk page and left nasty notes on my page and on Jcoplanes' [40]. -Will Beback 20:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting worse:[41]. I think this user needs a wikibreak to remember how to be civil. -Will Beback 21:19, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It will only get worse until you stop vandalizing my talkpage. I will not stop reverting Marknw's mass vandalism and I will not stop standing up to your tyranny. Jacoplane, I suggest you stop encouraging vandalism and spamming. KI 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that user User:Tchadienne asserts to be the same contributor as user:KI on User_talk:Jimbo_Wales.Andries 17:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm blocking any sock indefinetely. Sasquatch t|c 00:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm talking to him about the civility issue. He's right about POV bias in the edits (stating as fact that something is "specious", "revisionist", and "pseudoscientific" just isn't "neutral"), but obviously needs to address the problem differently. As to the 'socks', I'm not sure the term really applies since he has asked for the prior account to be shut down and openly declared the change... it's not like he is hiding anything. He apparently just thinks he can 'start over'. --CBDunkerson 11:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last time I asked this question, I was blocked. I would like to know if one can really use a comicbook as a source for an article about the same comicbook. The same goes for movies: can someone use a particular movie - say Pulp Fiction - to write an article about Pulp Fiction and use only the movie as a source? Another admin whom I corrosponded with said that in the Plot Section, there should be a third-party reference and I agree; elsewise, it's the author that must interpret the plot and then the article falls under Original Research and reads as a review, instead of an encyclopedia article. --Candide, or Optimism 19:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user's problem is that there is no 'independent source' for the plot of movies. --InShaneee 19:44, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bingo! Should there be independent sources for the plot section or can anyone write about the plot? --Candide, or Optimism 19:48, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The movie isn't going to write its own plot summary. --InShaneee 19:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You were not blocked for asking this question, and your repeated assertion that you are is just more of your continued trolling. You were blocked for violating WP:POINT because you were unhappy that I would have the temerity to ask for a source for one of the articles you held dear, so you went off and started demanding sources for every other article you could find. I suggest you stop this continued trolling. User:Zoe|^(talk) 19:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I had stopped doing that after your first warning, so how can I have been blocked for that if I was no longer doing it? I had stopped removing unsourced info long before your block. Anyway, this is off-topic. I'm just here to get a few answers to my inquiry, if you don't mind. --Candide, or Optimism 19:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's now brought this up again as retrobution for my warning him for personal attacks. --InShaneee 19:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm quite aware of that. Could you please explain that to Mikkalai, my stalker? User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. We should swap detractors sometime! --InShaneee 21:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Calling an oldtimer and respectful admin for stalker is quite uncivil. He didn't stalk you. He saw the situation and acted on it. --Candide, or Optimism 20:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exploding Boy had may personal attacks upon myself during the course of editing. He decided to make up a new name for me here ("Chuckwagon") and said that my edits were useless here. I gave him a {{Npa-n}} warning here in regards to the edits. Here he removed the warning, and then I added it back with a removing warnings message. He removed that one and tried explaining on my talk page (in a not very civil tone) that I had no idea what I was talking about. I added the warning back with a {{Wr2}} message, which is the final warning for removing warnings. He has since removed all of the warnings. He has been notified that he can/will be blocked for this and has told me to "stop threatening [him] with] a block". I believe a block is the proper course of action after receiving a {{Wr2}} and blanking warnings after that. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of an npa warning is to make the user aware of the policy. I can assure you that he is now aware of it. Beyond that, the state of his talk page is really for him to worry about, not you or me. Henry^Flower 20:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not certain what your talking about. Npa is a warning, and he removed it. If he had talked about the problem, I wouldn't have cared, but he didn't. He removed it, removed it again, and removed it again. It may not be our place to say the state of his talk page, but he cannot remove warnings, that is a clear-cut policy. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 20:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, please note that using templates to communicate with an experienced user can be seen as offensive or inflammatory, especially when you have been involved in a dispute with that user. FreplySpang 21:03, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Removing warnings is a proposed policy. It is not policy. Henry^Flower 21:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't referring to Wikipedia:Removing warnings, but to Wikipedia:Vandalism, where under types of vandalism it has "Removing warnings". WP:V isan official policy. And just because he is an experienced user who was committing personal attacks, doesn't mean he can't get a warning template. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 21:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a very important may in that wording. You seem to misunderstand the whole point of the npa warning: it's not a black mark to give out to naughty people; it's a device to make people aware of the policy as efficiently as possible. It's not an appropriate way to communicate with established editors who are likely to know the policy already. Henry^Flower 21:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Henry is, to be sure, correct; for new users, the templates do sometimes serve as more than edifying devices, as they allow other editors to see that a user has been apprised of our policies and guidelines, in order that, should he/she continue to flout those guidelines, further warning or blocking may occur. Here, the warning serves, at best, to inform EB that you took his comments to be personal attacks; once he has read the warning and apprehended your meaning, he may remove it. I think it's a bit untoward to remove warnings--or any commentary, really--from one's talk page, believing that one ought to reply to, rather than excise, comments with which he/she disagrees, but neither would I try to compel others to act similarly nor would I support a blanket proscription on removing warnings (which does not now exist). Finally, even as EB's comments were indecorous (although Chuckwagon seems a jocular, if unduly informal and perhaps patronizing, appellative, and certainly not a personal attack), I don't think they rise of the level of blockable personal attacks; in this instance, you would be better served to leave an actual note on his talk page, to the effect that his edits bothered you and that you perceived them as personal attacks, the cessation of which you would, as you continue to collaborate with him and others, appreciate. Joe 21:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Having been one of the targets of User:Chcknwnm's recent NPA tagging spree, I also think he's grossly misusing the template as a warning for those he thinks are being uncivil. Please try using your own works to discuss the concerns you have instead of lobbing templates. You might also want to review the personal attack policy for a bit of clarification on what a personal attack really looks like. Shell ^babelfish 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is long over (relatively), but I wanted to clarify that my spree consisted of adding the template to two people's talk, Shell and EB. I realize I should have said the comments were uncivil rather than PA's. I had made a mistake. However, removing warnings should still be discouraged/disallowed until they are discussed. Chuck^(척뉴넘) 07:31, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Andrew Norman has erased this public domain photo http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg off my user page and also protected my user page because he claims the photo is fair use, even though there is proof that the photo is public domain. Please help me. -- serbiana - talk 21:47, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explain how it is public domain. Sasquatch t|c 21:51, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's tagged fair use on Wikipedia (Image:Subotica_city_hall.jpg). --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:52, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The website it's from says it's copyrighted... I think we need to tag it for copyvio?Sasquatch t|c 21:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mean on Commons? --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 21:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did. Jkelly 21:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are two versions of the same image - Image:Subotica city hall.jpg (the image from the user page) is tagged as fair use, the version on Commons is tagged as PD with no information as to the source - it is unlikely that a recent aerial photo of a building is actually in the public domain. It was removed by Ed g2s, Bormalagurski's response was to leave abuse on User:Ed g2s's userpage and to restore the image. I have rolled back that restoration, twice, and protected the page to prevent it from being restored again. --ajn (talk) 22:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always sceptical of people that make a complaint about an admin that includes the phrase "admin abuse". Such complains are typically irrational. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 22:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that Bormalagurski was asked, then forced, to remove a bunch of uncivil links from his user page yesterday (associating Croatia with fascism). He is now asking to have the page unprotected so he can put an alternative image of his hometown there. I'm not inclined to do it myself (he claims to have left the English Wikipedia, so I don't see the point), but I won't object if someone else wants to unprotect the page. --ajn (talk) 22:05, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have decided to stop contributing, but I'd like my page to be left pretty. Also, the "uncivil" links, I've replaced with my biography, others just wanted to erase the whole thing. So, if my page is unprotected, I promise to put an alternate image of my hometown, and nothing else, If you let me do that, I will stop editing my userpage for good. Thank you. -- serbiana - talk 22:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? -- serbiana - talk 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Boris, but please don't go beyond what you've said you'll do. -- ChrisO 23:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And he did go beyond what he said he would - a huge box opposing the independence of Kosovo. I've rolled back to the state where he has the picture he wanted, and protected the page again. --ajn (talk) 07:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could say I was surpised but I'm not, frankly - it's not the first time he's edited in bad faith. Oh well. -- ChrisO 13:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would User:Ricardo Lagos be an inproper username as there is a president called Ricardo Lagos? Especially when he is editing that page and has a sock puppet called User:Ricardo Eduardo Lagos Cerda (indef blocked). I would say that he should be able to keep his sockpuppet and indef block the prima account as an improper username.... -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 01:52, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The actual name of the president seems obviously unsuitable. I say keep the sockpuppet block, and let the user find a suitable new name. Tyrenius 02:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My idea, so I have blocked indef. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:44, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he created the User:Ricardo Eduardo Lagos Cerda account at my suggestion because of the potential for confusion between User:Ricardo Lagos and Ricardo Lagos. It's a name change, not a sockpuppet. The User:Ricardo Lagos account shouldn't have been used anymore. Obviously though it is, and there is a stunning lack of useful contributions from either account, so I'm not pushing for an unblock on either. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 11:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I left a message at the page, and although he has not the most usefull contributions, if he want to use that other one, I am not going to resist that (after consultation with the indef blocking admin). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 14:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what name he uses, if he continues the vandalism, he will be blocked. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New User:Kaley c is getting a "you're blocked message" but her block log is empty. I am responding to her {{helpme}} msg. Is it possible that the IP s/he is editing from has been blocked? Could someone please clarify/unblock? Thanks. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 02:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

