Purge the cache to refresh this page

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

Reposted report

• User: Anwar saadat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Article: Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The user's edits to the article have repeatedly:

• added many inline external links to the TMMK website
• added a lengthy ‘Organisational structure’ section with several subsections of tables of ‘wings’ with red linked names of over two dozen ‘officers’
• removed tags (e.g. {{fact}} {{newsrelease}} {{primarysources}} {{POV-check-section}} {{wikify}} etc.)
• removed citations
• removed the references section

He has continued this disruptive pattern of editing (now with misleading edit summaries) in spite of requests to stop. Several editors have invited discussion on the article talk page and have asked him, in edit summaries and on his user talk page, to discuss his changes. He removed such requests from his talk page, and has not discussed any issues on the article talk page since June.

A Request for comments (politics) on WP:NOT#SOAPBOX cleanup issues, listed ten days ago, has so far yielded no additional input in the RFC section on the article talk page.

Because only one editor has been persistently adding non-neutral content and removing references, this is not a request for page protection. — Athaenara ✉ 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology

• 09:00, 18 September 2007 (UTC) The report above originally posted here on AIV.
• 18:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Thread among others archived by MiszaBot II.
• 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC) User Anwar saadat's next TMMK revert.

(User Anwar saadat's own previous report about reversions of his edits to this and other articles, and npov responses to it, are pertinent — see "Editor on blanking spree on multiple pages" section in archive 299.)

During the approximately 32 hours while the report was on the active noticeboard, the user did not edit the article, but 2 hours after the thread was archived, he again repeated the type of edit reported. I re-added the report in the hope of admin attention for the user. — Athaenara ✉ 12:01, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This pattern goes back several months — the first time user ‘Anwar saadat’ edited the article (which was originally added in February 2007 by user Ayubkhan2020 in the only en.wikipedia edit from that account) he removed {{ad}} and {{npov}} tags. — Athaenara ✉ 15:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had problems with Anwar saadat editwarring before. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent)As an aside, has this user been cleared to use a name very close to Anwar Sadat (and does it have any bearing on articles edited)? LessHeard vanU 22:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wondered about that, too, and username policy on inappropriate usernames does address it. Today I found that a previous RFCN, with a link to an archived discussion which resulted in "Allow," is listed in the RFCU Index for June 2007. — Athaenara ✉ 11:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'kay. Thanks. LessHeard vanU 20:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The persistent reversion to WP:NOT is a problem. It stopped while this report was first on ANI, resumed after it was archived, and stopped again when it was reposted. Will the user again revert after this second discussion is archived?

The subject itself may be the larger problem: extremely thin results of searches for reliable sources ("Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" gets 127 hits; ‘"Tamil Nadu Muslim Munnetra Kazagham" -wikipedia’ yields 10)—very brief comments in a few newspapers in India—suggest that its notability is marginal or worse. Should it be on AFD? — Athaenara ✉ 13:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The TMMK is notable, that is really not the problem. The problem is that Anwar seems to not want their obvious links to Islamic terror groups noted, which is generally how the TMMK is known. IT is known as a subsidiary group of al-Umma, a terrorist Islamist group in Tamil Nadu.16:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bakasuprman (talk • contribs)

Maybe so, but reliable sources of information about it are the proverbial needles in haystacks. I worked on it a bit today for WP:NPOV. — Athaenara ✉ 20:38, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I agree, your work has done quite a bit for the page. However I do believe you are a little too pessimistic about the notability. On a google search I ran, I found no less than 10 mainstream articles mentioning the TMMK in detail, both some charity work and its ties to islamist groups.Bakaman 22:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User ‘Anwar saadat’ again reverted to his preferred version — references gone, references section gone, instead a wholly WP:NOT WP:NPOV mouthpiece for the organization once again— and this time he didn't wait until the discussion was gone from this rapidly archived board.

My sole aim here (I first heard of the article from a listing on Wikipedia:Third opinion early this month) is the neutral point of view. Admin attention, please: may Special:Contributions/Anwar saadat be blocked from editing the article at least for awhile? — Athaenara ✉ 12:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added a report on WP:AIV. — Athaenara ✉ 14:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC) (As per "To report persistent vandalism or spamming" pointer in this project page header.) — Athaenara ✉ 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have fully protected the article. However, it seems Anwar has a lengthy history of disruptive editing, not only on this article but on many others. People have been trying to engage him in discussion for months, but he continues to revert without discussion. I would advocate for a block in this situation. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also blocked Anwar saadat for 31 hours. Nishkid64 (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too soft. It isn't only about one page. A pattern of disrutive editing, revert-warring and showing no interest in discussions on the talk page extends to a significant time period. A 31 hours block might not get the message across. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid, are you sure that you blocked this user? I checked his blocklog, & I'm not seeing that he has been blocked. In response to NHN's comment, this user has been blocked for longer periods up to one month for similar misbehavior in the past, so maybe a longer block is warranted. If he is blocked for more than 24 hours, perhaps the article could also be unlocked -- why make other editors suffer for his misdeeds? -- llywrch 22:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a longer block is warranted. If the block currently in effect lasts only 31 hours, page protection is helpful. — Athaenara ✉ 15:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am very concerned about the personal speculation and commentary made by User:A Kiwi here on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]' and here on User talk:Eubulides, [7] and [8].

I feel that this speculation (which is often wildly incorrect, and has involved named third parties) and commentary is an invasion of my privacy that I am not comfortable with, but, more importantly, is utterly irrelevant to Wikipedia, and adds nothing to the discussion where it is posted. I wonder could somebody take a look and see what they think? --Zeraeph 15:11, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not seeing much more than a not particularly decorous discussion, but without any further history I cannot say I see anything bad or actionable. Have you discussed with A Kiwi (on his talkpage) how the debate is making you uncomfortable? LessHeard vanU 21:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My greatest problem is with the degree to which this is sidelining the real discussion of the article Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome into total irrelevancies. It will be a contentious and complex enough discussion without that.

I'm not too bothered by the personal references yet, but, on the other hand, I have a gut feeling that it CANNOT possibly be ok for A Kiwi to speculate (wrongly), from among article sources, about who my personal physician is (or how familiar he is with my home), while informing the world that she has just got off the phone with him, from thousands of miles away. I will try discussing it on her talk page. --Zeraeph 21:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeraeph, you opened the door by discussing those personal details on the article talk page and using personal info as part of the article discussion with respect to the featured article review. Discussion of your personal diagnoses and physicians were less than inappropriate on the article talk page, and verged into Essjay controversy territory anyway. I suggest that both you and A Kiwi could benefit from reading and understanding Wikipedia's talk page guidelines (not only with respect to not using article talk pages as a chat forum, but also with respect to proper threading of conversations and NOT HOLLERING and better use of edit summaries); you're a more experienced editor than A Kiwi is, and you should have known that discussing your personal diagnoses and physicians on an article talk page isn't wise. Because you made this info part of the article discussion, I can't say A Kiwi has committed any offense. I suppose you've let A Kiwi know that you're talking about her on AN/I, as a courtesy? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, please try to be a little more accurate. I did not "discuss" anything of the kind, I simply, ill-advisedly, made a single passing reference ("I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" [9]) which A Kiwi has turned into speculation that Simon (presumeably) Baron-Cohen (who I have never met) diagnosed me and is familiar with my home, and then that Michael Fitzgerald is my personal physician. --Zeraeph 23:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS. You still haven't explained how so many personal references and speculations about myself are relevant to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome? --Zeraeph 23:54, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't relavant on the article talk page discussion either, where you first brought them up. A Kiwi has retracted and apologized everywhere for her mixup of Drs Baron-Cohen and Fitzgerald (two physicians with the same specialty operating in relatively close geographic proximity), so that's done. The best thing for both of you to do is to stop discussing personal matters on article talk pages (remember your two Yorkies, your recent car wreck, and so on), and instead focus on reliable sources, and learning to properly thread comments and use talk pages for discussing article improvement. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure; if you use article talk pages and your diagnoses to throw weight into a discussion, you can't expect that info not to resurface later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy, I would really appreciate it if you would stop trying to "micro manage" and dictate my editing. It is not appropriate for you to do so. It is also totally irrelevant to the discussion here of User:A Kiwi persistent discussion of what she imagines to be personal detail of my life on Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Though I am flattered that you have found the time to trawl through weeks of edit histories to find so many personal references to my life to post here. However, I suggest you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and remember to discuss content, not personalities in future please? --Zeraeph 00:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it easy there, Zeraeph. I don't need to trawl through anything; I remember the posts as they were inappropriate on talk pages, where article improvement is discussed. Reminding you that both of you can avoid taking admin time on these kinds of issues and make talk page discussion easier for everyone by reading WP:TALK, a Wiki guideline, is not micromanaging. It was your mistake to make personal info part of an article discussion; I wish both of you would focus on article content more. Take the last word if you'd like. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I am afraid I have never been interested enough in you to return the favor and keep ongoing mental notes about you in that way.

I honestly do not think it is for you to dictate what use is made of admin time any more than it is for you to try and dictate and micromanage my editing and discussion style.

Back to the real point, I am concerned by A Kiwi's personal speculations about and references to myself are monopolising Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. When I do come to WP:AN/I to seek advice I prefer not to lead, but rather to leave anyone kind enough to take an interest to view the situation with an open mind. It had occurred to me that an open mind might see some advantage in archiving the personal references and speculations in the name of simplifying the discussion, but I am not sure, because that seems like "gagging" User:A Kiwi's opinions on the article and I would be uncomfortable with that. I am not sure, that is why I ask.

I am also concerned as to whether the more personal speculations are crossing any lines. She is not doing me any harm, yet, but, on the other hand WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA clearly specify that content should be discussed, not personalities, and besides, so far her speculations have often been wildly inaccurate, leaving me with a choice between cluttering up an FAR with refutations that are irrelevant to it, or being misrepresented. --Zeraeph 00:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though I could not fully understand the references in her response [10] (she states she is unwell elsewhere and may be a little muddled), User:A Kiwi does seem willing to desist from the personal references and speculation that I felt were inappropriate and uncomfortable. She has also made a seperate, far more objective comment [11], and may well now be amenable to the personal speculations being archived to simplify the discussion if anyone thinks that is appropriate? --Zeraeph 17:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:A Kiwi was happy to consent to the archival of personally speculative text [12] which was done, ultimately subject to her approval [13] , and "all's well that ends well" or should be, except that User:SandyGeorgia took it upon herself to object and revert, in spite of having voiced no objection to the archival here. [14]. I give up! --Zeraeph 22:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding the missing diff, where A Kiwi asked you to please put it back. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She did NOT ask me to "put it back" AT ALL she simply said that I took out more than she wished [16] and before we could resolve that, you interfered. [17], and if you had not, this would all have been resolved to eberybody's satisfaction hours ago.

I am still wondering why on earth you did not raise any objection to the personal speculation being archived, here earlier (too busy posting about my Yorkshire Terriers maybe?), and also why you feel that erroneous speculation over who my personal physician is and how well he knows my house is so vitally important to Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome that you must insist I be forced to replace it?--Zeraeph 23:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS, see WP:BLP "Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material – whether negative, positive, or just questionable – about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia". I think that is pretty final? Unless I suddenly drop dead? --Zeraeph 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Further Personal Commentary

I am now at a genuine loss what to do. After yesterday's creditable resolution User:A Kiwi posted this [18] . She says she is ill and confused but, even so, that is just a blatant personal attack. Any ideas what I should do? --Zeraeph 19:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

looking at this talk p. for the first time, I am distressed by several people using arguments from their personal case histories and that of their family. None of it is rational argumentation with respect to the topic. And when it comes to family, this is really an invasion of their privacy without any reason otherwise, and I urge that the material be at least deleted. DGG (talk) 00:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've identified the following IP ranges and being behind the vandalism which plagues this article and several of its kin... this vandalism's been going on for over a year now. From what I see, none of these IPs have any constructive contributions.

