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

Hi, this user is moving pages with diacritics to versions without them only because there was no redirect from the unaccented version (e.g.). He refuses to make simple redirects because it does not teach the involved editors to make redirects. Three users protested his actions, but he is still insisting on his own way. See related talk section. I have no time or will to babysit him and revert the moves. Please do something about it. Thank you. Renata 17:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Nygaard seems to be on the edge (or beyond) of WP:POINT, but well-intentioned. Perhaps if a few admins weighed in we could channel his desire to help more effectively. Martinp 01:00, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored this comment to the noticeboard as this editor has continued moving pages despite eight editors asking him to stop or reverting his edits - a clear action against consensus.

Just one example: Rétság was moved to Retsag today. Now, for no encyclopaedic reason, it is the single Hungarian place in its category without the correct diacritics, and all the internal links point to a redirect. This is not a good thing.

Gene claims on his talk page that he moves the pages (rather than creating the necessary redirect) to make a point to the original page creator that they should have created a diacriticless redirect earlier. As mentioned by Martinp, this breaches WP:POINT; this editor should not be working against consensus, disturbing consistent naming schemes and creating needless redirect, RFM and page move work for other editors in order to attract attention to a cause.

Administrator help for the clear-up would be much appreciated, too. Aquilina 16:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that he does not seem to look for a compromise. Renata 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree entirely. Something should be done about this. —freak(talk) 17:01, Aug. 14, 2006 (UTC)

If we can collide him with User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (who did a huge number of disruptive pagemoves in sort of the opposite direction recently) would there be a matter-antimatter explosion? Phr (talk) 17:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted Gene's latest moves. He does seem to be doing more harm than good, despite having a perfectly valid point about unaccented redirects. — sjorford++ 17:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a warning on his user page. If he continues I think a 1 hour block would make sense (I don't want to block for longer because this is minor and Gene is a generally good contributor). JoshuaZ 17:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have left a message on his talk page as well. Regardless of his motives - and I believe, from long experience, Gene has the best interests of the project at heart - this is not the way to go about things, and only inflames people. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 17:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The issue of non-English-alphabet names needs to have a clear policy -- something to be decided from above. I have made it my rule so far to create articles with the native name, creating redirects for all the Anglicized versions. I agree that Gene's policy of anglicizing article names (without that being a clear WP policy) does more harm than good -- Palthrow 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a big issue, I thought we have guidelines (see the RAN incident) that we name the article with the most common English spelling, e.g. John von Neumann instead of Neumann János. But in the cases where the name isn't commonly used in English, we use the native spelling. Phr (talk) 19:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, according to the very valid points you are making--no determination has yet been made as to the proper English Wikipedia title in the articles I am moving. Therefore, no one has any real grounds for complaint against my moves. The unaccented form has not yet been considered by anyone. If you disagree with my choice as to the particular title, you can discuss it on that articles talk page. Or, you can even revert me--but at least we don't end up with the totally unacceptable position which prevailed before. If you do revert me, the redirect will remain. That means that someone who sees some word or name of a person or place in an English language newspaper or magazine story will now at least have a reasonable chance to find the Wikipedia article on the subject, if one exists. That wasn't the case before.

Sure, in many cases it really doesn't matter all that much which of the various spellings and forms appears in the article title, as long as you can find the article by slapping on the squigglies after I have moved it to the English form, or whatever. What is totally unacceptable is not to have a search for the English alphabet version work. Gene Nygaard 02:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of other things to consider:

1. After my moves, all links from forms with accents still work and still get you to the proper article.
2. After my moves, entering the accented form into the "Go" box still works.
3. After my moves, many former redlinks are now blue, and take you to the correct article.
4. After my moves, entering the English alphabet form in the "Go" box works as well, something that wasn't true before.

Actually, there are almost no places where you will even notice that the article has been moved, when it comes to finding information in Wikipedia.

Furthermore, many of these articles are accompanied by another problem--not being indexed properly in the categories. It isn't a one-to-one correspondence; some of those missing any connection the the English alphabet form have already been indexed properly (and in most cases, appear as they should in the same place in the list whether the accents are included in the article title or not), and some with the article title in an unaccented version have improper use of diacritics in the indexing sort keys. But quite often the two problems go hand in hand. Gene Nygaard 02:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Al those things you mention in the numbered bullets would be correct if you made a simple redirect! And for the record, Gene moved 2 more pages after posting here. Renata 11:56, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem with redirects is that they are invisible.