She likely shares an IP address with a blocked user. The blocked message displays the IP address you're using... if she can tell me that I can unblock the IP address and she can resume editing. --Lord Deskana ^{Dark Lord of the Sith} 02:06, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering if someone, if they think it is appropriate, could speedy close Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mrozinski and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/24/24 World Concert. There have only been delete recommendations on both nominations. On the first nomination, User:Mrozinski, believed to be a secondary account of the article's creator, User:2424, is repeatedly recommending delete and insulting people (he might be User:70.170.76.235, too). The same thing is going on at the concert article, except that the 2424 account is recommending deletion and insulting people rather than Mrozinski. I think the articles should be deleted quickly so that he can go on his way as soon as possible. -- Kjkolb 02:07, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are categories for speedy deletion. When articles don't meet them, they go to AfD, so the community has the chance to debate. Things can sometimes change radically during the course of this. Mrozinski asserts notability with a no. 1 hit in Italy. I suggest you tell the relevant editor about Verifiability and ask them to provide a reference. It's worth trying to communicate. Tyrenius 02:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of procedure, but a speedy close is done in some situations, albeit rarely. This isn't of great importance and it's not that big of a deal if they run their course, but I thought that it would be a good thing to do. About your suggestion, the editor is not trying to argue that he is notable, he is arguing for deletion. I had already read his comments on the AfD nominations, his user talk pages and the article talk pages and I doubted any further communication with the editor would have been fruitful. He did not understand what Wikipedia was about and he tried to use the articles as personal pages. He got upset when other people edited the articles (he seemed to have no idea that this would be done, somehow) and told them not to change anything. At some point he went crazy and started making personal attacks and went on rants about how terrible the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is. -- Kjkolb 03:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:Mrozinski for 24 hours for continuous incivility, e.g. [42]. I think an indefinite block on User:2424 as an obvious sockpuppet should also be considered. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 10:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could anybody put a protection tag on Emo (slang)? This page is heavily vandalized, primarily by IP addresses. Thanks. --EMC 02:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, not serious enough, just revert. The appropriate place to request protection would be Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection, so please use that next time. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:47, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but one of this anon's edits is vandalism or bizarre ranting. The one almost reasonable edit is bizarre. His talk page has a number of insults and taunts. Would it be possible to block his IP and the two others he mentions on his talk page? (I didn't check the other two, I'm going to bed.) Cheers and good night. :) Dlohcierekim 03:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I'll block the range he seems to be in and contact the university admin listed on the whois. Sasquatch t|c 04:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am putting this here so admins will see it more easily. This is a continuation of the discussion up above. I just protected Deng's user talk page. He had manipulated his talk page by moving my comments to places they shouldn't have been. And at this point, he's just using his talk page to attack Kurt. And besides, I think he's made all of his points. At this point, we need another admin (not me or NSLE but someone else) to respond to his unblock request. I think I made all of my points on his talk page so I don't think I need to add anything else. I will say that this did not just start. He's been stalking Kurt for 2 months now and I've been dealing with him on and off since the beginning of the year. He seems to think that he was indefinitely blocked just based on the discussion here. Please look at his talk page. You will see that that's just not so. Plus, be aware that he has removed block notices and warnings, especially in the last month or so. Thanks. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And actually I'll unprotect his talk page. The person who decides on the unblock request can decide what to do with his page. Hopefully he won't move or remove my comments in the mean time. --Woohookitty^(meow) 06:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've offered to mentor Deng, who informs me by email that Irpen has also offered. Would it be amenable to you and NSLE for us to joint mentor him (or if Irpen wants I will do it myself)? If so what kind of details/agreement would be ok? - FrancisTyers 10:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case. NSLE _(T+C) at 10:10 UTC (2006-06-04)