• 88.207.202.0/24
• 124.107.71.2
• 222.127.55.167
• 222.127.228.6/31
• 222.127.228.8

I selected the ranges carefully only to hit the few vandals that have been attacking this set of articles... review and a possible block is welcome. east.718 at 11:48, September 22, 2007

Having the list on my watchlist I can confirm that IPs from this range have indeed vandalized the article in the past, at one point leading to it being semi protected for a while, I will leave it to other admin to decide if blocking a range is adecuate but whatever measure is taken has my support. - Caribbean~H.Q. 02:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [19] :( 86.137.127.139 16:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. Judging from changes to his essay, something's happened that pushed him over again, and he's asked for desysopping at this point. (Can't figure out if he's received that yet or not.) Sorry to see him go again, but perhaps some time will help him with his concerns, and he'll be back in the future. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's PO'd about the same things that many of the rest of us are PO'd about. Especially the community's insistence on giving disruptive users a second third fourth fifth chance because they might, eventually, someday become constructive users, while holding people who are constructive users to the most exacting standards. Raymond Arritt 19:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I'm not the only one tired of the Wikiredemption and Reclamation Project? •Jim62sch• 19:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, let's waste a bunch of time on jackass editors, and push away the good ones. Jim, I'm very tired of it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am all for tightening the screws here. Should we allow trolls to make us lose the most committed editors we have? ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I am deeply saddened at the loss of Guy. He's been a sane voice and a great member of the project, especially when dealing with trolls who others were willing to give a slap on the wrist. I am tired of people interpreting AGF to mean, "beat us, and the project, with a stick and we'll keep smiling about it because, really, lots of people with personality disorders straighten up and become productive contributors if you let them get away with acting like monsters for long enough." I will miss Guy a great deal, and hope he comes back. *shakes head sadly* - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 03:11, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take me as insensitive to the difficulties our sysops face, but why do we need to have an announcement here every time someone deletes his or her userpage? If they have something they would like to say to the community, they can say it themselves. Broadcasting their departure here seems unlikely to be helpful. Can anyone inform me as to the benefits it could have? Picaroon (t) 19:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because JzG did not suck. A bunch of pathetic POV-losers pushed him out the door. So what do you have? A crappy encyclopedia. I'm going to fight back. This pisses me off.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can start by helping change the rules at WP:CSN so that the decision to ban a user is made by a consensus of uninvolved parties. WP:CSN gets tons of flak, but it's a very useful way to show long-term disruptive users the door. Unfortunately, by allowing the disruptors to participate in establishing a consensus, it often fails. We really need to be more effective at dealing with bad faith users. - Jehochman ^Talk 21:03, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman's proposal is under discussion here. Everyone is welcome to opine. --Ghirla^-трёп- 16:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the way that we recompense committed editors? What a pity. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah no! JzG is such a great guy...a rock of impartiality. I like knowing that an email to JzG will not yield a reply, but rather a fair result. --Zeraeph 21:07, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In that essay linked to above, he writes, "There are people out there who are batshit insane and will genuinely try to get you fired from your job, call you at home, solicit burglars to raid your home, and invite predators to look at your kids. They might even think it's not serious, that it's only a bit of fun. Only one of the above has not happened to me, and that one happened to someone else." Is all of that true? If so, that is extremely unsettling. How much dangerous is it editing this site? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:06, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OM: Me too. I tire of the overuse of the AGF nonsense that forces us to extend some semblence of good faith to a user who has shown himself/herself repeatedly to be nothing more than a tendentious, troublesome, user, or a POV-pusher or a troll. Bah.

Jossi: Apparently it is.