One of the major problems with that is that you miss out on the knowledge of those people who know when a letter is often transliterated as two letters rather than one (dj, dz, aa, ou, etc.), and can thus also create redirects from the other spellings as well. If their attention isn't called to the problem, because we only made an invisible semi-fix to one particular article, then that is missed. One of the problems, of course, is that a single character can be transliterated differently in different languages, so there is not any one size fits all solution, even if I were to bother even trying to learn all those silly rules for each of the thousands of possible characters. Gene Nygaard 12:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ten people have told you to stop.

• A redirect does not move a page to a name inconsistent with all the other related articles in its category, unlike your moves.
• A redirect does not need WP:RM and an admin to undo, unlike some of your moves.
• A redirect does not require a team of editors to waste their time reverting your contributions needlessly, unlike your moves.
• A redirect does not move the page does not move the page to an arbitrary transliteration like your moves do - you even admit you don't fully understand transliteration schemes above.
• A redirect does not cause multiple double redirects which you don't bothered to fix, unlike your moves.

Gene, these are just a few of the reasons people have told you to stop. If you want to highlight something to editors, put a reminder on their user talk pages, or bring it up on the community policy talk pages: do not abuse page moves. You have carried on moving pages unnecessarily [1], [2] despite multiple warnings, and you have clearly declared your intent to carry on ("I shall continue to express my choice in my way" - [3]). This wasting of other contributors' time to prove a point should not continue. Aquilina 17:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gene, how many other people need to tell you to stop? Or do we need to get in the business of blocks and RfCs? No one wants that, everyone thinks your intentions are well, but please stop. Renata 17:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, try this. Put "Taniko" in the box on your Wikipedia page. Then click on either "Go" or "Search". Do you find an article dealing with a weaving technique? As I write this, you won't.

Now figure out some other way to find the article dealing with that weaving technique. Then show me by example how your method works, what you'd do to fix the problem. Show me whose talk page you'd go to, and what you'd say, and let me know how well it works.

Or are you just interested in being a pest and disrupting things? Gene Nygaard 00:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was easy to fix. Taniko is now a redirect to Tāniko. What's wrong with that? —ptk✰fgs 07:41, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for starters

1. It had no effect whatsoever on the fact that Ngai Tai remains a redlink, whereas if you had called it to the attention of someone who had actually edited the Tāniko article, they might have taken the hint and fixed others as well. But no one with Tāniko on their watchlists will even know that you had made any change related to it.
2. You failed to fix it so that Tāniko is indexed correctly in its categories. Gene Nygaard 11:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say that I fully support using only standard ASCII characters in article titles. Using non-standard characters makes finding articles and editing them very annoying. Gene Nygaard should be commended for his effort.  Grue  07:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tu put it short: I do not agree with Gene for the simple reason that if nobody makes a redirect we have a wrong article title and the reader does not know that (he cannot know whether the title is an alternative name, the correct spelling, the wrong spelling etc.). Therefore I am strictly against any such titles and I have seen no rule saying that we should have wrong article titles. Juro 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are most definitely not "wrong" article titles. You might argue that one is better than the other for the one slot we have available for the actual title, but redirects mean that we can find it under any of the "correct" possibilities--as long as they exist, of course. The problem is, these redirects often do not exist. Gene Nygaard 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gene, that is exactly what we are arguing. You seem to be saying that it doesn't matter at all where the article is, as long as all appropriate redirects point to it. Your aim of making sure all possible redirects exist - which, I stress again, is an aim I agree with 100% - is one that can be achieved without moving these articles from their established titles. I ask you one last time, please stop these disruptive and pointless moves. — sjorford++ 08:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me highlight the problems as clearly as possible. Looking at Category:Towns in Turkey, it is clear that to find or refer to any Turkish town, I should use the name with diacritcs, as this is the form that has been used by the editors of all these 74 pages. Except this isn't true any more; Güzelçamlı and Çatalsu weren't after your spree last night.