Please give Deng a second chance. I support the idea of mentoring him. Deng is a potentially valuable contributor, but his editing needs to be supervised by a team of more experienced wikipedians. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 07:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of problems with that. First of all, I've been basically mentoring him for months with no effect. The vast majority of my posts to his page has been trying to teach him how Wikipedia works and that's right up to the last few days. His response is to call me incorrect or to simply refuse to follow the direction. An example is recently when I told him that he should open a RfAr against Kurt. His response was basically that the arbcom is too backed up so by the time they act, Kurt will have vandalized hundreds of pages. So basically he was saying he was a one man revert squad and he was quite alright with that. Of all of the advice I've given him, the only 2 he followed was filing an RfC (and that took prodding) and also putting up the unblock template, though he only did that after he was blocked indefinitely by someone else. He's followed little else, including my pleas that he be civil. Just in the last few days, he lectured me on what Wikipedia is, defined sneaky vandalism for me and also made a sarcastic comment about how I was watching Kurt's edits...and mind you, this was AFTER Kurt had been blocked.

Another problem is that neither of you 2 are admins. So if Deng strays, there is no ability to block him. As I said, I've been dealing with him for 6 months. I think I know him pretty well. I can almost guarantee that if he's unblocked, the first thing he's going to do is to go back to stalking Kurt. All you have to do is the read the last several entries in his talk page to see that. He has this fear that Kurt will be reverting sourcing unchecked, even though I told him I'd be watching Kurt's edits. I just don't think that more mentoring is the solution here. He just doesn't listen to others.

And he also doesn't take responsibility for his actions. You can't mentor someone like that. You have to have someone who can say "I'm wrong" occasionally, but Deng never does. Everything is Kurt's fault or my fault or the procedure's fault or another admin's fault. It's never Deng's fault.