Jehochman: whatever it takes, but see my comment to OM. •Jim62sch• 21:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alas, hardly a day passes on this noticeboard without an incident of this sort. The current practice of infinitely extending good faith to most odious disruptors at the expense of established editors is a sad testimony to low qualifications of our sysops. --Ghirla^-трёп- 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another option would be to start fighting back against POV-pushers by adopting the remedies at User:Moreschi/The Plague. That's about nationalism, but most of it applies to all POV-pushing types. Shameless spam, yes. I hope JzG has not given up on WP entirely. There's always the good old right-to-return-via-the-back-door. Moreschi ^Talk 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hate to interrupt your love-fest, but my experience with JzG hasn't been particularly great; in fact, over in the attack sites ArbCom workshop he was saying that I ought to be banned. In my opinion, labeling dissident voices as "trolls" does more damage than the trolls themselves. *Dan T.* 22:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except for the fact that JzG's one of the large number of people who dislike (or at the least disagree with) you Dan T. That doesn't make JzG's forcing out any less reprehensible. I'm not saying you're one of the trolls, but don't give them the credit of being "dissidents." Stalking fails to impress me as a "dissident." ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think dan was suggesting that stalking JzG was a good idea. Personally I think that if Guy was more tactful with his language, and restricted himself from calling people names in the first place he might not have got himself into the position of pissing off people so much they felt compelled to harras him in real life. (at no point am I condoning that harassment) In at least some cases like this it appears that the abused wikipedian has been frequently less than civil (ie MONGO), and that pisses some more insane people off to the point of turning to real life harrasment to exact their revenge. Guess what people, Wikipedia is high visibility and therefore attracts some less than savoury people. We can't change that, we just have to deal with it. However if you stop calling people names it makes the wikipedia environment a lot easier for everyone to work in, and you are less likely to attract unwanted attention to yourself. Viridae^Talk 23:33, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It's certainly not acceptable to drive people away by harassment. But think about it. If I had gotten the treatment that some trolls have gotten from Guy, I would have been pretty annoyed. So before we start blaming everything on the evil trolls, consider if it's all their fault. -Amarkov moo! 23:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They're responsible for their own behavior: trying out that argument before a judge -- or a high-school principal -- wouldn't get one very far. --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Erm, no, it's not that simple. People repeatedly (and, even in my opinion, sometimes justifiably) excused HIS behavior on the grounds that trolls were annoying him. If we're saying "everyone is responsible for their own behavior", then we can't turn around and ignore that when it comes to some people. -Amarkov moo! 02:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about stalkers, who I don't condone... but I'm talking about how everybody who dares to oppose a few favored people gets tarred with the same brush as the worst of the stalkers, and demonized, and this is used to justify ridiculous policies like banning links to entire sites that meet the disapproval of the clique. *Dan T.* 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody? Dan, I'm the sysop who gave JzG a civility block warning in January. I started Category:Eguor admins afterward to promote self-regulation among sysops. I was perfectly serious about that warning and took some heat for it, but the only folks who tarred me with that great brush are the ones who populate the attack sites you defend. This hyperbole of yours is getting tiresome. Durova^Charge! 03:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No such block on his block log...? Thanks for the cat, added. Viridae^Talk 03:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that particular axe sharp enough by now? --Calton | Talk 00:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe some of the things I'm reading here. The real problem is not being nice enough to the trolls? Pathetic. Raymond Arritt 00:32, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You insult trolls they will become more troll like - what part are you missing? Follow the civility guidlines (like every admin should) and you are less likely to be come a target.. what is so hard about that? Just because someone trolls you doesnt mean you have to stoop to their level and return the favour - that makes YOU a troll too. Viridae^Talk 00:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labeling people as "trolls" when you disagree with them is a way of dehumanizing the opposition and getting your way in whatever dispute you're in. People who throw around "troll" accusations are the ones causing the toxic atmosphere here. *Dan T.* 02:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Firsfron of Ronchester 02:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, this community demands that people speak in the tones Guy uses. I know I'm better off on Wikipedia now that I assume bad faith--it makes it easier for me. Guy's had a few nasty comments to me in inappropriate situations (on his part, not mine, no matter how hotheaded I've been), but it didn't make me interested in him personally in any way--sure as hell not his home life. And when I needed a quick solution to a problematic BLP, I knew he'd do it. I've opposed the Wikipedia favorite stars, and I still do, and I think there are many problematic admins on Wikipedia because other admins are lazy at dealing with problems with other administrators. And I've been called a troll by various administrators, but I can't really be demonized because I'm here to edit--one silly little editor takes a moment to always come up with some nasty comment about me, but nobody takes it seriously, least of all me. She just looks as silly as she's behaving. I'm not a demon, just a hothead--and I contribute well. If you're being demonized successfully you might not be spending enough time editing articles and doing useful tasks on Wikipedia. You might be spending too much time on intrigue. And there are plenty of real demons to be found among the intriguing little intrigues all over Wikipedia. I've never had an interesting troll on my page. KP Botany 00:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I want to say how sorry I am to see that Guy has left. He was one of our best admins, and people with Guy's common sense and intelligence are thin on the ground. I know that the silent majority on Wikipedia don't support the harassment and toxic atmosphere that causes admins like Guy to leave, and I hope you'll start to speak out against it. Write to Jimbo, no matter how pointless you feel it is. Write to Anthere, the chair of the Wikimedia Foundation. Please make your voices heard. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking as someone who has had epic battles with Guy, can I just suggest we close this thread and let him be? He's stated his unhappiness with how things are here, let's just respect that and let him decide what is best for himself. This kind of thread can serve no good purpose: those who hated Guy come out of the woodwork to reopen wounds, while those who liked him get all worked up into a frenzy and beg him to stay - neither of which helps Guy or the project. ATren 04:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's simple. Wikipedia's OFFICE doesn't do enough to protect good editors, and bad editors demand we AGF beyond credulity on a weekly, if not daily or hourly, basis. We get absurd POV warriors demanding things no civilized human would demand, and when they don't get their way, they offer to attack our children. We lost H to that, and no one stopped the hostile parties involved; in fact, we welcomed them back with special concessions to their POV. In return, they've bullied all over the place. IT gets ridiculous to AGF when people ignore discussions, notifications, requests and warnings. IF it's on their talk page, they demand it be kept on the article talk, where they can ignore it in the name of WP:BOLD. Guy's loss is a big one to the project. THe threats he's recieved need to be brought to the attention of Jimbo Wales, and frankly, he ought to DO something. The 'This is the internet, it's not REAL LIFE' meme only lasts till some troll takes it to the real world, posting names, addresses and phone numbers, along with exhortations to rape their wives and children, which at least a few offended parties here have done or attempted. Until the OFFICE shows that they will support the good over the bad, this will continue. Wales needs to make discipline a presence here, it's not here now. When the pro-pedophilia tribes coem on demanding we never address Pedophilia as a disease of the mind, or as a crime, and PJ comes on offering to 'out', to the police, and the jobs, of any editor who doesn't cave to their demands, no one except those two dares touch the articles related to that topic. and so on, across many of the religion articles, gun articles, and so on. If it hasn't happened yet, it's only a matter of time till some editor is hunted down and killed for defending core principles of NPOV and Citation on Wikipedia, by some deranged extremist(s). The OFFICE and the Bureaucrats can do more, but don't, instead insisting 'the community can handle this'. No, when editors are harrassed off jobs, leave the project, and find harrassments continuing despite their abdication of the project, what else can be done? This is becoming an untenable situation. I hope soemthing can be done to resolve the attacks on Guy that led him to this; he's a strong admin, and a much-needed one, as he's long been willing to take on hard topics here. ThuranX 05:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But ThuranX, surely you should know that if someone threatens harm, it's only because they were driven to it because someone called them a troll. Anyone can see it's the so-called victim's fault.</end sarcasm mode>. Raymond Arritt 05:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. Don't get me started on the similar abuse of the CIVILITY policy. CIVIL and AGF get invoked by the biggest trolls with a frequency appraoching a Godwin proportion, that it, as one can perceive, if not factually derive an algorithm regarding the parallels of Naziism invocation and futility of further discussion, so can one find a relationship between the frequency and immediacy in any conversation of AGF/CIVIL and the trollish nature of the invoker. CIV and AGF are good principles to keep in the back of one's mind, but the difference between bluntly calling a fool or jerk what he is, and calling anyone you don't like the ideology of a troll are different, and the project and community both would do well to have a far stricter policy on both. Possibly a policy called WP:CRYWOLF, which can be invoked during incident reports, mediations and arbitrations to ban someone who repeatedly brings frivolous 'violations' to admin attention. Even Good Faith reporters who are just too sensitive should be subject to the brief blocks CRYWOLF would demand, thus ensuring that people too milquetoast to be here leave, and that those who still want to be here start thinking twice. 'Fuck You, [minority slur]' is a violation, 'you're too liberal/conservative to understand what I'm saying and can't look at this from any view but your own' is 99% of the time here a fact, not an insult. (well, maybe both, but deserved). Such a 'don't waste our time' policy might help us all. ThuranX 05:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually said that everything here is his fault for not being nice? -Amarkov moo! 05:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for crying out loud, noone is suggesting that it was all Guys fault. We are suggesting he and certain other people who have been harassed have exacerbated the situation to the point it got to by being extremely incivil. Nor is anyone suggesting good faith should be taken with regard to these said trolls - if they clearly are here to do ahrm, so be it abandon good faith. However civility should NEVER be abandoned regardless who you are dealing with. Viridae^Talk 05:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The loss of civility is the loss of effective communication that can possibly lead to a resolution of dispute etc.. Remember that, even when dealing with trolls. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 05:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Arritt, your use of sarcasm above plainly demonstrates the problem here. Never consider an balanced response, simply heed your emotions and witty sarcasm to remedy all situations. HydroMagi 05:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm sorry; believe it or not, that was out of character for me. I'm just getting more and more disgusted at the insistence on giving near-limitless chances to trolls, POV-pushers, abusive sockpuppeteers and outright lunatics while refusing to stand up for the highly constructive (if imperfect) editors who are their targets. Raymond Arritt 06:30, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The lunatics are definitely running the asylum these days.--MONGO 08:16, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree to the fullest. People who research and continuously add information to the project should not be driven off or harassed by people who come here to disrupt the encyclopedia or do naught for the encyclopedia. It's a waste of time for all parties involved. M.^(er) 08:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are hundreds of admins and experienced users who have put their careers, their reputations and good names, in some cases their personal safety and privacy on the line fighting for and defending this Project. When has this Project ever defended us? The arbcom is out of touch, the board is a joke, the foundation, toothless and inept. This is endemic of much larger issues, mainly that the hippie peace and love bullshit Jimbo espouses DOES NOT WORK, that AGF is broken, and that maybe, just maybe, letting anons edit, and putting so many restrictions on administrative discretion is not a good thing. This project treats us like shit, yet we fight for it tooth and nail. We are lucky we haven't lost more like Guy, and unless something is done, we will lose more. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 08:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly the project needs more admins like me, who have absolutely no career, reputation or good name. Edison 23:52, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy to help! Secretlondon 00:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Jeffrey's every word here, including "and" and "the". ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have the choice to leave or attempt to change it. Viridae^Talk 08:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A rock and a hard place? You're too kind! :o) ➔ This is REDVEЯS 08:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well making a choice is better than just bitching about it. Viridae^Talk 09:00, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Perhaps the problem is that punitive actions against editors are often based on specific actions rather than intentions. A seemingly well-meaning editor who accidentally goes over 3RR shouldn't be treated the same way as a POV-pusher doing the same. Policy doesn't seem to make any distinction at all. Perhaps if those who spend the majority of their time on Wikipedia distruptively editing a specific point of view into a single group of articles were treated more harshly, the program JzG describes would not be as big as it is now. If someone comes to Wikipedia to push a specific POV, they should not be treated the same as someone who comes to improve the encyclopedia. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 09:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dark Shikari has got to the heart of the problem. We're fine at dealing with vandals and drive-by trolls but the persistent POV-pushers and other determinedly obnoxious characters take ages to remove - and they're the very people who are the biggest threat to the encyclopaedia. --Folantin 12:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Typical situation: I find a COI, POV pushing or spam-only account. It's never made a productive edit. It's purpose is mischief and nothing else. I ask for a perma-block at one of our boards, and get the typical, "we need four separate warnings in a week" response. Long ago I learned to go to specific admins who understand how to deal with persistent troublemakers. We need to educate our admins how to deal with these situations, because a majority of them don't understand, and that's extremely frustrating to ordinary editors on the front lines. - Jehochman ^Talk 12:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, well I am not even a good editor though I try my best to do the best I can with my disabilities but has anyone tried to contact JzG via email to see what is going on in his mind about things? I have been following this thread from the beginning and find it quite disturbing to see people blaming this administrator about things including his behavior. For the record, as far as I can remember I have not had any contact with this administrator. I just feel I needed to comment because of the back and forth of trying place blame. Would, could someone email this person and see what is going on? I think the least we can all do is let him/her know that this discussion is going on. But more important, I think everyone first should see if he blanking his page means he left (maybe he plans a redo?) and then maybe see what is going on and see if he can be helped to resolve the situation (s). If my comments are inappropriate, please feel free to remove. I just feel that something is missing here in the details of things. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:06, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point calling a troll anything other than a troll. It solves plenty of problems. I agree with both Folantin and Dark Shikari. We are not flexible enough when dealing with POV-pushers. Single-purpose accounts who are also obvious socks, like MatthewHoffman below, need to be kicked into touch permanently, and straight away. Single-purpose accounts who are not socks (just morons recruited off forums, and yes, this does happen) need to be brutally topic-banned to within an inch of their lives and told in no uncertain terms to get away from their area of manic obsession ASAP. Good content contributors who do the invaluable work on the ground, and who are not POV-pushing, need to be rewarded with sysop buttons. Nationalist, pseudoscience, whatever - the two are often linked - the plague needs to be eradicated. If we do not adequately protect Wikipedia and those who seek to maintain it, we will pay a bitter price. Moreschi ^Talk 13:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot help sympathizing with JzG's predicament. It is no secret that I have lately been more active in Russian Wikipedia than here, and the reason is that apathy sets in when you see the same fights persisting for two or three years without any prospect of resolution. Two days ago, I was called "a troll without a specific gender" and the same person demanded on this noticeboard to have me blocked from editing indefinitely. Once an admin reproached him for abusing the noticeboard, all the hell broke loose on him for not extending good faith to the block shopper. A week earlier, an unfamiliar editor referred to me as a "paranoid goon" but, once I asked for an explanation from him, my message was deleted from the talk page and replaced with a Piotrus-presented barnstar for "good deeds". I don't want to continue this screed here, but all the signs are not encouraging, to put it mildly. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The general rule of nature is that the larger that population, the less time one can afford to give people to disrupt the whole. I think we need to continue to assume good faith, but take a very hard line when it becomes unreasonable to do so. People think "Assume good faith" means to give someone with bad motives another chance. That is not what it means. It means to assume good motives till it is unreasonable to do so, it has nothing to do with "second chances", only with judging motivations. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does judging people's motivations fit in with WP:NPA's "Comment on content, not on the contributor"? *Dan T.* 14:40, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People who are disruptive due to inexperience or accident are not a problem, these people can be reformed and help out, no harm done. People who are disruptive due to malice are unlikely to be reformable. The failure to distinguish between the two is why we put up way too much with jackasses who are only here to be shit disturbers. WilyD 15:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moreschi, our RfA process doesn't seem to favor good editors, nor those who fight to protect Wikipedia. Instead, it favors those who go along with the group and don't make waves. Elonka was denied adminship because she took positions on contentious issues and made enemies who harbored grudges. One of them is stalking the articles about her family members right now. People, we need to understand that honorable folks can have lively disagreements, but that's not a valid reason to deny sysop rights, nor is it a reason to persecute an administrator. - Jehochman ^Talk 15:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I share the ethos of this comment, truth be told, I feel that Elonka is herself engaged in a campaign against such a productive editor as User:PHG, unjustly accusing him of original research and fringecruft across multiple venues. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:35, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the first step here is to propose a rewording of policy. Perhaps a bit of the spirit of WP:DUCK should be combined with WP:AGF. —Dark•Shikari^[T] 17:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • The sheer tediousness and waste of time / digital ink involved in getting obvious troublemakers banned means that we need productive editors like Guy, and to keep them a bit less tolerance of disruptive editing is needed. One improvement might be redefining WP:TROLL – by stating that "Trolling refers to deliberate and intentional attempts" we have to be a mind reader to use the designation, when actions make it obvious per WP:SPADE. Trolling is behaviour, not a state of mind. ... dave souza, talk 21:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Excellent point and well put. I've been bold; let's see what happens. Raymond Arritt 00:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I've reverted. I'm not sure this is the time and place, but though I am sad that Guy has left again, this is a lousy excuse for starting to form up a vigilante committee to label a bunch of good-faith editors who happen to hold dissenting opinions as trolls and drive them away. We have to find the middle ground between burning out our experienced active admins and driving away new and positive but honestly disagreeing editors. Either exteme is disaster. Georgewilliamherbert 03:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Holding a good-faith dissenting opinion is not trolling. Be wary of tainted fish. Raymond Arritt 03:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, once again, as a user who JzG recently said ought to be banned, I need to object to any such proposal as a possible target of it, once policy no longer distinguishes between intentional troublemakers and people like me who hold strong views and stand up for them. *Dan T.* 21:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Someone who has not established themselves as a Wikipedian here to help Wikipedia who pushed against BADSITES the way *Dan T.* has would have been banned by now, and that is how it must be given our extreme openness to anon editing. But even an established editor like Jon Awbrey was able to get himself banned by pushing too hard too fast too unsuccessfully even after repeated warnings; and that too is how it should be. Good faith gained by lots of effort should require lots of effort to dissipate. WAS 4.250 05:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another staunch defender of the idea of Wikipedia as an encyclopedia has been lost. Their ranks are shrinking by the day. I no longer have much hope for this project. FCYTravis 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He was a great editor and administrator, and his roles in defending the quality of Wikipedia users and articles was greatly appreciated. It's a shame that it has had to turn out this way, much like many others, and it gives me little faith in the administrative roles when they are be-whittled in this manner. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not find User:JzG on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations. He seemed to often stick his nose into conflicts with an us/them attitude rather than looking for reconciliation (that seems to be what got him on Mr. Brandt's list). His comments were often banal. My advice: do not give him sysop bit back. Let him go through another RfA if he wants it. Really, he should just start a new account, start fresh and create some featured-quality articles and keep his nose out of other people's disagreements. He was a busybody and he should strive for change within himself. My prediction is that he will be back, but when he does come back, he should focus on creating quality content, on his lonesome if he cannot collaborate. There are still plenty of dead British nobles from centuries ago that deserve FA articles. Emsworth did not get them all. Let the man be non-political and productive for a while and see how he fares then.--RidinHood25 22:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow... It's like field of dreams... if you open a section, trolls will come. JzG is/was an invaluable mem ber of this project. those that think otherwise seem mostly to be of the sour grapes variety, and the last thing Wikipedia needs is more articles about the English Noble relatives of editors, like all those Arbuthnot articles. really. We need more FA's on varied topics. ThuranX 22:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we need more FA's in a variety of subjects. But what did JzG accomplish in his tenure? He deleted some stuff and blocked some users. Anybody can do that. Did he create anything? Did he write policy? What did he do? It is a sincere question. BTW: I do not personally value specialized vandal fighters because everybody is a vandal fighter after a certain point. Did he just pal around with you guys and that made you feel good? That does not count. What did he produce? Where is his name on some text that is valuable and relevant?--RidinHood25 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, you have not been here very long. And judging by your extremely short contribution history and tenure, I am correct on that. Unless you had some prior socks or IPs engaging in some edit war with Guy, which your first comments seemed to indicate, you really have no idea what kind of contributions that Guy produced. He was invaluable to Wikipedia, and did much more than "deleted some stuff and blocked some users." An administrator has many roles that expand far outside of that, and often go unnoticed or unappreciated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find your enumberations of JzG's scholarly legacy to Wikipedia to be vague to the point of being insufficienct and unacceptable.--RidinHood25 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Will administrator please remove this edit [20] from the history log??? It is extremely vile and should not be allowed to stand even in the history section. Abigail Breslin is an 11 year old child. If you had a child her age, would you want this in a history section? Please someone remove it. Fighting for Justice 21:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to post the request here - admins don't have the power to delete pages from the history. FWIW I agree this should be oversighted out — iridescent (talk to me!) 21:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how tho. And my mail client doesn't work on my computer. That comment deserves to be deleted ASAP. Fighting for Justice 21:51, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Submitted. It will be gone within minutes.- Jehochman ^Talk 22:04, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on hiding the edit until it's possible to oversight. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 00:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Folks, you need to take a look at WP:Oversight. It is approved for use in three cases only:

1. Removal of nonpublic personal information such as phone numbers, home addresses, workplaces or identities of pseudonymous or anonymous individuals who have not made their identity public.
2. Removal of potentially libellous information either: a) on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel or b) when the subject has specifically asked for the information to be expunged from the history, the case is clear, and there is no editorial reason to keep the revision.
3. Removal of copyright infringement on the advice of Wikimedia Foundation counsel.

Hidden revisions remain accessible to Oversight users through the log, and can be restored by a developer if a mistake was made.

Oversight removal is not used on usual vandalism — even egregious and offensive vandalism — unless it is one of the above. Oversight is for material that should not be available even to an admin.