Is there any encyclopaedic reason for this, or perhaps a reason stemming from principal usage? No. It's completely arbitrary, and purely down to the stubborness of one editor who freely admits he doesn't fully understand the principles of transliteration in these languages. An editor, in fact, who doesn't sort out the dozens of double redirects he creates to these pages by moving them, but who justifies himself by complaining about double redirects. One who says the article title hasn't been considered, but does not take into account the considerations of the article creator, all subsequent editors, and the consideration given to the naming within the group of articles as a whole.

Gene, looking through your contribs you're not even implementing the current conventions correctly:

• we don't move articles to the "English name" just because one exists (see Takuu) - we move it there if that "English name" is the predominant usage. Hence Moscow but not Marseilles or Saragossa.
• we don't strip people of diacritics just because they are American; you do so if they are American and their name is predominantly used without them: my esteemed friend Mr Müller didn't have to relinquish his umlaut to obtain an American passport, and neither did his children who were born there, and their u's remain adorned to this day.
• we don't move articles if they index peculiarly - we fix the indexing with the tag. If editor education is your main aim, as claimed, why revert 30-odd edits by User:Ionius Mundus last night for this reason and not even bother to discuss it with him on his talk page?

There is no current canon yet on whether we use a restricted character set for titles. If you want to change naming conventions, change it at the policy level through the proper channels and not through isolated, inconsistent, incomplete and disruptive page moves. At least at the moment we have consistency within related article groups. It is not worth losing this when we can achieve largely the same result a less disruptive fashion. Fix the index tags like you normally do, create the diacriticless redir, fix the double redirects and if you really want, leave a note on the article creator's talk to politely remind them to create the redir themselves in future. Make a template to do so if you wish.

You have made ~100 such edits. All have been reverted. This usually shows you're doing something people think you shouldn't.

Doing so even when repeatedly requested not to by numerous editors, administrators, and a member of ArbCom is disrupting the encyclopaedia. Aquilina 12:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had this Gene appear out of nowhere like a bear with a sore head making threats to revert moves made to Polynesian mythology articles because the macronised vowels in those names upset the categorization which it seems in his book is more important than accuracy. He said that if he had to do it he would do it the easy way, ie, revert the moves. Why could he not have approached me civilly and pointed out the deficiencies in my use of category sort codes (of which I knew nothing) nicely? OK, I learned, but he made me angry for no good reason. Then he shifted Takuu, (an article about an atoll in Papua New Guinea I was heavily involved in writing) to Mortlock Islands because apparently 'if there is an English name we should use it.' That was uncalled for and annoying because 'Mortlock Islands' is little used in this part of the world to refer to Takuu, and because there is actually another group of islands called 'Mortlock Islands' in the Federated States of Micronesia. It was like he looked up my contributions and decided to mess with Takuu just because I added diacritics to some article names. I feel annoyed because I have done a lot of work to begin cleaning up a huge mess in the Polynesian articles, and I get treated like a vandal by this rude Gene. Editing to make a point is not kosher is it? Another thing that he may not be aware of, is that English comes in many flavours, and in the New Zealand flavour, accepted spelling of Māori words often INCLUDES THE DIACRITICS. Coincidentally (or not), at the same time as Gene was threatening the reverts, an anonymous person with the IP 66.97.252.168 added sort codes on two categories on the Māori Wikipedia Kahuroa 12:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the indexing, even if it is "often" though certainly not universal in New Zealand it still is indexed with a rather than according to Unicode numbers. Even in mi:Category:Ngā tāone o Aotearoa you should be fixing the indexing so that ā doesn't come after "b", let alone after "z" as it usually does now--but that doesn't mean I'll bother getting a user name there, even if I do help out a bit. That also includes indexing of categories in their supercategories. I'll give you a little more time before following up on your moves here on English Wikipedia and fixing any you might have missed. After you finish that, maybe you'd be interested in fixing those such as the Ngai Tai mentioned above which remains a redlink as of this posting, even though more than two days without any of the supposedly concerned people following this thread taking the hint. Gene Nygaard 13:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note also that the Maori Wikipedia puts Maori accent marks in its spelling of Europe (mi:Ūropi). There's nothing unique about English articles being in the English alphabet spelling. And mi:Tiamana, fr:Allemagne, nn:Tyskland, de:Deutschland, and en:Germany are all articles about the very same place. Gene Nygaard 14:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does your "esteemed friend Mr Müller" have a Wikipedia article in need of attention? Where will I find him in the Social Security Death Index when he dies? Have you actually seen any of his children's report cards from school? What does his driver's license say? What does the court docket say if he is stopped for speeding or arrested for something else, or the newspaper in its report of that? In some of such cases, usage with accents can probably be established; but in most cases, all that justifies is a redirect from the accented form. The burden is on those trying to establish that fact, especially with regard to the article name rather than just a redirect, whereas I was obviously dealing with cases where it had never been considered since there wasn't even a redirect or disambiguation page link. Gene Nygaard 14:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Aquilina, if you fix categories such as Category:Districts of Kırşehir so that they are sorted properly, then I won't find so many articles ripe for a move. Note that this isn't an easy task; it is complicated by nasty templates adding the categories in a way not visible on the edit page. Gene Nygaard 15:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor seems to be working against consensus, although he may have some folk in support of the naming question, the consensus seems clear that he should not be doing what he is doing the way he is doing it. Arguing the points of what is right or wrong about naming is out of place on this, the Administrator's Notice board, and ought to be taken elsewhere.