So. Mentoring sounds like a good idea but I've been doing it informally for months and Deng hasn't improved one iota. He's still being uncivil. He's still ignoring all advice. And he's still being disruptive. And he's not exactly a new user. He should know better. --Woohookitty^(meow) 17:08, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am still waiting for a reply from User:Irpen. - FrancisTyers 16:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I also add that deng has made many personal attacks against other users. This latest series of conflicts with Kurt is simply one example of his pattern. He has had numerous short blocks, with specific reasons given for each, yet he comes back and repeats the same types of actions. I also question the notion that he is a valuable contributor. He has made some good edits, but has also made others that are nonsense and push a POV, often against the consensus of other editors. DMorpheus 17:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Francis, I replied to you, you missed it. I also said that here earlier. I agree to try co-mentoring Deng. Others would have to deal with Kurt. Also, to address Woohookitty's consern, Alex Bakharev is an admin and expressed his willingness to co-mentor Deng as well. With Alex, Francis and myself, he would be enough supervised. I believe Woohookitty tried his best with Deng, but perhaps Deng percieved him not even handed and too forgiving to Kurt. No offence. Woo gets all my respect, but of these two, Kurt is definetely a bigger problem. --Irpen 17:35, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No he is not. He's a bigger problem for those users on here who don't really care how one says something as long as it is something that they agree with. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, regarding NSLE's entry above sayng: "I have no opinion on it, I only decided on an indef block after stumbling over this case." (It was NSLE who blocked Deng) I wish the editors that strict monitored more cases of abuse at this page and at ANI. I mean it is OK to trigger-happily ban abusive users, but we should apply the same standards if we are to be harsh. I have actually no problem with faster blocking of problem users than the leaway they mostly get around here. That would save a lot of time for the ArbCom and a lot of user's time currently spent uselessly at RfC's or admin boards better spent on adding content to Wikipedia. But with users like Molobo and a a recent case of AlexPU from ANI getting away with only one month for by far worse incivility and Deng getting indef, the system seems uneven and broken. One month may be exactly appropriate for AlexPU (some suggested indef though, but even one month may be harsh enough.) Deng getting an indef is something I don't understand, especially when Kurt, who really engage in lots of sneaky vandalism, gets away with 5 days. --Irpen 18:00, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sorry I missed the reply, I wasn't watching your page. So, me, you and alex it is then. How should we proceed? - FrancisTyers 18:24, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deng is only doing this so he can get back on here and stalk Kurt and apparently, Irpen has no problem with that. "Kurt's the bigger problem". No he isn't. You are ok with a user reverting another user 40 times in 3 hours? You are ok with someone who not only violated 3RR, but actually reverted EIGHT TIMES in 2 hours? Deng is disruptive. Period. That's why he got the longer block. Deng's block was increased because he was extremely uncivil with me and he refused to take any responsibility. My original block of Deng was 7 days. For Kurt it was 5 1/2. Kurt's block was shorter because Deng's history of disruption is more extensive and he had one more 3RR vio. Kurt is not a saint and I bet that within a week or two, he will be blocked indefinitely as well. I have no doubt about that. But it doesn't absolve Deng. It doesn't give him the right to revert one user on sight, even when the edit is not vandalism. As he tried to resolve it? Sort of. He opened the RfC. Even on his talk page, he says that others have tried to talk to Kurt on Kurt's talk page to get him to stop. Others. Not Deng. Others. That is the most basic part of dispute resolution. And he hasn't tried it. All of his posts to Kurt's page have been of the "what is wrong with you?" variety. He did a request for investigation, but again, that's not really dispute resolution. That's trying to get another user blocked. That's what that is. He refused to follow a correct procedure on RfM. He outright refused an RfAr. Instead he's decided to follow Kurt all over the site and revert on sight, though he's been blocked for it several times and he's been told how to resolve the issues numerous times. To me, that is just as bad as what Kurt has done, if not worse.

And all 3 of the perspective mentors either support Deng's case or in the case of Alex Bakharev, believe in "ignore all rules". That is not going to work with Deng. We need totally neutral admins on this. Non-Russian. Non-WWII experts. People with absolutely no opinion on Deng. Just ordinary admins who don't have a stake in Deng. And you know, that was me 6 months ago. It's been said that he deserves a 2nd chance. 2nd? No. Try about 6th. --Woohookitty^(meow) 22:42, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, then we can find some other mentors. Unfortunately, mentoring is generally thought to be a tough job, so I'm not sure that you will find any admins to mentor him who don't support his case. I'd like to point out that I'm certainly not pro-Russian and I'm not an expert on the second world war in any respect. You were mentoring him? I think it will be quite easy to tell if he is stalking Kurt, and if he does, under mentorship conditions, he will be blocked. I'm quite happy for him to have a more stringent set of rules to follow, 1RR or something, for a trial period of say a month or two... - FrancisTyers · 22:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Restrictions like that would require an arbcom decision to stick. It's odd, I know. We can block without arbcom but we can't restrict someone's editing without it. Just how it works. --Woohookitty^(meow) 23:40, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if he himself agrees? Thats kind of odd. Where is that written? - FrancisTyers · 00:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it said so in Wikipedia:Mentorship - When mentorship arises as an outcome of the dispute resolution process, the mentor has formal supervisory powers over the protégé. I propose the following:

• The behavior of Deng was indeed egregious. I think we all agree that he deserved a one month block
• The month is enough time to prepare an arbcom case against him, we could ask to put him under Involuntary mentorship. Then his behavior will be monitored not only by his mentors but also by the whole Wikipedia:Mentorship Committee. It should be enough to stop him before he would make 8 reversions. I think if the both sides agree on the Involuntary mentorship, it could be pushed through really fast (even at the start of the arbcom proceedings as a preliminary action)
• If you need an administrator to be his mentor, I volunteer to be his co-mentor. If you think somebody else is suited better, then it is fine with me. BTW could you, Woohookitty, name any of my administrative actions that may be seen as the WP:IAR or encouraging of violations of 3RR or stalking? I might even deserve an apology.
• I think that permablocking a user for his good faith edits, who did not commited gross acts of inivility, etc. is to strong a punishment. Permablocking by an act of an admin is allowed only if all the admins agree with it. I disagree and I am an admin

If there are no other proposal, I will set the block to one month abakharev 00:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have set the block to 1 month. I will be happy to assist with the arbcom case, but i do not have the full information on the matter abakharev 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, could a administrator please fix this up Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, I thought about trying but it may look a lot better (and done properly) if it was undertaken by a admin rather than a standard user.--blue520 12:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you want done with it? Cleaned up? The AfD is not due to close until another few days. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PhilipR has constructed a new (2nd time) AfD over the old closed AfD. It needs to be split, with the old AfD being reverted and a new AfD constructed (somthing like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (second nomination), links checked and so on.--blue520 13:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done! I have moved new to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of famous people with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (second nomination), reveted the old to the closed version and changed the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2006 June 3 to the (second nomination). Could some check to see I have not missed any thing?. --blue520 13:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks to be in order. — TheKMan^talk 13:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for checking--blue520 14:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the great liberty to remove the advertising from the articles that have soccer-europe images on them. The main reason doing so is becuase it advertises the site; you are supposed to credit the work on the image talk page, not the article space, just below the image itself. Just thought I would let you all know. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 13:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes, "courtesy of" comments may be left in captions, but certainly not wide-scale. Circeus 20:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This arbitration case is closed. The parties were:

• Squeakbox (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
• Zapatancas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

• Remedies:
  • Both are banned from Wikipedia for one month.
  • Both are banned from editing José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero and related articles for one year.
  • Both are placed on personal attack parole for one year.

• Enforcement:
  • An escalating schedule of enforcement by block.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 17:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've carried out both blocks per the remedy and logged it in the case. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 19:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also indefinitely blocked Zapatancas' old account, Zapatero. --Tony Sidaway 19:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged User:Ikiroid/ExpressYourself for {{db-owner}}. Is there a place where I list speedies, or does it get put into some backlog?-- The ikiroid  18:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's automatically put into a category Will (^E_@) T 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been coming accross some strange looking edits on Fishguard today. After an attempt to cleanup the article I noticed that the text was the result of edits from newly created accounts and an anon, who also (and only) made similar edits to Capinota which is a totally unrelated subject. Accounts in question: Vany90 (talk · contribs) Haniii (talk · contribs) Ba-KaDüÜ (talk · contribs) Skung (talk · contribs) 80.145.197.126 (talk · contribs) Miri2202 (talk · contribs). Can someone take a look and let me know what they think. Agathoclea 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation on [43]. Agathoclea 13:04, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For any admins who have some time, there's a fair amount of pages building up at WP:PROD that can be deleted. All of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 can be deleted, and most of the pages at Category:Proposed deletion as of 30 May 2006 can be deleted (in ~3 hours, ALL of those can be deleted as well). I'm trying to do some of it, but it could probably use a few more people if anyone has any time. EWS23 (Leave me a message!) 21:13, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Proposed deletion as of 29 May 2006 is done. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 23:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oui. Essjay (Talk • Connect) 23:17, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've looked all over and can't seem to find a way to report a racist vandal who has made continusou and repeatd attacks to Brooklyn Technical High School, including this. The IP is 74.64.40.94 (talk · contribs)-- Tenebrae 21:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No activity from this IP since May 26. Jkelly 21:39, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking we deal with this kind of vandalism by reverting it. As the vandalism was reverted and the vandal hasn't edited since we don't need to do anything else. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information and the quick response! I'm glad to hear that this IP has stopped for now. So this is the page to note these kinds of things? --Tenebrae 21:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For vandalism in progress, a better page on which to make a note is WP:AIV; more complex or longer-term vandalism, though, may be noted here. Joe 22:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is a confirmed sockpuppet of a indef banned user [44]. Could an admin block them? Paul Cyr 22:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The Whois for this IP [45], shows that this is one of a seven IPs assigned to an ISP in Oman. This is obviously a dynamic IP, the last edit from it was on May 18. I do not see the point in blocking it. We probably would not want to block all Oman wikipedians by the total range blocking this ISP abakharev 04:44, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, in that case should I just remove the sock puppet tag? Paul Cyr 04:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:GJRFMorelligu, (also used User:Morelligu and User:201.208.126.185 is removing image problem tags faster than I can replace them - without addressing the underlying problems. Can someone assist? Rmhermen 00:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YINever (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) User:YINever is repeated reverting the article The Epoch Times and keeps removing warnings from his talk page even though he has been repeatedly warned for it. See User talk: YINever. User:YINever keeps deleting his talk page warning. User:YINever is currently in a revert war with User:PatCheng at the The Epoch Times article. He keeps reverting without attempting to reach consensus. --RevolverOcelotX 01:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user is due for a block for violating 3RR, for which he has been warned and blocked before. He is attempting to put repeated templates on my page to goad me into excerbating a content dispute, and so far has seen two fraudulent vandalism reports shunned. Apparently he thinks if he can just keep reporting to more and more places, maybe someone will be fooled and block me over his templates. [46] [47]