The case in question is obnoxious and vulgar, but it does not fall into any of these categories. Ordinary revision deletion must suffice. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 01:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it's been oversighted anyway. Natalie 15:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see it, so it's probably no longer oversighted. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 08:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had a couple of editors asking me about ConoscoTutto (talk · contribs), who they believe to be blocked user SFTVLGUY2 (talk · contribs). I think this very plausible, and suspect The FinalWord (talk · contribs) (also blocked) is the same user as well-- they have had near identical personal descriptions on their user pages ([21]), edited the same articles, used similar phrases, etc. The two blocked accounts both had long willful disregard of Wikipedia practices despite such being explained to them repeatedly and their edits otherwise demonstrating intelligence and good reading comprehension, made false image source claims and blatant copyright violations, sometimes with absurd claims which they defend indignantly when questioned on it (wacky example: Image talk:Petula Clark Grammy.jpg). All the editors seem to have made valuable contributions to articles, although sometimes being rather difficult for other editors to deal with. The final straw which led me to block User:SFTVLGUY2 indefinitely regarded Image:CharlesNelsonReilly.JPG, which SFTVLGUY2 uploaded claiming to be his own work. The apparent actual creator and copyright holder came to Wikipedia and called SFTVLGUY2 out on it, with collaborating link. SFTVLGUY2 refused to discuss it and deleted discussion. I've recently been asked if the block on SFTVLGUY2 should extend to ConoscoTutto. I'd like some feedback on that question. -- Infrogmation 01:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If ConoscoTutto = SFTVLGUY2, it's indef on sockpuppet and extension of block (if it weren't indef) on the main account. - Penwhale | ^{Blast him / Follow his steps} 01:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• SFTVLGUY2 used to routinely delete plot synopses in musical theatre articles and try to prevent the expansion of articles (see my talk page at [[22]] for a list), and ConoscoTutto (know it all) continues to try to prevent the expansion of articles in the same way. See for example [[23]]. ConoscoTutto created his account on October 31, 2006, made only 5 edits (mostly to back up other arguments that he had been making as SFTVLGUY2 (see this) and to support an SFTVLGUY2 argument about an AfD regarding Petula Clark, and then he never used the account again until he resumed active editing on June 13, 2007. SFTVLGUY2 stopped using his account on June 5, 2007 (after a series of image/copyright problems) and was blocked indefinitely for copyright infringement on June 22, 2007. All three usernames above have a particular interest in Petula Clark. See http://www.mind42.com/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_13#Category:Petula_Clark_films Also, their edit summaries are similar, and their talk page arguments are the same. Best regards, -- Ssilvers 03:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the logs, they all seemed to be connected by photos - one would upload a photo, the others would use it or remove warnings about it. Blocked 'em both. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work. -- Infrogmation 00:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No amount of DR will work with this guy, who really hates the relatively minor filmmaker James Gunn and especially his movie Slither (2006 film). He's now taken to using sockpuppets and clever misspellings of my username to emphasize his point. I'd block him myself, but I'm involved in the dispute. I've seen very few productive contributions from this guy; almost all involve adding negative material to these articles.--Cúchullain ^t/c 07:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is clearly an account with the sole purpose of insulting James Gunn. The name may be a violation of WP:USERNAME as it makes it appear the user is working in a professional capacity for Troma. IrishGuy ^talk 17:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the consistent disruption, the sockpuppetry, and personal attacks are enough to block him; I think a good permanent solution would be to ban him from articles related to James Gunn.--Cúchullain ^t/c 01:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs random (talk · contribs), Yeshivish (talk · contribs), Truest blue (talk · contribs), LAZY 1L (talk · contribs), Miamite (talk · contribs), AmerHisBuff (talk · contribs), and Macallan 12 (talk · contribs) are all the same, demonstrated by CheckUser. All have have at some time of another been used for double voting and/or reverting to each other. Administrator action is requested. Dmcdevit·t 08:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Community ban proposed. MER-C 09:08, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't fork discussions, again, please.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs random has admitted in an e-mail to me that he/she is behind all of those usernames, and "[He/she doesn't] really have a problem being banned because [he/she is] wasting too much time on WP." The only thing is that he/she has requested that the userpages be deleted, but I don't think that is the case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request is in to ArbCom for ruling. -- Avi 05:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmm. I've been e-mailed by one of the above (LAZY 1L) claiming that he/she is not involved. I'm not sure what to think - on my RfA this user did vote in the opposite way to two of the other suspected socks. I guess it is possible for it to be a shared IP address, such as at a Yeshiva or Kollel. Anyway, just thought I should bring it to your attention. Number 57 21:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs random said that they were all her.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bizarre. Oh well, I shall report if I hear any more from LAZY. Number 57 22:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone just delete and salt this page? It's been deleted and recreated ten times now. Thanks. Whispering 13:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entire contribs of the editor recreating the page her shows it's a self-promotional SPA. As his articles have been recreated 10 times, that should exceed the need for four separate warnings within one week, and I ask for a perma-ban. See here for more on this. ThuranX 13:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of COI violations from that account. Corvus cornix 20:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but of course no one's doing anything about it, clearly the editor lacks the requisite warning to time span ratio to do anything about it. I've just left him an absolutely rystal clear explanation. Should we ever see anything from him again like Sketchy, then hopefully we can just go ahead and ban him. ThuranX 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• User: Sinhala freedom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

This user repeatedly removes, references from the article Kattankudi mosque massacre, he/she is of the opinion they are not reliable, I have requested the person to discuss in the article talk page and build consensus before removing the contents again, but it doesn't seem to be working. Could an admin look at this. NëŧΜǒńğer^{Peace Talks} 14:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the accuser forgets to mention is that another user is of the same opinion as me in that the sources are unreliable to say the least. The Accuser is repeatedly adding references to known partisan blog type websites from both sides of a bloody ethnic conflict. I have left one of his references behind, since although I am suspicious I will give benefit of the doubt. Also I have supported another user in adding original research tag, since none of the details can be properly referenced to reliable sources such as respected books, journals, news media such as BBC, CNN, Reuters etc. Sinhala freedom 14:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since then, some other user has added some references to NY Times and Boston Globe. So I am satisfied there is some reliable sources now. Sinhala freedom 16:44, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But this no way indicates that the incident mentioned in the article deserves to be an article. Sinhala freedom 18:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Looks like this content dispute has been resolved. In future, not that we have a reliable sources noticeboard for this kind of content dispute. --Haemo 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be glad to have a few more admins' eyes on Liancourt Rocks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), a long-standing dispute between Korean and Japanese editors. (see current Arbitration case). I tried to stop the edit-warring the other day by going WP:ROUGE on them and imposing my own set of behavioural rules on the article (Zero-Tolerance policy on edit-warring). Trouble is, the first three victims of the ensuing blocking spree all were (happened to be?) from one side of the conflict, and now naturally I've got a bunch of them on my hands accusing me of bias. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection? But since it's an arb case, I'd ask the arbitrator folks.Rlevse 16:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, what I'm trying is to avoid protection as long as possible, because the article badly needs constructive work and there seem to be some people prepared to do it. I'm testing Dmcdevit's approach, of working with blocks instead. To some extent it seems to be working. But it takes more effort actively watching it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page protection is not going to solve the root cause of the problem on this article - disruptions on the talk page which has been paralysing the consensus building process. The talk page has been a lot smoother since the blocks. Phonemonkey 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In similar situations I have imposed mandatory 1RR for 24-hour periods upon pain of block. Something similar might work here. Moreschi ^Talk 17:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's roughly like the approach I was trying, only I gave them a wording that focussed a bit more on content-oriented constructiveness rather than just number of reverts. See Talk:Liancourt Rocks#New rules of conduct. Much of the reaction has been pretty good so far. Thanks for helping to keep an eye on it, just let's keep our criteria coordinated. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:57, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. I've jigged around the hidden instructions at the top to reflect a more holistic approach. Your call as to details and how it should work overall, I'm only making suggestions. Cheers, Moreschi ^Talk 18:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your comment about the blocks, I still disagree with your blocks against the Korea side editors. We were not making any obvious violations, nor are we disrupting the talk page with nonsense (unlike Opp2, who seems to be getting away with all his original research and claims). I still don't see how our edits were that outrageusly blatant. The blocking of us was, in my opinion, a show of force to others to enforce your rule. Certainly it was done without any personal feelings (I hope). Yet, by blocking only a specific group of editors, you have now isolated us negatively. This will certainly affect the impression of the arbitrators on the "Korea side" and it will most likely go ill with us. Thats where the problem is and that is how consequential your bold move has become. Its not fair, and I want to ask you how blatant, aggresive, ill-faithed our reverts were so that it got all of us blocked.

What angers me even more is that LactoseTI was not given any penalty for edit-warring on Kimchi. [24] His reverts and edits were certainly done with hatred towards Korea (as I have shown in my evidence in the arb case), yet he doesn't get punished. What has orginally been a problem with NPOV and JPOV editors distorting the rule of NPOV, this has now become a race war. Its not Wikimachine or me or melonbarmonster that is aggresively changing Korea-related articles, its the JPOV editors who are turning this into a race war, and then turning it around so that it seems as if we are the ones dividing up teams. I'm certain that this has turned for the worst and as (finally!) outside editors are introduced to the problem, we will all be punished for this so-called race war.

I'm considering taking this further, because as I see it, its totally unfair. Good friend100 18:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, so far I've really only looked at Liancourt Rocks. I must beg for your understanding that it's beyond my powers to keep the same close watch over all Korean-Japanese articles. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not blaming you for not keeping watch on other articles. I'm just pointing out that what I wrote above is going on. Good friend100 19:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's blatant vandalism by Fixersfixers (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at Liancourt Rocks and other disputed Korea-related articles. I believe somebody is challenging the system now.--Endroit 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixersfixers was blocked for 48 hours. This is an account created for the sole purpose of disruption, and should have been indef blocked right away. There's a pretty decent chance it's a sock or meatpuppet, given the situation. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. That kind of behavior is ridiculous. --Haemo 04:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary Rodham Clinton has been rumored to be a lesbian but clarified the situation once and for all. She said she is not.

If we cover up this, then people will wrongly think she is a lesbian. Tvoz and wonderboy are doing just this, covering it up and smearing Clinton.

Other wikipedia articles, like Prince Albert, Mayor Ed Koch, Larry Craig mention the fact that they have been accused of being a homosexual but said they were not. Treat Clinton the same way, don't smear her.

They are tag teaming 3RR, they need a 24 hour block. Look at their other Clinton edits, they are edit warring socks.

E343ll 21:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've got to be arsing me. We're not a high school corridor — we don't contribute to unsourced smears to notable politicians, and this is a really silly content dispute, with a dose of bad faith thrown in. --Haemo 22:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) Tell me this is a joke... Do you also want to add "She is not an astronaut", "She is not a serial killer" and "She is not a cocker spaniel", in case people assume we're covering up for her otherwise? — iridescent (talk to me!) 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

She said it herself that she is not a lesbian. See the interview in the Advocate magazine.E343ll 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people say lots of things. This is a content dispute, and you should discuss it on the talk page. --Haemo 23:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell us, E343ll, when did you stop beating your wife? Raymond Arritt 00:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make any sense, you want us to not smear her by including a section about her rumored homosexuality? As if not mentioning the fact that some have questioned her sexuality would be somehow libelous? Mr.Z-man 01:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother people with this article again, but a number of users have resorted to using their IP addresses for edit warring on this article. There is probably 3RR violation in reality except that, it's never the same IP address or user. The IP addresses have no previous edits outside of this article. Hoping someone can help resolve this, or the article will just end up being protected again, because of this silly attitude. Jackaranga 22:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think someone should block the IPs and see if any of the other registered users editing this article get autoblocked, and if they do, then block them too. Using your IP address or a sockpuppet for edit warring is so lame, and causes articles to become protected, making legitimate edits more difficult. Jackaranga 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a possible solution but if what you say is accurate, then I think semi-protecting would be more appropriate. Using block tools to hunt down people's IPs is a little iffy, in my books. --Haemo 22:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, semi-protection would be the best course for right now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well someone more used to this stuff probably knows better than me, I thought about requesting semi-protection, but I though it would put legitimate unregistered users at a disadvantage all because of abuse by registered users. That is to say the problem is not with unregistered users causing a problem, but with registered users, who know very well about 3RR, and are using a technicality, not to avoid detection, but to avoid a block. Jackaranga 22:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's why I said "if what you say is true"...---Haemo 23:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted to the last pre-editwar version. Will ^(talk) 22:39, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to edit warring and being caught using sockpuppets, User:Isarig was community banned from articles on Israel, the Middle East, media, and anything else falling under "the set of articles where he misused his editing privileges and subjected to six months of mentorship by users Avi and FayssalF. His mentors are both currently absent from the project (Avi for religious holidays and Fayssal due to a car accident), and he has resumed editing contentious Israel-related articles. When reported at WP:CSN, he denied wrongdoing and is wiki-lawyering the specific terms of his community ban despite it being made clear during his last CSN discussion that there was a unanimous exhaustion of patience by all participants, including those who agree with his editorial POV.