The only relevant question here is, are the actions of this editor disrupting the encyclopedia, and if so, what should be done about it? The answers seem clear to me, they are disruptive, and if he will not agree to stop doing them until consensus is clear, and then agree to abide by consensus whether he agrees or not (these are our norms, after all), he should be blocked. Gene Nygaard, Bobblewik, SPUI... these seem of a class... acting in good faith and with good intentions, up to a point, but unwilling to abide by consensus, and insistent on editing to enforce their view in the face of strong opposition. That's just not collegial. Therefore I think a block is in order here. ++Lar: t/c 15:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Talk:Webspace 11:48, 15 August 2006

I have temporarily blocked Bobblewik because he has returned to rapid en-masse date delinking of articles, just 8 minutes after his last one month block expired. He is also doing other less controversial MoS style edits, but the date delinking ones are accompanied by the less than descriptive edit summary of "links". I bring this here for review. Bobblewik has been repeatedly blocked for continual delinking of dates. Despite extensive past discussions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers), he is well aware that there is no widespread consensus for these edits. From past discussion here, on his talk page and his block history, he is well aware that these edits are extremely controversial and disruptive. I think this is an editor who is clearly not prepared to stop these disruptive edits and is on the brink of expending the patience of the community completely. I think it is time to consider a community imposed ban. Thoughts everyone, thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support either an indef block or if consensus fails that, a new, longer block than last time, as there's no evidence of any desire to work within the concerns that others have raised. ++Lar: t/c 14:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This seems rather minor a problem for an indefinite community ban. Has anyone thought of bringing an ArbComm case? Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Rebecca thought about it [4] but blocking has proved more popular [5]. Thincat 15:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a lot of people object to Bobblewik's year delinking, and a lot of other people support it. The MOS says "There is less agreement about links to years. Some editors believe that links to years are generally useful to establish context for the article. Others believe that links to years are rarely useful to the reader and reduce the readability of the text". At one stage there was a suggestion that one should not edit articles specifically to remove date links. It looks to be that today Bobblewik has been finding articles with units to tidy up and then delinking years when he saw them too. This obviously has not placated the opponents! Personally I support delinking but I wish BW wouldn't do it because it gets some people so upset. Can't his tremendous number of valuable edits allow room for a bit of leeway? Thincat 14:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. If he stops doing what he's doing nobody will bother him. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could the discussion of this be moved to User talk:Bobblewik so he can respond ? He feels that the block was unjustified given that he was operating within the restrictions imposed on him. Megapixie 15:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken the liberty of unblocking him provisionally on that he will not touch dates and he'll come here to discuss this. This is not an unblock I have a stake in -- if in the judgement of anyone this is not kosher or he does something to abuse that trust, I won't be offended if you undo my action. Please see here for my reasoning. --Improv 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem with the unblock - see below, just my slow typing speed (why was there no edit conflict ???) --Cactus.man ✍ 16:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion needs to be held here for maximum community exposure. This is a recurring pattern of editing from Bobblewik. You make reference to "restrictions imposed on him", but from what I see, that was some informal comment by some editors regarding the speed of his edits (and whether or not he is running an unauthorised bot), not some officially community sanctioned imposition. Those comments also made reference to the "necessity of leaving more descriptive edit summaries or talk page messages on your delinkings (with reasonings on why you removed a particular link) and throttl[ing] the number of such edits down to something below 6 in a minute". Editing speed has certainly been reduced, but the use of descriptive edit summaries and talk page summaries have clearly not been improved.