"User:PatCheng" has just been blocked for his own violations, and so far this one remains free. YINever 01:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"User:PatCheng" was blocked for personal attacks, not 3RRV. Apparently YINever is a new account and most of his edits was in a revert war with User:PatCheng and other editors. He has been amply warned yet he still continues to revert the article. I suspect the IP address reverting The Epoch Times article is his sockpuppet. He keeps deleting his talk page warnings which is vandalism. RevolverOcelotX 01:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• The article has been protected to give you all a cooling off period. Please discuss your edits on the talk pages. Deleting comments from ones' own talk page may be rude but is not considered vandalism. Since your mutual checkuser requests were negative on all counts, I suggest you stop warning each other and try to cooperate on writing the article. Thatcher131 15:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Fimt, User:Fimter, User:Fmnlj, User:Fmmtr and User:Foltre all appear to be the same person per contribs and User creation logs (though not all are editing), interestingly creating and archiving (?) Afds for Gay Nigger Association of America. RadioKirk talk to me 01:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny the Vandal, Jr. is a sockpuppet of Johnny the Vandal. I'd give him an indef block, but I'm not an admin.Raichu 01:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What happened to your signature? Prodego ^talk 01:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That user was blocked 10 minutes ago, so there is no need for action. Interesting sig bug, for those interested see [48]. Prodego ^talk 01:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This case is closed.

• Marcosantezana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Marcosantezana is banned for one year from editing natural selection and related articles. He is placed on probation indefinitely. Should a suitable mentor or mentors be found, a mentorship agreement may be negotiated with the arbitration committee.

For the Arbitration Committee. --Tony Sidaway 02:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Corneal-hydrops.jpg needs to be protected as it's now on the Main Page. joturner 02:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Titoxd^{(?!? - help us)} 02:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This one should probably also be protected. joturner 03:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done too. Thanks. --You Know Who ^{(Dark Mark)} 03:29, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would an admin be kind enough to come take a look at this discussion and perhaps make the tweak suggested there (or join the discussion)? I think the tweak could help reduce somewhat some certain types of vandalism associated with AfDs. — WCityMike ^(T | C)  ⇓ plz reply HERE  (why?) ⇓  03:01, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted the issue on the backloged WP:PAIN but it became a cluttered mess that gave no result. Instead of getting into a detailed explaination, below are the personal attacks made by Pantherarosa even though (s)he had been warned numerous times to stop. I think they speak for themselves:

[49] edit summary [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] and [58]

Keep in mind these were being made after Pantherarosa had been warned numerous times to stop. Paul Cyr 04:58, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? Paul Cyr 04:01, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Batman2005's user page contains numerous personal attacks on various people. When I removed the attacks him and User:Moe Epsilon reverted my edits and Moe Epsilon gave me a blatant vandal warning even though I was discussing the matter with Batman2005. Could someone re-revert Batman's page to the version without personal attacks, remove the warning from my talk page, and let Moe Epsilon know that his conduct was not very nice? Paul Cyr 05:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First off, Batman2005's userpage contains no personal attacks. Paul is refering to linking John Kerry to the word douche, which doesn't violate NPA. NPA refers to editors, not real-life people like John Kerry. If Batman2005 feels like linking John Kerry to his userpage, I see no reason why he shouldn't be able too. And, I know my conduct isn't very nice, it's who I am. ;-) The King of Kings 05:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA says no personal attack anywhere. It doesn't say "but it's ok if they aren't a Wikipedia user". If it's not okay to make personal attacks to other users, why is it okay to make them to general people? Personal attacks are inappropriate, regardless who they are addressed towards. And you admit that your conduct is mean, even though that would mean you see nothing wrong with violating WP:civil? Paul Cyr 05:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason we have the NPA rule is that personal attacks prevent good collaborative editing, and that is bad for Wikipedia. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Theresa, if you were famous but did not edit on Wikipedia, you would find it appropriate for someone to refer to you as a douche? Paul Cyr 05:22, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. The King of Kings 05:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No you're missing the point! Let's keep the pointless comments to ourselves okay? I think the point Theresa knott is making is that if it is not disruptive to Wikipedia, it's okay to do. However the fact that we have a {{defwarn}} tag would seem to support that any personal attacks are not allowed, which is what NPA literally says. If it's fine and appropriate for Wikipedia, why do we have the defamation warning and a policy that supports the position in the first line? Paul Cyr 05:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had a point to my last comment. Did you read the other half of her comment. John kerry doesn't edit wikipedia. Doesn't that sound something familiar to what I said? The King of Kings 05:36, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds exactly like what you said. Sounds flawed. Paul Cyr 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't defamation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theresa knott (talk • contribs) 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well it can't be a personal attack if it isn't defamation, so it's ok if I do this Theresa knott? Paul Cyr 05:46, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes No, because she is a Wikipedia editor. Mind WP:NPA. ;-) The King of Kings 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said yes, so you're saying it's appropriate? Paul Cyr 05:53, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not appropriate. Note the smiley face, I was joking. The King of Kings 05:52, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three problems with that:

1. It's a double standard; why is it okay to insult someone in one case but not another? How can you not say that attacking someone should never be allowed.
2. If, by chance, John Kerry were to sign up on Wikipedia, are people going to chase down everyone who previously was allowed to attack him and now remove their insults?
3. What if I knew (or was perhaps friends with) one of the people attacked. Do you not see a conflict there?

Lastly, I would still like you to show me where NPA says it does not apply to people outside of Wikipedia. It explicitly says no attack anywhere, so can you find where it explicitly says unless they aren't a wikipedia editor? Paul Cyr 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents is that attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor isn't per se prohibited, though (in my opinion), the less the person is a public figure the less the leeway for it. However, attacking/insulting someone who isn't a Wikipedia editor with the intent to provoke a reaction from Wikipedia editors is intentionally disruptive and intended to degrade the editing process, and is, as far as I'm concerned, subject to admin review and (if necessary) sanctions. --Calton | Talk 05:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think batman2005 was doing that? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 05:54, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe, but since I haven't actually seen Batman2005's contribution to the polity nor was my general comment on the (in my opinion) overly narrow interpretation of NPA policy being floated in any way addressing Batman2005's contribution to the polity, I fail to see the relevance of the question. --Calton | Talk 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO, no, because he wasn't trying to draw attention to himself. The only attention he got from it was Paul trying to remove it from his userpage bringing this forth. The King of Kings 05:57, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My comment is not related to the kerry link, but on the images used in Batman's user page. He has placed a lot of Fair use images there. To the best of my knowledge, fair use images are not supposed to be placed in anything other than the corresponding person/subject's page in the main namespace. Thanks. --Ragib 05:59, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove them and talk to the user. The King of Kings 06:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, whether or not WP:NPA is being violated, WP:USER#What can I not have on my user page? says that user pages can NOT have Personal statements that could be considered polemical, such as opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia. Which Batman2005's page has. Paul Cyr 06:07, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As well, calling the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternaty losers would I'm sure be an insult to some of the users here who are in it. Paul Cyr 06:13, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anybody here in Sigma Alpha Epsilon? -- The King of Kings 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another pointless comment Moe? Paul Cyr 06:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, not pointless. Your comment above, what if Kerry had an account... I guess if Kerry had an account on Wikipedia, then we should take down personal attacks against him, but thats a one and ten billion chance of him joining this site. You're comment, What if I knew someone being attacked: well, what if? If they had an account on Wikipedia, I guess we could take it down, but ya know.. what if. And it's two differant things the comment made on Kerry and Theresa. Theresa edits here, Kerry doesn't. The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so membership in the attacked group by Wikipedians must proven before it's considered a divisive attack? Gotcha.

I'm not a member, and I'm sure User:Moe Epsilon is willing to poll the other 999,999 registered users on that issue, just to be sure. --Calton | Talk 06:23, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so up to it. ;-) The King of Kings 06:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't the whole userboxwar thing start when all gwb related userboxes were deleted on the grounds that disliking george bush is a personal attack, you would think that would cut both ways--205.188.116.200 20:27, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would definately not be a personal attack. Someone can say "I don't like so and so" but they can't be like "So and so is a loser". Paul Cyr 02:28, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My thoughts on this issue: WP:NPA is fairly clearly directed at Wikipedia contributors, therefore I do not believe Batman2005's user page to be in violation of WP:NPA. However, in the interests of harmonious editing, and remembering that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a soapbox, I suggest that Batman2005 tones it down. I also think Moe giving a blatant vandal warning template to Paul wasn't very tactful, as there was discussion ongoing and a more personal message along the lines of editing other people's userpages often isn't the best think to do in situations like these. Finally, instead of arguing about what exactly is a personal attack, why not go and edit something that will contribute to building an encyclopedia. Petros471 20:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh that was a lot, in fact I did tone it down, quite a bit...you should have seen it before, gosh was it inflammatory. My favorite is linking the word Dead to Stanley Williams. Classic! I'm not attacking anyone, except maybe SAE's but at the school I went to they really were gay, as in....they were men liking men, so its true. If there was a link to the specific chapter I would have linked that! Gosh, Petros is right, lets all go edit other pages, i'm sure there are plenty of arguments that we could start elsewhere! Additionally, i think that I read somewhere that wikipedia was not censored and then something about the protection of free speech. Sure i can be punished for it, but as far as i know..John Kerry, Freddy Adu and Stanley Williams haven't complained about it. (I don't anticipate Stanley complainging though, he's dead!) Batman2005 00:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect. There is no right to free speech on Wikipedia. If you wish to publish material espousing your political/social/economic/sexual/religous viewpoints, go elsewhere.-Sean Black