I recommend the following as a result of his violating his topic ban:

1) Isarig be blocked for 24 hours for violating the terms of his topic ban.

2) Isarig be additionally blocked until one of his mentors returns to activity on the project.

Please see my user page for concerns about this alternate account. CSNreport 23:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait a minute. "I am a legitimate alternate account used strictly to report violations of User:Isarig's community ban from sets of articles he has disrupted in the past"???? Can you give me one reason why you can't use your main account to bring Isarig's actions to our attention? Because I'm seriously considering blocking your User:CSNreport account as a role account designed to target, follow, and "report" a specific editor while avoiding scrutiny for what could conceivably be considered Wikistalking. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While blocking CSNreport may well be the proper thing to do, There was a violation of the mentorship, and actions have been taken. -- Avi 04:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to the user page the wikipedian wants to "keep the heated issue of Isarig's sockpuppetry and disruption confined to this account". The wikipedian also doesn't wish "to be harassed by Isarig elsewhere on the project." What the user page doesn't mention is the sockmaster (that is not at all a derogatory term) behind this account.Bless sins 04:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why should that matter? So long as the sockpuppet account isn't being disruptive, then it's nobody's business what their main account is. Corvus cornix 16:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure where to post this, so I'll post here. If this is the inappropriate place, please forgive me, and directly me appropriately. This is not vandalism, nor 3RR. User:InventDa goes on periodic edit sprees, reverting long-standing redirects with little or no reasoning why. The edit summary is a misspelled "sorce", which I assume means that InvetDa is asking for the source. Here are some recent reverts of redirects:

1. [25]
2. [26]
3. [27]
4. [28]

The last one caught my eye, and I reverted his edit, posted a query for justification, and stepped back. The editor hasn't addressed my original concerns. That was a few days ago, but the pattern continues.

The editor also seems to be heavy-handed with slapping vandalism warnings on IP editors page, for what is clearly not vandalism:

1. [29] This is the first vandalism warning, issued apparently for This edit: [30]. As it appears to me, that edit is not vandalism. I can't say for accuracy of the information, but at least I can say it's vandalism, as the next edits (by the editor in question) show edits for the editor in question next show simply manipulation of the information which was supposedly "vandalism"
2. [31] is another heavy-handed warning, seemingly based on [32]

While the editor has contributed a few constructive edits, most of the activity is disruptive (in my eyes, which is why I post here).

Yngvarr (t) (c) 23:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me like this editor is new, young, and bolder than their skills merit. For example, they haven't been here a week and have already tried to request adminship. Given that this looks like the Dunning-Kruger effect in action, I'd say the next step is more vigorous education, rather than official sanction. Perhaps you could take another try at telling them what they're doing wrong? They don't even realize that anybody has a problem with them yet. Thanks, William Pietri 17:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time and input. I've posted a (hopefully!) polite notice on the editors talk page. Yngvarr (t) (c) 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user keeps adding an unsourced statement to RuneScape, as seen from:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=158811794&oldid=158784356
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159289686&oldid=159086968
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159517385&oldid=159498156
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159613370&oldid=159562239
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159705933&oldid=159642939
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159708789&oldid=159706416
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=RuneScape&diff=159897925&oldid=159859562

He also page-move-vandalised the article to Runescape the flea bag, but the vandalism was removed on sight.
This user hasn't broke the WP:3RR rule yet, but just constantly reverting the unsourced statement is going to be a bit too exhausting for us.
This user also has several warnings already, hasn't been blocked yet, and what do I think that he should be kept away from editing for a while. I don't want to sound harsh, but something has to be still done about this.

I originally posted this to WP:AIV, but I was instructed to report this on here instead.

Thanks, ~Iceshark7 23:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been reverting his edits too.. it seems also plausible that User:Runescapehater is a sock of his given his comments on the talk page. DEVS EX MACINA _pray 01:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Think MapleStory. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There has been a number of IP sock-puppets hitting GameTZ.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The edits consist of adding {{gamecleanup}} however, they have not discussed any specific cleanup issues despites several requests by multiple editors. Instead each edit declares the removal of the cleanup tag as vandalism. There has also been a bit of vandalism from these IPs on the article's most recent AfD, consisting of removing {{spa}} tags from some of the commenters.

A WP:RFPP has been filed by another editor, which has likewise been vandalized by one of the IPs. --Farix (Talk) 00:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a list of the IP addresses: 77.74.198.212 (talk · contribs), 216.40.236.82 (talk · contribs), Foroto11 (talk · contribs), 74.53.104.2 (talk · contribs), 74.220.207.103 (talk · contribs), 208.79.200.172 (talk · contribs)

To note, 216.40.236.82 (talk · contribs) was just indef. blocked for being an open proxy/sock, and I would suspect the other accounts are much the same. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article has just been semi-protected by C.Fred (talk · contribs). Thank you! Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've come across a new anon editor, 65.102.184.183, all of whose edits have been solely to undo edits by Parsecboy, claiming the latter's work to be vandalism or unhelpful edits – but in reality it is the anon's changes that are vandalism or unhelpful changes. (Examples include [33] and [34].) I've reverted those vandalisms not already caught by other editors, and left a warning on the anon's talk page, but this is likely a SPA by someone Parsecboy has offended. An administrator may wish to monitor the anon's next edits when he/she becomes active again. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trentaysingko (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has spent his entire Wikipedia career doing nothing but upload unsourced not-safe-for-work images. He's not here to contribute to an encyclopedia, so should he be indefinitely blocked? --Carnildo 01:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, definitely. I'll block him now. Just look at that talk page - 42 warnings. Picaroon (t) 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed this AfD because it had been tagged {{Notability|date=February 2007}} since, obviously, February 2007. Upon doing AfD, someone has come out of the woodwork to edit the article. Great, except for the personal attacks against me in the discussion page by this same user (see AfD history page because I deleted the attacks per WP:ATTACK and Wikipedia:Guide to deletion which states "Do not remove or modify other people's comments even if you believe them to be in bad faith — unless the user has been banned from editing the relevant pages, is making a blatantly offensive personal attack or a defamatory commment about a living person". Admittedly, I have had a past with the subject of the article but as I have tried to explain, I have kept WP:NPOV and only submitted the article because no one had bother to do anything about the Notability issue since it was tagged in February. At the time I brought this article for AfD, no edits had been done and the article as it was at that time did not meet WP:BIO or WP:N, not to mention the information contained in the article was mostly also contained in the article subject's newspaper article at Jackson Free Press. I felt that what little information was in the AfD could be merged into the Jackson Free Press article. I say all of this to further state emphatically that I do not have a personal vendetta against the subject of the article/AfD and if I did, I would have also put up her newspaper's (Jackson Free Press) article up for AfD as well. That's the honest truth. HOWEVER, since my involvement has been called into question and attacked with name calling and posting of my personal information (name and employer) by this 'out of the woodwork' user, I feel the best thing to do is to go on and close the AfD as KEEP. While this user has attacked me personally, he has also made significant edits to the article including references and sources. I myself even included new material (but I have a vendetta against the article subject???). While I still feel that most of what is in the article is found in the Jackson Free Press article, and what little else is left could be merged, I do find the article is now much better than it was. So to any Admin, please handle this as you see fit. Thanks for your time. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 02:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm slightly confused by your summary of events (I don't mean that in a skeptical way), but if you think the AfD should be closed as keep, I'd go ahead and close it as a withdrawal, since no one else seems to be pushing for deletion. — xDanielx ^T/_C 03:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While we're at it, block the user responsible for posting personal information and oversight those edits ("HOWEVER, since my involvement has been called into question and attacked with name calling and posting of my personal information (name and employer) by this 'out of the woodwork' user..."). We don't need more H's and JzG's. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 03:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have closed the AFD as nom withdrawn. Looking into other concerns. Mr.Z-man 03:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the personal info, and sent it to oversight-l. Navou ^banter 03:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawal is fine. I haven't seen that used before, I've only seen Keep, Delete and No consensus (I'm fairly new so I guess I just haven't come across "withdraw". At any rate, thanks for everyone's help in resolving the issue. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 03:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All personal info should now be oversighted as well. Mr.Z-man 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He is STILL deleting me discussion threads. why is he not banned? do i need to call wikipedia myself? this is absurd. Shutup999 04:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably go to WP:AIV instead of here, but you don't appear to have warned the IP at all, so they may have an issue with things. Admins, note that this is related to this report above as well. Tony Fox (arf!) 04:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, calm down and keep cool please. Now, what exactly is he doing? I couldn't quite make out what you mean. If what he is doing is simple and obvious vandalism (blanking articles, removing content, repeatedly adding nonsense and whatnot), then you'd be better off reporting him to WP:AIAV, but I can't be sure based on your description alone. You Can't See Me! 04:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just checked the contributions page. Apparently, our IP friend takes you to be a sockpuppet of a banned user based on the three digits at the end of your username and considers your posts to be trolling (to his credit, though, I can see why your thread title may have seemed a bit blunt). Rather than getting the IP blocked (IPs cannot get banned or indefblocked), you might want to talk this over with him and come up with an alternative thread title. You Can't See Me! 04:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked the IP for an explanation, and got this reply on my talk page (reproduced in full below) —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

== reply to your question from earlier today ==
Re: Identifying the sock. It has nothing to do with the username at all. It has everything to do with familiarity... simply recognizing the all to easy to spot bad habits of a repeat troll. Look at the user history of Shutup999 (talk · contribs). Then look at the edit history of Zephead999 (talk · contribs)... then look at the edit history of Zubt555 (talk · contribs), Pie76 (talk · contribs), Duff man2007 (talk · contribs)... etc. NOW.... let's go back in time a little... look at the edit history of Zabrak (talk · contribs). Then... back a little further... look at the bad habits of Dragong4 (talk · contribs). Do you see the repetition? It jumps right out at you after a while. I've been catching this particular thorn for a very long time. I can spot his typical editing modus operandi with my eyes closed. That's why the user is tagged and that is why he will be blocked. But... unfortunately as you can see by the editors history.... he will return another day... under another name... and continue to use Wikipedia as his little toybox. He's not the only one. His kind is one in thousands who seek to undermine what Wiki is all about. Sooner or later he will get bored of if(sooner.. hopefully) But until then... it'll be up to regular editors to tag him and see that he doesn't do too much damage. Have a nice day! 156.34.142.158 18:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This might be worth further investigation - just because the accusation comes from an IP doesn't mean it has no merit. —Random832 18:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is that his only reply? This guy has absolutely no life. Seriously this man is pathetic, and would be generally accepted as so.

Anyway, just because he thinks I'm a sock of somebody does not mean that he can remove my information if it's not vandalism. Please do something about this, please. Shutup999 21:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure. I can block you as a sock of a blocked editor. In fact, I think I shall. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing to upload copyvio images in violation of WP:NFCC despite a pageful of warnings. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked him for 24 hours, or until he "gets it". --Haemo 04:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been blocked multiple times under his user name and as an IP. He is now active again, edit warring and vandalizing, while evading a current block.

New IP being used to evade current block:

• 219.90.158.81 (talk · contribs)

User name and associated IP's:

• Jun kaneko (talk · contribs)
• 122.49.175.210 (talk · contribs)

Diff showing newly posted comment by the IP, signed with name of user in the text: [35]

Prior report at WP:AN/3RR earlier today for multiple article 3RR violations and edit warring: [36]

Result of 3RR report: (Result: 36 hours to Jun kakeko, 24 hours to IP )

This user was also blocked and warned on Sept 19, here: [37]

Just prior to that, his rather extreme three-word response to my uw-3RR warning and WP:CONSENSUS explanation on his talk page: [38]

I thought I should report this here as his edit-warring vandalism is continuing. --Parsifal _Hello 05:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

additional info... Although the two IP numbers look quite different, they resolve to the same area:

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 81.158.90.219.in-addr.arpa PTR 219-90-158-81.ip.adam.com.au.

Asia Pacific Network Information Centre 210.175.49.122.in-addr.arpa PTR 122-49-175-210.ip.adam.com.au.