The problem is that even at his newly reduced editing speed there is clearly no scope for full consideration of the relevance of any date links to the context of the article he edits; THAT is where I believe the majority of opposition to these edits has stemmed from. I agree that many articles are overly date linked, but context is everything and many date links can be considered relevant. Bobblewik's latest bout of editing just removed all linked dates when encountered, at a speed that clearly would not allow sufficient examination of the context in which each date was linked. There is wide disagreement on this issue between editors and no clear consensus that these edits are acceptable. Bobblewik has been asked by numerous people, including Jimbo apparently, to stop this. After expiry of each and every block what happens? Boblewik returns and starts delinking dates, and I repeat en-masse because that's what is happening. Articles edited today with a non preference linked date were changed at at around 2 per minute initially. All linked dates were changed - blam, onto the next one - that is en-masse date delinking without consideration of the context in relation to the article.

I agree with Sam that a community ban is probably too hasty, but this recurring pattern is definitely disruptive - perhaps ArbCom is the correct way forward. This needs to be resolved one way or another. In response to Megapixie, I am prepared to unblock Bobblewik to allow him to respond here, provided he gives an undertaking not to delink dates while this discussion is ongoing. --Cactus.man ✍ 16:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Bobblewik could be a good contributor, and the delinking of dates is justified in some circumstances. I think we need more input from the community on what to do with this user; I'd mentor him if anyone approves of this idea. --TheM62Manchester 17:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that date delinking is often justifiable but the problem is Bobblewik's rapid "carpet bombing" method of doing so. I think some form of mentorship might have some merit as you suggest M62. We await some input from Bobblewik, now that he's unblocked. --Cactus.man ✍ 07:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for undoing the block. The problem is that square brackets are used for two independent functions:

• 1. Hyperlinks
• 2. Date preference

Many editors say that they thought that *all* date components must be within square brackets. It is clear that much of the excessive linking is by well-meaning editors that misunderstood the issue and/or just followed others.

Furthermore, the implementation mechanism is so complicated that we get things like [[November 12th]], [[November 15|15 Nov]] which prevent the preference mechanism working. In some cases, we get plausible errors that make the text difficult to read with preferences. For example, even experienced editors believe that [[November 12]]-[[November 15|15]] look fine, but it actually parses to the unacceptable form: 12 November-15. These could be solved on their own (a few editors, including myself have solved many) but they are merely symptoms of the problem.

Even if I never delinked another date, the desire to resolve this problem will not disappear. Around 70 to 80 % of editors that voted in a limited poll thought that action should be taken. There are many editors willing to take action. The question is, what? bobblewik

Bobblewik, you have potential - anyhow, I've got a solution, leave a message on my talk page for details... --TheM62Manchester 17:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe this will all be moot once Wikipedia:Date Debate is resolved? —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-16 17:28Z

It will be easier: problem is newer editors think that all years should be linked (because that's what they see), link lots of years, and propagate the myth. Until this cycle is broken, the problem won't go away. Rich Farmbrough 07:08 17 August 2006 (GMT).

Can I have a definition of 'en-masse' please? bobblewik 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, from my earlier post above:

The problem is that even at his newly reduced editing speed there is clearly no scope for full consideration of the relevance of any date links to the context of the article he edits; THAT is where I believe the majority of opposition to these edits has stemmed from. I agree that many articles are overly date linked, but context is everything and many date links can be considered relevant. Bobblewik's latest bout of editing just removed all linked dates when encountered, at a speed that clearly would not allow sufficient examination of the context in which each date was linked. There is wide disagreement on this issue between editors and no clear consensus that these edits are acceptable. Bobblewik has been asked by numerous people, including Jimbo apparently, to stop this. After expiry of each and every block what happens? Boblewik returns and starts delinking dates, and I repeat en-masse because that's what is happening. Articles edited today with a non preference linked date were changed at at around 2 per minute initially. All linked dates were changed - blam, onto the next one - that is en-masse date delinking without consideration of the context in relation to the article.