I wasn't talkin about on wikipedia man! Duh! Still doesn't violate no personal attacks though. And i'll stay right here, you have no idea what my political/social/economic/sexual/or religious viewpoints are. My talk page is not in violation of NPA as the first person said, i've got 4 or 5 people here who agree, including a couple admins. It's been toned down from the first version which was really inflammatory, perhaps i'll add a big smiley face to the top that says "NOTE...I'M JUST KIDDING AROUND, SEE WP:GET A SENSE OF HUMOR." Batman2005 13:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is User:Richard Branson an inappropriate user name, especially as he seems to be editting articles about Virgin group? smurrayinchester^{(User), (Talk)} 06:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left him a note, because he seems under the impression (judging by his userpage) that he is Sir Richard. Naturally I'm skeptical. If he is, he needs to directly say so (but the account will still need to be monitored, of course, until we know definitively). If he isn't, or fails to say whether or not he is after his next edit, than block post haste. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 07:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raul has also left a message that should aid in positively identifying this user. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 02:46, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from User:Richard Branson's talk page:

Re: Evidence of bad faith adoption of "Richard Branson" username by three-time indefinitely blocked user

Here is evidence to support the theory that this user is in violation of the Wikipedia:Username policy:

• This user's activity began June 5, and has been largely focused on the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles.

• A previous user, operating under three known usernames and three known IP addresses, was also intensely interested in the external links sections of the Richard Branson article and related articles. The three usernames have now all been indefinitely blocked. Two of them were indefinitely blocked on June 3, two days prior to the creation of the Richard Branson username.

• One of the edits under the Richard Branson username is a removal of a deceptively named external link in one article; an identical removal of the identical link in a different article was performed within two hours of the edit under the Richard Branson username, but was done by one of the known IP address sock puppets of the three-time indefinitely blocked user. (Notice that this user claims credit for removing linkspam from the article, a perverse claim since that is actually what the rest of us were doing while the eventually blocked sock puppets kept reverting back to the linkspam, up to 8 times.)

• The new Richard Branson user has explicitly referred to himself as if he were Richard Branson. The three-time blocked user's histories are riddled with per se deceptive edits, including describing linkspam sites as being officially related to Richard Branson or Virgin, and going so far as to register deceptive URL's and post them the same day as stealth linkspam. Needless to say, the severally blocked user also has an established predilection for evading indefinite blocks by creating more new sock puppets, like hydra heads. Also needless to say, the three previous usernames were indefinitely blocked with good reason.

• See:

• • History of one of the Richard Branson username's edits

• • History of an identical edit on a related article, within two hours of the Richard Branson edit, under 203.10.59.63, an IP address known to be a sock puppet of a three-time indefinitely blocked user

• • Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily, which includes the IP address sock puppet that performed the identical edit to the one done under the Richard Branson username.

• • Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06#Registered_users, the Request for Investigation showing that two usernames and three IP addresses were sock puppets of a previously indefinitely blocked user, which led to the indefinite block of the other two usernames

• - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/ub/w:s/w:l) 05:20, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As of two minutes ago, Category:Candidates for speedy deletion was up to 110 pages and a couple of dozen images. Any admin want to pitch in? --Calton | Talk 06:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Holding steady now at 115 pages and 30 images. --Calton | Talk 07:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea where to take this, so I'm trying here. A user has created an individual page for each of Santa's reindeer. Frankly I have no idea what to do with this. I was thinking NN until I realized that they really are notable. Chances are more people have heard of Prancer the Reindeer than Yukiji Asaoka. The question is - do they really deserve individual pages? --Bachrach44 14:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how encyclopedic it is, but i'm seriously about to fall out of my chair laughing at the sheer number of edits this person has done on the subject, its REALLY funny. I would say that you should group them together and take them to AFD for discussion there. Batman2005 00:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The reason there are so many edits is because I am new to editing not because I am crazy about reindeer. This is like a test project for me to see how far my editing skills can go. --Merond e 18:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The more I think about it, the more I think they are notable. The question is whether they really deserve seperate articles or not. I'm gonna send a message to the creator essentially asking him if he actually has enough info to warrant seperate articles, but to be frank our standards for encyclopedic in nature have dropped so much over the last year or so that my eventualist tendencies are saying we should keep them. --Bachrach44 21:26, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Filling wikipedia with one liner articles like these, and also on some presidential pets is really a bad idea. All these info could easily be summarized in articles like "Santa's reindeers", List of United States Presidential pets. I really can't see how it is possible, without doing originalr research, to create a non-stub article on each of the reindeers, and each of US presidential pets. Merging them all into a single article on each topic should be done. Thanks. --Ragib 21:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my thoughts. I realize how it might be more essential to merge the pages, but I would like until the 14th to try to find enought information on them to make them more than stubs and to make them separate enough from each other. If I cannot accomplish that, then yes, merging will be required. Can you grant me that time? --Merond e 10:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's getting terribly piled up. In need of some admin attention. Thanks Srik 14:04, 5 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]