--Parsifal _Hello 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new IP now added to his list, and he's claimed it by adding a new signature on his prior post at this diff: [39]

• 219.90.229.216 (talk · contribs)

--Parsifal _Hello 06:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across the {{rescue}} template after it showed up on an AFD I nominated. I noticed within it the line "Please do not remove this template until after the AFD has finished." I removed that, as it is absurd: The Article Rescue Squadron is a wikiproject, not a policy, they do not have the right to demand that a template stay on until an AFD has finished.

I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before. Fosnez reverted without discussion, and then had the gall to drop a level 2 warning template on my talk page: even though I left an edit summary clearly stating why it was that I removed that line. He suggested that I might have some sort of "conflict of interest" in that I have an article on AFD that I nominated that has that same template. I should note that WP:COI applies to mainspace edits, not templates, and is intended to prevent "outside influences", not good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia.

Now first of all, this "Article Rescue Squadron" already has the whole "militaristic" thing against it that "Counter-vandalism unit" had. To take that and make a statement on a template that implies that you MUST leave the template in place, and to do so would be against some sort of rule, is absurd. It's a wikiproject. There's no sort of enforcement to that.

To compound this attempt to make it seem like you cannot leave the template, he moved the "rescue" template ABOVE the "End of AFD" comment, further implying that you cannot delete this. (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.

This whole thing has gone too far. I'm requesting an outside source come knock some good faith and clue back into Fosnez over this. This template is finding its way onto more and more articles, and more and more articles are displaying this false implication that the template has some sort of enforcement power. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed {{rescue}} at TFD. I've seen this template a couple of times, and it really seems unnecessary, particularly if people have begun edit warring over its inclusion or its eminence on articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'm allowed to post here, but I would like to mount my own defence. Swatjester is correct that this template is "finding" its way onto more and more articles, because more and more articles are being deleted without a valid reason - The Article Rescue Squadron (ARS) is about fixing articles - we are not a militaristic group. I have attempted to assume good faith throught this proceeding, but my patience has a limit. The rescue template has been on many articles, yet it was only when it appeared on Swatjester's articles that they decided it needed editing. Numerous admins have seen the template and yet no one else has commented on it. The ARS itself contains quite a number of admins: User:Dsmdgold, User:TimVickers, User:Zanimum, User:Gnangarra, User:Jossi, User:bibliomaniac15, User:Morven, User:Fuzheado, User:CatherineMunro, User:DGG, User:Sjc, none of which have commented on its wording. My reference to the Conflict of Interest above was regarding Swatjester's nominating an article for deletion, the article was flagged then for rescue (meaning someone thought it was encyclopedic, and that the ARS should attempt to save it). Swatjester then edited the template to remove the (at that point) demand asking other editors not to remove the said template. I left a standard template asking Swatjester not to do it again, with their responce being I don't know who you think you are.... I then reworded the template to remove the demand out of it and replace it with a request. I matintained my civilitary and asked Swatjester please discuss it on the template page (which he has now done). I have attempted to maintain good faith, civility and patience throught these proceedings, but Swatjester comments and edits were abrupt and severely lacking in policy - as I said in my final revert of the template, show me where a policy says I can't ask users not to remove my the template and I will remove the wording myself. - Fosnez 06:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well as it's not your template I suspect that Wikipedia:Ownership of articles applies. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that my response cited WP:TEMPLAR which, while an essay, is a particularly strong one, supported by WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 07:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the one word in my above post that made it "my" template. Fosnez 07:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• To avoid redundancy, confusion, and hair-pulling, let's please keep discussion to the template talk page. I'm somewhat skeptical about using ANI as a sort of speedy RFC, but in any case I think this ANI section has served its purpose. — xDanielx ^T/_C 07:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Oh. mai. gawd. You got templated. That gives you license to lash Fosnez like he's never been lashed before. Tell him, "I don't know who you think you are". Tell others, "I was reverted by Fosnez (talk · contribs), who I've never even heard of and never run across before". Sound absolutely incredulous. Get incredibly angry. That helps everyone so much. It might even improve the community. Who knows, it might even cause an article to be created! Ya know, the encyclopedia? What we are here to do? What the template helps improve by getting experienced editors to edit an article? </end sarcasm> --Iamunknown 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• (I reverted, edit conflicted and accidentally lost some of his sources. He felt the need to warn me in the edit sum not to delete sources, instead of assuming good faith.) - It takes more clicks to push through an edit conflict than it would have to remove the template again and hit save. In that situation, I'd have also wondered why you made that choice, and maybe even *gasp* dared to suspect you were deliberately being difficult. When you choose to push through an edit conflict, you have a responsibility to clean up the resulting mess, and it's rather odd to make that choice in the first place rather than just resolve it with the provided form, when your intended edit is a single-line edit to the lead section of a page. —Random832 11:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...good faith attempts to improve the encyclopedia. Taking a position that serves no apparent purpose but to prevent others from coordinating to improve an article may be in good faith in so far as it is an honestly held position, but it is no kind of attempt to improve the encyclopedia. —Random832 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to be on record saying that I agree fully with Swatjester above and do not like this whole ARS mess at all. – Steel 12:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This template would have some credibility if it wasn't repeatedly attached to articles like this piece of detritus. ELIMINATORJR 12:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Might I interject that referring to any article as a "piece of detritus" is a clear failure to respect WP:AGF? Bondegezou 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it isn't. This is not a Wikipedia article, but a essay which is borderline disruption. ELIMINATORJR 17:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • WP:AGF is not conditional on the quality of edits made. Bondegezou 21:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think, per Eliminator, that this is a well-intentioned effort that's doomed to failure. The list of articles that have been tagged by the project don't inspire confidence. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit long but this response on the Template for Deletion entry seems to convey a reasoned explanation for the project, its template and its users actions. Keep, without any restriction on its use other than that it be used in conjunction with the AFD template (as is presently the case). This template is designed to be used to facilitate improving the encyclopedia. Deleting it will not improve the encyclopedia, therefore deleting it would be erroneous. Similarly, restricting its use to article talk pages would diminish its ability to be used to improve the encyclopedia, therefore that suggestion is also inappropriate and should properly be ignored. Far too many of the arguments for why it should be on talk pages rely on the illogical application of categorical rules ("tags related to Wikiprojects always go on talk pages") ("this template is intended to be an article tag") without any apparent analysis as to whether those categorical rules apply, or should apply, in this circumstance. Indeed, it is very difficult to escape the conclusion that those seeking the deletion of this tag (and those seeking the deletion of the Article Rescue Squadron itself) are doing so because they view it as an impediment to the rapid deletion of content from Wikipedia which they do not approve of. These people have forgotten that writing an encyclopedia is a process that requires time, thought, and deliberation, and that developing consensus even more so. Roadblocks to doing anything rapidly in Wikipedia are a good thing, and as such this particular roadblock serves an important purpose and should therefore be kept notwithstanding the (mostly bankrupt) arguments for not keeping it. Also, allegations that this is a "votestacking" device are without any question made in bad faith and are made without regard to the fact that the project responsible for it explicitly disavows any sort of votestacking and also the complete lack of any evidence for such accusations; "delete" recommendations on that basis should therefore be ignored and those making them chastised severely. Kelly Martin (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Benjiboi 16:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the past few hours, User:Skyring has:

• Performed two non-consensual edits in succession that removed factual and relevant details without clear talkpage substantiation (here & here),
• Sought to justify those edits by misrepresenting my block history and engaging in hand-waving exercises on his, MastCell's and the article's talkpages
• Selectively deleted my reasonable response to the aforementioned on his talkpage (which asked for honesty, good faith and a focus on content)
• Disruptively and repeatedly renamed the talkpage subsection I created and had linked to elsewhere, thus breaking the links (here, here, here, here, here,

here & here.

All the while, I have politely asked him to not misrepresent my actions and stick to debating content and the actual matter under dispute, which he has yet to do, despite ample opportunity. He calls for calm whilst continuing to repeat actions that he knows are the cause of the disruption and discontent. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 07:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Brendan.lloyd made an edit, without first obtaining consensus, here, which had the effect of casting doubt on facts that were not in dispute. On reviewing the article today, I noticed this and chose a more objective wording. Since then, Brendan has cracked a wobbly and evades my argument here. I cannot characterise his summary above as honest or accurate. --Pete 07:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring/Pete, no requirement for consensus was asserted when I made that edit nearly a month ago. The article had been witnessed by other editors without complaint since. It had withstood a certain test of time until you changed it to remove granularity/detail. My summary above, and the Wikipedia record, speaks for itself. --Brendan Lloyd [ contribs ] 12:27, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brendan, could you help us understand why you've brought this here instead of pursuing our many avenues for dispute resolution? I'm wondering if perhaps you missed them. Thanks, William Pietri 17:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfinished business.

John_W._Dickenson is a re-creation by Joe Faust (User:Joefaust) of a page deleted at John Dickenson and material also inserted by Faust at the John Dickinson disambiguation page. Faust has an apparent agenda to belittle John Disckenson; he links to a website www.dickensonwing.com which redirects to a Yahoo forum where Faust also posts this misleading material. There is an OTRS ticket: 2007083110005034

The complaints come from a friend of Dickenson (who is now 74 years old and retired). Dickenson is distressed by these repeated attempts to belittle him. If the comments of Dickenson and Graeme Henderson (complainant) are accurate, which would require checking by someone familiar with the subject, then Faust should be banned from these articles. This has been going on for some time. (Guy) 08:16, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, note www.dickensonwing.com is a redirect to groups.yahoo.com/group/HangGlidingMuseum. All reference to Mr Dickenson has been removed. I cannot see anything in Joefaust (talk · contribs)'s edits that is trying to belittle Mr Dickenson, however. Neil ム 09:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll agree that I can't see belittling or attacking in the deleted edits. Nor can I see any real reason to have these articles in the deleted edits. The linking to a redirect, sometimes with what appears to me a misleading article text for the URL, is troubling. GRBerry 14:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a revert sleeper at that article, see Special:Contributions/Timespade. User's first edits are to a semi-protected page, thus it is almost certainly a sleeper account. I'm not sure what the practice is but I'm asking for input. Milto LOL pia 10:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a sleeper account, I tend to click the "rollback (vandal)" button (as it's tantamout to block evasion). Will ^(talk) 10:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt the lack of communication present in rollback is going to do anyone any good. It only took me a few seconds to manually revert, tab myself into the edit summary window and type in "rv sleeper". It's possible given his poor grammar/lack of signatures he really is new. I doubt it though. Milto LOL pia 10:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...or they could be indicative that he's another reincarnation of FAAFA. east.718 at 12:20, September 24, 2007

I would like to formally complain about this user's abusive comments toward me and evasiveness towards talking to me and generally violating the wikipedia civility policy. The user has deleted any attempt I have made to communicate directly by deleting posts on their talk page seen here: [40][41]. THe user has also taken to going to other users to have them "watch" me as the user "won't be around much longer" the user is also claiming that I am trying to change wikipedia content under Wiki I don't like without providing evidence. The uer is also continually evasive and unnecessarily personal in comments by criticising word use and spelling, which is done in an uncivil way. I would request that action be taken to prevent this user form continuing to hurl abuse at me just because they dislike me. I have tried to end this but have obviously been ignored. the talk page comments can be viewed here [42] [43] The G8 talk page is located here [44] --Lucy-marie 12:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the instructions at the top of this page. You can make an informal complaint here about misuse of administrative power, not a formal complaint about a non-admin (especially since the instances you link to don't seem any too egregious). The places to go for that are mediation and/or requests for comment. It's up to you whether you think it's worth going through either of these processes with regard to a user who seems intent on leaving as soon as the "Troubles" ArbCom case is closed (though it's true that one can never be sure whether intentions to leave will be carried out). Please note that he can delete comments on his talkpage if he wants to. Being ignored doesn't feel nice, but we all have to put up with it sometimes. Bishonen | talk 13:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]

In addition, I should note that there is fairly compelling evidence that User:Lucy-marie has been operating a "bad-hand" sockpuppet account - see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Lucy-marie. I've asked her for a response. MastCell ^Talk 21:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What does that have to do with anything?--Lucy-marie 22:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're playing good hand/bad hand, that can be a reason to temporarily block you or (at the least) bludgeon you with the cluex4 for the disruption caused by the bad hand account. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Kacheek!)} 04:25, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have a photographer who has uploaded quite a few good photos, but he is also putting in his byline on all the pages. For those pages without photos, I figure let him do so until we can have a byline-free photo. But on Ana Beatriz Barros he has violated the 3RR rule with his photo, replacing my (byline-free) image. His photo is not of superior quality, and typically on model pages, since they are paid for their bodies, we should have full-body shots (even physical measurements are given in the infoxbox). I've tried to discuss it with him, but he is edit-warring to keep his by-lined photograph in the lead. If that's okay, I'd like to start including my byline as well. --David Shankbone 13:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These aren't freely licensed photographs. User:Sacredhands puts these stipulations on the photographs:
Attribution Rules under Creative Commons license:

1. Use of photo must include a link to my website: http://christopherpeterson.com

2. Use of photo must include the caption: "Photograph by Christopher Peterson"

3. Use of photo must include informing me of your use of the photo

4. Use of the photo must be placed in writing and sent to me detailing your exact use of the photo
--David Shankbone 13:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I rerverted the article to use the free image with a suitable edit summary, and left a note on User:Sacredhands' talkpage. ELIMINATORJR 14:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Conditon 1 is acceptable as long as the link is on the image decription page; it should not be on every page the image is used (no credits in captions, see Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images). Conditon 2 is not acceptable per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#User-created_images. Condition 3 is a courtesy; however since he is uploading his own photos, he can check "what links here" any time he wants. Condition 4 is not acceptable, in my opinion, because we have no control over how a freely-licensed photo may be used 6 months from now; making written notification a requirement rather than a courtesy creates too great a likelihood that his images will be used in a manner that contradicts the license and therefore makes them unfree. If he is unwilling to modify his licensing requirement then I suggest treating the images as unfree. Thatcher131 15:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I concur, we can't agree with condition 1 and 2 on the article (but it is okay in the image description), and therefore we can't use his image. I think that 3 and 4 make his image non-free but IANAL. -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Following a discussion on his talk page, the user agreed to license his content with the following message:

1. Either the caption "Photograph by Christopher Peterson." and a link to the website christopherpeterson.com must appear below the image, or, if the image is used in an online medium, the image itself may be a hyperlink to a separate page providing this information.