--Cactus.man ✍ 10:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that Bobblewik's behaviour is disturbing; I advise all the interested parties to take this case to the ArbCom. I don't see another effective way to solve the issue. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Cactus.man, I read that text before but I still don't understand. It describes a speed complaint, not a complaint about number of edits. Is 'en-masse' being used here as a synonym for 'fast'? bobblewik 11:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bobblewik, thanks, but this is nothing to do with your speed of edits. I acknowledged that you have reduced them in line with other editor's concerns. With regards to en masse (my apologies for introducing a non existent hyphen) please consult your dictionary, thesaurus or other online resources for the meaning. En masse - all together, in one group or body, as one, as a whole ... etc. That is what you have been doing with your repeatedly contested edits. Every individually linked date or century link has been delinked by your edits, en masse, without reference to the relevance in relation to the context of the article. The speed issue relates only to your capability to properly assess the relevance of each link. Please continue discussion of this in the relevant forums but, until there is consensus for your date linking edits, please stop. Thanks. --Cactus.man ✍ 13:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aha. You use 'en masse' to mean multiple edits *within* an article. I understand you now, thanks.

You are mistaken about relevance, I do take it into account.

I see that there is indeed a new discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) and User talk:Tyrenius. See you there. bobblewik 14:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margana's edit-warring at Psephos has been going on for so long it is practically a geological process. There has been a brief respite during which he abstained out of fear of being blocked by me, but as soon as I undertook not to block him again (having become too involved) he returned to the article to edit war some more.

For months he has edit-warred and disrupted this article out of his insistence on including his personal POV version of an assertion that the subject of the article is politically biased, using Cuba as an example. With a resolution finally at hand, he has today suddenly decided to use Laos instead, taking us back three months to have the whole argument all over again. I am so frustrated and angry about this blatant trolling.