2. As a courtesy, I would appreciate being informed of any use of my photos in any medium for any purposes.

Sounds good to me. What do you think? -- lucasbfr ^talk (using User:Lucasbfr2) 16:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The issue in this case is that we already have a freely licensed, high quality image that doesn't require a byline. It is also licensed under the GFDL license, which allows commercial reproduction without permission or notice. His is none of these, and thus goes against our principles. --David Shankbone 18:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His revised terms don't require permission or notice for commercial use either. east.718 at 18:22, September 24, 2007

• Not sure to what extent this applies here on En Wikipedia, but Commons licensing policy states, as a restriction that must not apply to a free license, "Notification of the creator required, rather than requested, for all or for some uses". Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the photo credit, per Wikipedia:Captions (admittedly just a guideline) here, the photographer's name is generally only included if the photographer is notable. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 18:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  I guess he meets the first criteria as he is now just requesting notice. And the second does not apply since he is not requiring his name in the caption of the picture. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think there are self-promotion issues here, as well. All of his photographs include his byline, something I don't do. This isn't about my photo being the lead; anyone can see my Sean Combs photo was recently switched out of the lead and I was fine with the replacement. More, I have an issue with "Photography by Christopher Peterson" plastered all over the articles. I don't have a website, all my work is done for Wikipedia, and I don't include bylines. My issue is with his insistence on self-promotion on multiple articles. --David Shankbone 19:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His proposal is to have his link on the picture page, not on the article. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then should we remove his byline on all the articles? --David Shankbone 19:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would leave them for now, no point in removing, but check to see he doesn't add them from this point on. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point in removing them is that we aren't here as a vehicle for self-promotion. --David Shankbone 19:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try to assume good faith. You place your name in every image you upload, no one is accusing you of the same. By all means do as you please, I have no power to stop you. The issue seems resolved and can end here, if you are willing to leave everything as agreed, the decision is yours. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no comparison between having a User name in a file and putting a name in the byline of an article, and that issue has been discussed to death. I'm not going to chase down his name off the articles, but it sets a precedent. --David Shankbone 19:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think it will. If you ever find others doing it and citing his as a reason you can point them to the above resolution and that situation can easily be resolved I guess. As I said I cannot stop you, nor would I bother to. Also a file name would appear in Google Images, much like yours does en masse, so its debatable, a debate I am not going to participate in. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A Google Image search is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. One can also find my images on the Commons via Google Image search. The issue is what is on our articles, not whether there is no way, no how that a photographer's images can be found via the site, so I think your comment is irrelevant as it regards me. There is a fine line between discouraging contributions and preventing self-promotion on mainspace. The issue has been well-settled, over and over. I'm in no violation; Christopher is. That's all. I won't be doing anything about the other pages, but your arguments above deserved an answer since they are "old news." --David Shankbone 20:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy all is resolved. I have no clue of your past battles, so I am sorry if I stirred up some past issues. I think you both do good work and take amazing shots, and hope you both continue to do so. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, he should not be credited in the caption of the article, only on the image description page. He seems to have agreed to this. Rather than fix them yourself, which might be taken the wrong way (and as you are well aware, Wikipedia has a shortage of good photographers and should not do anything to gratuitously drive them away) why don't you compile a list and ask him nicely to fix them, and give him a reasonable time frame to do so. Thanks. Thatcher131 20:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User Thegoodson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) recently added a long partisan screed to the already very long New antisemitism page. User:Malik Shabazz deleted it and reposted it to the talk page for discussion, where I expressed my view that it was comprised almost totally of "original research, highly tendentious and POV claims and overreliance on partisan sources."

However, I became suspicious that it might contain some copyvio material. A google search quickly revealed that the entire edit is a word-for-word copyvio from a partisan website (see section entitled Anti-Semitism in Germany, 1945–2004).

I posted a message regarding the copyvio to the offender's talk page, but while there I noticed he has about ten warnings for uploading images of unknown copyright status to Wiki, including eight since February this year. Along with the copyvio, he also added a couple of new inflammatory images to the New antisemitism article which I suspect are also of questionable status.

It appears that rather than learning from previous warnings, this user is becoming more brazen and diversifying his borrowings to including large chunks of other people's writing to boot. I haven't checked his edit history for further copyvio's but it appears to me there is an established pattern here that is not improving over time. Perhaps it's time the community took some action to draw his attention to the inappropriateness of his behaviour? Thanks, Gatoclass 15:56, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A spammy article. Lots of edits by IPs. Please watch it for the next few days. -- Cat ^chi? 16:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll make sure the folks at WP:COIN are aware. Shalom ^Hello 21:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help?--Filll 16:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:JoshuaZ for one week [45]. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help us.--Filll 16:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked by User:JoshuaZ for one week [46]. Next time, use warnings and report to WP:AIV, where you get a faster response. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked User:El Greco and User:86.74.44.243 for disruption on Athens. May I have a second look? Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 17:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a 3RR violation. That's good enough. The Evil Spartan 17:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD has attracted an unusual number of anonymous editors, apparent sock puppets, and single purpose accounts. Nathan Hamilton is a deceased, gay porn star who allegedly had an involvement with Tom Cruise. There are sources to back this up (such as MSNBC), but the claims are controversial. It looks like this AfD may be subject to a reputation management campaign by those would like to spin Wikipedia for their own purposes. - Jehochman ^Talk 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You reason is here: [47]. The Evil Spartan 17:33, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holy hell that page is unreadable. I thought The Sun in the UK was bad. That page is a wet dream of conspiracy theories and other cruft. Spryde 17:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Hamilton is not deceased, according to WP:OTRS. MSNBC's gossip column makes no mention of Hamilton or "Big Red," only indicates that someone claimed an encounter with this famous person. There is no reliable source to connect Hamilton to the "Big Red" who alleged the encounter, and no statement directly from "Big Red" or Hamilton of the encounter. There is only an individual Paul Barresi who claims to have talked to "Big Red," and plans to publish a book about it. -Jmh123 18:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindent) Since I did this for an investigation, a synopsis of the article's history: The article was started by the newly registered User:Robin Redford on May 30 with the edit comment, "I have researched sites on Nathan Hamilton, Paul Barresi, Anthony Pelicano and have called Westminster Abbey and intereviewed Nathan Hamilton personally."

Editors started to revise and remove unsourced material, and on June 1, 2007 there was this diff [48] with the edit comment from Redford, "If you give me a change to document all the sources and references this is the story that should stand otherwise I will provide you a list of over 700 other stories with problems that I will legally h." Redford also stated here [49], "I can produce the Real Nathan Hamilton and all the documentation to prove this article -- why are you harassing us?" An anon IP from France, 86.217.198.239, began to add Wikilinks and in-line refs. User:DESiegel tried repeatedly to remove the "inline links that look like refs but aren't," Redford edit warred, and was blocked. An anon IP in France, 90.5.208.226, reverted one of DES's revision, commenting on this diff [50] that, "The 'edited down' story is untruthful and Nathan Hamilton will sue Wikipedia if it is posted again!" According to earlier versions of the bio, Hamilton was living in France. After one more reversion by User:Cquan, there was a break of nearly 2 months.

On July 21, a French IP 90.45.142.43 added in the notice of Hamilton's death and began to edit the entry. The French IP added in various elaborations to the "edited down" version, again not sourced properly or just not sourced: such as television appearances, a conversion to Judaism, more on the Pellicano/Barresi story, and an upcoming memorial video.

This continued until the OTRS was informed that Hamilton is not dead, the article was edited accordingly by Somitho on July 31 and the article was protected. Remarkably, while the reference to his death was removed from the lead, it was never removed from the body of the article. Robin Redford then added prod tags and removed them several times, settling for a not verified tag.

User:Phil Sandifer deleted some unreliable material on August 11, and semi-protected the article til August 31.

On Sept. 1 209.244.42.67 deleted reference to the death notice being published in Europe, but not the death, and then started adding in the unreliable sources again. Deleting, adding, deleting. Added a prod tag and the obit tag, exactly as previously deleted. Added a bit more about the sex with famous actor allegations. 71.127.234.96 deleted the prod tags. Redford added a speedy delete tag. User:Haemo removed it as it was an incorrect tag.

Later in September 209.244.42.67 started adding categories, lots of categories. 76.86.105.146 and Redford started building the article again just a little. I did a clean-up, removed the unsourced material, Redford asked for the deletion, and I nominated the article for deletion. -Jmh123 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say the false claims of death further support the hypothesis that somebody is doing a spin job on, or via, this article. - Jehochman ^Talk 19:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suspected sockpuppet manipulation of this AFD, six month block on sockfarm

• LaniMakani
  • first two edits are to this AFD.[51][52][53]
  • Next edit is to agree with Robin Redford at a talk page.[54]
  • Adds a citation flag on fourth edit, which is quite rare for a new user but characteristic of Robin Redford and Roz Lipschitz.[55]
  • Agrees with 76.86.105.146 on fifth edit (another suspected sock from the same drawer).[56]
  • Adds a spam template on sixth edit.[57]
  • Removes a link with a deceptive edit summary.[58]
  • Argues for another article removal on a talk page. Note overuse of capitaliation and punctuation, which is characteristic of other suspected socks.[59]
  • Agrees with Roz Lipschitz and Robin Redford two other talk pages.[60][61]

• Roz Lipschitz
  • Votes to the AFD nine minutes after LaniMakani.[62]
  • A sample comment at a talk page where the others cluster, using the same prose style and voicing agreement.[63]

• Robin Redford
  • Votes to the AFD.[64][65]
  • Posts a very serious personal attack against an article subject. Note similar prose prose style with excessive punctuation and capitalization. There are other similar examples, but this extreme one should make the case. I later blanked it.[66]

• 209.244.42.65
  • Votes at AFD.[67][68][69]
  • Posts to a different talk page in the same prose style as the rest. Different DNS location, but I have reason to suspect that's irrelevant in this case. Interested editors can contact me offline for an explanation.[70]

• 76.86.105.146
  • Votes to AFD.[71]
  • Chimes in with the rest on a talk page in the same style.[72]

---

Also note how several of these !voted at other pornography bios recently.

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wolf Hudson (2nd nomination)
• 209.244.42.65[73]
• Roz Lipschitz[74]
• Robin Redford[75]

• • Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Barresi
• 209.244.42.65[76]
• 209.244.42.66[77]
• 209.244.42.67[78]

• • Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jayden_Tyler
• 209.244.42.65[79]
• Tagged by Roz Lipschitz a week earlier.[80]

---

A few other throwaway accounts and roving (but similar) IP addresses round out this sockfarm, but that ought to be enough to establish the case. I'm blocking all registered accounts in this family for six months. Salient factors include persistency over several months, manipulation of multiple AFD discussions, and the extreme nature of the worst BLP violation (this editor habitually violates WP:BLP). Durova^Charge! 23:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone mind looking at Wikipedia blocked by China and Blocking of Wikipedia in mainland China. I am not seeing much difference. People have tried to redirect this but it seems that the creator has other plans. Spryde 17:46, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, the creator is a sock of ClueBot: [81] ;). The Evil Spartan 17:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good ole' ClueBot. Sometimes savior, othertimes, protector of the wrong version Spryde 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[82]: According to one of the edit summaries, the latter article is blocked by the Chinese government. Or at least was censored.

Are copy-and-paste "copies" treated the same way as cut-and-paste "moves"? Because even if some part of it is censored, the edit history is not preserved.

Also, the easiest way to get the bytesizes of the articles to be similar seems to be a revert of [83] and previous similar edits - and User:SummerThunder is being mentioned in a couple of them. LegitimateSock 18:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean the summary that says "the other version is protected by the chinese communist party members, many sensitive information were deleted. read and compare.", I think the user is claiming that the other version isn't NPOV. Even if the claim is true, we still don't do POV forks. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indeffed the account that created the page as a probable SummerThunder sock.[84] Durova^Charge! 21:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_football_(soccer)_players

sorry, I'm new to this so don't know what to do about it so hope someone who knows what they're doing will pick it up!

respect! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simian crease (talk • contribs) 18:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just simple vandalism that's been reverted, nothing to see here. east.718 at 18:58, September 24, 2007

COBot just blanked User talk:M.V.E.i.! He's not happy about it. --Orange Mike 18:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Blocked, operator notified. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like Wikihermit disappeared. Spryde 20:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The operator of that bot is still active and should respond to notification of malfunctions. — madman bum and angel 20:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) It can be unblocked, I think I have fixed the problem, but can't tell until I run it again :). I'll watch the next few edits for any errors. CO₂ 20:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - unblocked - see how it goes - Alison ^❤ 20:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See history Ayman Ahmed El-Difrawi. Request IP block user 75.112.133.254 or semi-protection of the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SooperJoo (talk • contribs) 19:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not overuse the V word. This looks more like an edit war of some kind than vandalism. WP:AN3 perhaps? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This does not seem to be as straightforward as the initial post makes out. The edits in question are arguably good faith attempts at removing BLP violations, unsourced or unreliably-sourced text from the article. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 21:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on their talk page. They're dialoging by edit summary and have gone way over 3RR. I've basically final-warned them now and asked them to state their case on that talk page - Alison ^❤ 21:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User has been changing the article around. Which is not a problem. He does utlize WikiOwn as is demonstrated here [85]

Has removed a photo from an article with no valid reason [86]

[87]

[88]

[89]

Removes tags [90]

and has ignored requests to discuss [91] UnclePaco 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything in the diffs you provided that can be called "violations of policy". The image you mentioned doesn't have a caption, so there's no way to tell what it is and why it belongs in the article. Also, you left your message for the user less than a day ago, so there's a strong chance they haven't seen it yet.

I have two suggestions for you:

1. If you add the picture back in, make sure to include a caption explaining its significance.
2. Bring up the matter at Talk:Dominican Republic. User:BigGabriel555 has been active at that page, so there's a good chance to get their attention there. Other contributors may help you to resolve the dispute and build consensus there.

I hope this helps you out. Caknuck 00:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[92] - Corvus cornix 21:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. - by User:Satori Son. Silly vandals - Alison ^❤ 21:04, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, all sorts of nonsense was poured on to that talk page. I wouldn't make too much of that. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ECx2)Looks like a moron, not a real threat. If you really want to jam the kid up, report his post to the feds, but otherwise, he got blocked for 72 hours. I suspect he will immediately begin attacking pages again though, so perhaps a far longer block will be needed. ThuranX 21:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick protection of the talk page too next time. Don't want him to say anything he'll really regret down the line. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:07, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User is the major contributor to an open source project AND the WP article FreeSWITCH (he is listed as the maintainer of the official FreeSWITCH website) and has joined wikipedia a week ago to promote this project. He is now using multiple identities (in same discussion page) and abusive personal attacks as well. Issues involve sockpuppetry, WP:COI and WP:PA. His contributions and attacks (aside from the actual FreeSWITCH article) are found here:

• Talk:FreeSWITCH
• User talk:Calltech#FreeSWITCH advert tagging

Identities include (all are WP:SPAs):

• User:Briankwest
• User:86.92.134.171
• User:64.149.35.171

I believe an admin warning would suffice. He is a definite newbie, but has an attitude and is on a mission to promote FreeSWITCH and attack anyone who opposes him. Calltech 21:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[93]. Corvus cornix 21:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete it, it's crap. Crap with a legal threat = acount ban, in my mind. ThuranX 21:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{db-nonsense}}. :P — madman bum and angel 21:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User(s) blocked. - indef. Silly vandals (yet again) - Alison ^❤ 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I would have asked for administrative attention on this before except for the extreme slowness of this edit war. It has been occuring over a variety of issues with the page, first over the inclusion/noninclusion of questionable critisism and details of a class-action lawsuit against the company, and has now gravitated to unreferenced employment information. Those involved include apparent inclusionist 68.40.113.91 (talk · contribs), apparent deletionist 12.165.188.130 (talk · contribs) who is registered to Quicken Loans corporation, 130's apparent sock/meatpuppet Clayc313 (talk · contribs), and Rockfinancial (talk · contribs) who has been on both sides of this extended edit war. I mostly have no opinion over what is being deleted/included except for the now well-sourced info on the lawsuit (which is no longer being warred over). Why I bring this here is all involved parties' abject refusal to respond to repeated warnings and requests to take their issues to the article's talk page. I even requested and received a weeklong protection three weeks ago, yet the edit warring continued almost immediately. I have lost any patience I may have had remaining for these users. The reason I am placing this here instead of requesting protection of the article is that these users have proven their unwillingness to even begin to discuss the issue, except maybe 68.40.113.91 [94]. Someguy1221 21:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I need several admins to clarify something so that there's no confusion over the issue, as there seems to be a few people abusing their admin duties. Where exactly in Wikipedia's TOS does it state (with no confusion) that a site which happens to contain pornographic images and/or links to pornographic websites is automatically deemed unreliable as a reference for content? TMZ.com owns the rights to the infamous "Kramer" video, they've watermarked it, and its used as a source on Wikipedia. A site that I'd like to use as a reference has legal fight videos, the site owns all rights to the videos and has also watermarked them with additional details. According to Alexa.com the site in question ranks in the top 5,000 most visited websites in the world. So where in Wikipedia's rules does it state that this site is unreliable as a reference whereas TMZ.com (a celebrity gossip site) is reliable? Playboy.com contains pornography, why can various wiki articles (including those not related to the magazine) use pages of that site as a reference if pornographic sites are thus "unreliable" in the eyes of Wikipedia? It seems that some contributors and admins are creating their own liberal interpretations of Wikipedia policy. Can someone just show me a rule? KimboSlice 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're looking for the Reliable sources noticeboard, not here. --Haemo 22:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wriggsey (talk · contribs) has uploaded a bunch of copyvio photos under apparent fraudulent free license - would someone mind cleaning this up? Thanks. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice, I'll go through and check out the images. -Andrew c ^[talk] 23:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that another edit war has broken out at Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus. I have tried to mediate and "arbitrate" in some of the previous disputes, but I've given up the hope that I can be of assistance. The article's protection log is massive, and neither side seems willing to compromise. Please review, advise, intervene or anything else you deem necessary. Have we reached the stage of RfC or perhaps even RfArb here? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a full protection is not needed this time since there's been only two reverts or so. I propose we give it a little more time. I know the article has a notorious past of edit wars, but I believe this time we can solve it by discussing it. Regards, Kerem Özcan 23:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a mistake accusing Shot info of bieng a Cabal. I try to apologize. But he keeps on telling me to go away. What more can I do?--Angel David 23:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just leave him alone and hope it all blows over. Corvus cornix 23:26, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could somebody who is knowledgeable about rugby please take a look at the edits of Hamroll3 (talk · contribs)? Every single one of them seems suspicious -- like he's creating articles about his school friends and adding them to rugby articles. No reliable sources or Google hits for rugby players with the names he's creating. Corvus cornix 23:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the edit history of Hungarian rugby league, which itself is made up of nonsense and a few WP:BLP issues, it seems he isn't the only user who has participated in this nonsense. Resolute 23:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it isn't even worth cleaning up. The article is pretty blatantly a hoax at best, and vandalism at worst. I've AfDed it, but really, it could qualify as a G3 speedy candidate. Resolute 23:49, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, someone vandalized a page, and got called on it. He erased his own user:talk page....and got called on it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:65.5.235.52&action=history

Interesting. Perhaps a user should be permitted unquestioned edits of their own user:talk page? Or do I misunderstand its purpose? Sean.Roach 23:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page doctoring (changing what others have said without their consent) or personal attacks are usually not put up with. Talk page blanking, though discouraged, can be allowed although archiving is preferred. In the case of that IP talk page, its the first type of talk page editing I mentioned not the second. In which case its absolutely acceptable to revert and not allow.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 23:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that reading. The way I read it was the user, whose talk page was in dispute, answered the criticism with an apology...then turned right around and gave a pointed attack at the very same people he or she was apologizing to. I did find one "edit", where a letter was cut out, but it looked accidental. More a matter of where the cursor fell than anything else. I say this because while the resulting word is in fact a word, it isn't a rude one. That would have required the addition of another letter.

However, why the user turned around and blanked everything, replacing the whole with a single pointedly rude comment, I can only speculate. When I posted this, I figured "Tiptoety" for a 'bot that mis-parsed the changes, not a human. I suppose on the grounds of it being a personal attack, (although somewhat scattershot in application,) it would merit the editing, as you stated it. I still can't see it as one person putting words in the mouth of another.

In any case, not a 'bot, thus not a bug. My original concern was unfounded. Sean.Roach 00:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this slightly odd... an administrator that puts an oppose comment on my RfA 24 hours after is closed. He also hasn't edited since august 6th, and that was his first edit since. Could this be a comprimised account? — Edokter • Talk • 23:47, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm...seems like a coincidence to me. I suppose he just started editing after a long vacation or something similar. Plus, it just seems like an accident, as the comment was added three minutes after the RfA was closed. Perhaps the user didn't notice this? Also, if someone compromised an admin account, they would be doing much more dangerous things. In any event, I don't think this is a compromised account. Cheers, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 23:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually 24 hours and three minutes. — Edokter • Talk • 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe, didn't notice that Still, I think we should AGF on this one unless the account starts doing something very serious. Happy editing, ARkY // ¡HaBLaR! 00:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I left him a note. I just wonder how he would end up on an old RfA. — Edokter • Talk • 00:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After some debate over the deletion of Zeitgeist the Movie, it was decided unnoteworthy and deleted. This has been taken to mean that the disambiguation page should also include no mention of the film, not even so much as a line to distinguish it from the other documentary film of similar name produced a year earlier. Another user is making me discuss this here in order to add this single line. what can I do? Brinerustle 01:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation pages should only include links to Wikipedia articles. If there's no article, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page. Corvus cornix 01:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been fairly aggressive in removing external links to the non-notable movie. Even to the point of archiving the ongoing discussion at both Talk:Zeitgeist and Talk:Zeitgeist (disambiguation) as the discussion had nothing whatsoever to do with the article pages in question. I also and semi-protected both, Zeitgeist (disambiguation), Zeitgeist. I don't think that external links need to be on either page when it refers to a non-notable movie, especially the Zeitgeist article. The movie was also taken to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 September 19. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 02:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good. The constant disruption over this film is getting ridiculous. If people want to write a well-referenced article about it, more power to them. However, no one has stepped up and instead there's been a months-long campaign of general annoyance promoting it. --Haemo 03:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may be a tad extreme . . . do you think it'd help if we full protected both pages and semi protect the talk pages? I don't think it would create too big a problem. -WarthogDemon 04:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above user apparently does nothing for Wikipedia but upload copyvio pornography (except for a previous short vandalism career for which he got a short block). Could someone please delete the uploads and handle the situation appropriately? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's fair for an admin to delete an image without explanation and then threaten me with blocking when I upload it again due to the lack of any explanation. Specifically, User talk:Jeffrey O. Gustafson, whose attitude when I questioned him about that courtesy was "Deal with it". His viewpoint (now archived or deleted from his talk page) is that unless I get it exactly right the first time, he has the right to zap it without explanation. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]