Can an uninvolved and relatively calm admin please review and do something before I blow my top? Snottygobble 23:52, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks nicely balanced now. What is the source of the argument? Would it be something for our political science folks or our Australians or....? Geogre 02:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Margana is blatantly trying to bait Adam Carr with his edits to this article, and in his incessant edit warring is driving just about every regular Australian editor up the wall. The only reason the article looks reasonable at the moment is because Margana hasn't done his round of reverts for today. I really think this is about time for a community ban - Margana has no useful edits, and wasting enormous amounts of good users' time on this. Rebecca 06:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You looked through all of my 664 edits and determined that all of them were useless? Quite a feat! I should explain to the gallery that Rebecca (who happens to live in the same city as Adam Carr) is the one who wrote that Psephos article, about Adam Carr's website, on Adam Carr's request, and with unverifiable information privately supplied by Adam Carr. She has since on numerous occasions not only reverted without explanation, but also abused rollback to do that. Snottygobble, another Australian with a long history of edit-warring in conjunction with Adam Carr and Rebecca, then violated both protection policy and (twice) blocking policy after he had been involved in the edit war, and just now pledged to stop this, after I engaged an advocate. Margana 21:24, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Snottygobble, I think you'd be prudent to keep out of it now. From a brief review, this looks like a user who is confrontational and "difficult" but good at Wikilawyering (though I have no idea who is correct about the underlying content dispute, and I don't want to know). It's better if some completely uninvolved admins watch the page and see what happens. Rebecca, have you tried any dispute resolution processes? You should know that it sometimes does more harm than good for admins to try to get involved and conciliate (the term I use for mediation backed by threats) disputes unless there is blatantly abusive conduct. Metamagician3000 08:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been a pain in the butt at Jimmy Wales in the past, insisting that wikitruth was a reliable source and that info on there should be included in the article. That was resolved by a strawpoll, when it became clear that he was alone in this. This editor games the system systematically, using exactly three reverts per day, even at one time selfreverting after noticing that he had done the fourth within 24 hours [6] and doing it immediatly after the 24 hour period was over [7]. I blocked him after that anyway for gaming the system [8], but it shows the gaming aspect of this user. As this user is active in a narrow range of articles, only a limited number of editors has encountered him, but the amount of edit warring and gaming is staggering. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a blatant lie that I insisted that "wikitruth was a reliable source" - I didn't use wikitruth as a source for facts, I quoted it, and of course every website is a reliable source as to what it itself says. As to those reverts, all it shows is that I scrupulously respect the 3RR. Somewhere on my talk page I have already explained the absurdity of the whole "gaming" concept (it's like a cop saying "the speed limit is 50 here - you're consistently driving 49, I'm fining you for gaming the system"). Also, a strawpoll, by its very nature, can not possibly "resolve" anything. If anything, a proper vote might resolve something, but then, WP:NOT a democracy. Arguments count, not dittos. I should also note that after KimvdLinde was involved in an edit war with me on Jimmy Wales, she started stalking me and opposing me wherever she could - she would never otherwise have been interested in Psephos, but seeing me there, she reverted against me. Margana 21:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your analogy demonstrates to me that you do not understand 3RR, which is to encourage people to resolve their differences on talk pages and build consensus, rather than attempt to get/keep certain content on a page by reverting. Maybe if you discussed things more and tried to compromise/reason with other editors you would have fewer problems? JChap2007 21:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know what the ideal is, but talking and consensus-building requires that both sides are willing to do that, and acting in good faith. I suggest you take a look at the relevant talk pages. I am the one who discussed more than anyone else. Now on the other hand, try to find the name Rebecca on Talk:Psephos... Margana 22:03, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to convince people to be sympathetic to you, directing them to that talk page is not a good idea. You are obviously engaged in a pattern of tendentious editing, trying to edit war against a broad consensus (which is not, I hasten to add, synonymous with unanimity). I doubt you will convince people that Cuba or Laos have free elections. You need to realize that you are not going to be able to "win" every "battle" on a wiki, accept it and move on. JChap2007 22:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment about me not convincing people "that Cuba or Laos have free elections" shows that you do not remotely understand what this dispute is about, and are shooting from the hip based on what can only be a superficial skimming of the talk page. Nor is there a broad consensus, as I have explained repeatedly. Margana 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like further steps need to be taken for this user; this has been going on for so long that hopes of resolving it peacefully are slim-to-none. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hence a community ban. Rebecca 01:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't formed a particularly favourable view of Margana from my limited investigation of the matter so far (see above), but IMHO it's way premature to be talking about a community ban. Again, aren't there dispute resolution processes that could be tried? Is there a problem with someone initiating an RfC in some appropriate form, if the problem seems all that bad? Metamagician3000 02:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It sure looks like one against all and that one being quite recalcitrant. It also looks like there has been enough time passed that this go to mediation. If that fails (and it probably will), ArbCom. Because this user has been selectively warring or insisting, depending upon your point of view, it isn't really a "community" worn out, so I agree that a community ban isn't appropriate. Geogre 02:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't believe formal mediation is worth attempting at all; each and every attempt of outside intervention has failed.--cj | talk 11:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like Mais oui! to be blocked. He regularly makes sock puppet accusations against me and persistently makes disruptive POV edits to practically all of my contributions. He admits that he is keeping watch on me. I am growing increasingly weary of having to fight a constant rearguard action against his unconstructive POV changes. If he continues, I am going to have to give up contributing to Wikipedia. I am sure I am not alone in considering him a disruptive element, and it would be best for the Wikipedia project if he were blocked from editing it. Mallimak 00:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pair of you should stop spamming people all over the place if you expect to earn any sympathy for your respective plights. People won't take you seriously while your approach is akin to stuffing pizza leaflets through their letterboxes. This page is not for dispute resolution, and doling out a block is rarely used to resolve a dispute, and irritating you is not nearly serious enough to earn an idefinite block (nor, likely, any block at all). You need to use dispute resolution properly. If you've tried RfC, which I expect you haven't seeing as my talk page didn't get spammed about one, then try one. If that fails, try Arbitration. Also, try being nice to one another and tolerating each other's foibles. -Splash - tk 01:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, this is a repeat posting of this:

• virtually identical entry made to WP:AN/I on 13 August - now archived at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive128#Harassment_by_Mais_oui.21

Secondly, for background, you may wish to read these:

• Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Orkney (on-going)
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mallimak (currently outstanding)

Thirdly, for a second opinion from Admins familiar with User:Mallimak, you may wish to consult:

• User:Wangi
• User:Alai

Fourthly, as User:Alai puts it:

" ... this is just abuse of the project space (to go with earlier abuse of the article space, the category space, and template space by the same user). The description of an edit that adds "The Orkney archipelago is a council area of Scotland." as "vandalism", and reverting it with summary "Mais oui! Why are you interfering here? Can t you just bugger off?" basically sums up the problem with Mallimak's behaviour: a determination to have his "own" content in some niche of wikipedia, regardless of encyclopaedic value, and independent of other editors' input. If this keeps up, an RFC would be indicated."

And fifthly: life is just too short. Frankly, I am "sick to the back teeth" of him, and would strongly prefer for Admins to deal with him, rather than me having to monitor his growing WP:POINT campaign. In summary: User:Mallimak has a very serious attitude problem, and is totally unwilling to even make an attempt to follow WP:NPOV, WP:CITE, WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA, among others. Thanks. --Mais oui! 01:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - Don't game the system! Mallimak 16:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't wish to be drawn into the specific complaint raised by Mallimak. However, Mais oui! has also falsely accused me of sockpuppetry and now routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits, without any discussion or attempt to reach consensus. He is the only user against whom I have encountered these problems.

I have no view about the efficacy of formal steps against Mais oui!. He clearly makes a wide range of contributions, many of which are valued by others. He has a rather transparent agenda, namely to promote Scotland and other Celtic areas at the expense of balance, objectivity or context. I would suggests that an editor whom he trusts and respects encourage him to adopt a more collaborative, less confrontational approach and to discuss directly his objections and observations wih other contributors. Normalmouth 06:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the background to that last comment, please see:

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Normalmouth

"... falsely accused..." - There is no proof of whether my allegation of sockpuppetry is "false" or true because CheckUser refuses to expose a Users IP address except in "extreme" circumstances, but the evidence clearly points to Normalmouth logging-out and using his IP address to vote in a Requested move discussion. And I am very sorry to say that Normalmouth has an extremely "transparent agenda": to do all he can to stain the reputation of Plaid Cymru. No other Wikipedia article on a UK political party is as one-sidedly negative as the PC article, and a large measure of the responsibility for that lies at the doorstep to Normalmouth.

I would like to record my complete agreement with the above comments by Mais oui!Rhion 06:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"... routinely reverts my edits simply because they are my edits... " - Not true at all. I routinely have to revert your edits because they are consistently, and heavily, POV.

I am very happy to confirm that I do contribute heavily to Scotland-related articles (as is my prerogative), and if that "promotes" Scotland I would be delighted (although slightly surprised). As for "Celtic countries": I could not give a hoot - I do not look at the world in that way. But I do do my very best to "promote" other countries I like, mainly Sweden, Norway, England, France, Italy, Canada, the US, Australia, Switzerland (actually, this list could get rather long... ). --Mais oui! 06:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Thirdly, for a second opinion from Admins familiar with User:Mallimak, you may wish to consult: User:Wangi" — I'm not an admin, just another editor trying to settle things down. Thanks/wangi 08:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to admins: The above discussion is very revealing. User:Mais oui! would appear to have a tactic of indulging in edit wars and constantly attacking the contributions of users who don't agree with his POV, and of accusing them of sockpuppetry in order to undermine their credibility, obviously with the aim of getting them to give up contributing to Wikipedia. I wonder how many good contributors Wikipedia has lost as a result of Mais oui!'s tactics? He is bad news for Wikipedia and should be banned. Mallimak 09:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both seem to be as bad (or at least almost as bad) as each other. However, Mais oui! certainly makes a number of valuable and constructive contributions, when he puts aside his own POV... I'm not as familiar with Mallimak, although his repeated spamming of this page over what appears to be a content dispute is not impressive. It might be an idea for both to talk to each other (and to whomever else might be interested) directly and to DISCUSS edits and changes before making them, in order to avoid future difficulties. That is the Wikipedia way, after all. Badgerpatrol 11:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the spamming, having seen User:Mais oui! do it, I thought it was "the Wikipedia way" to inform potential supporters for one's case - so now we can add "setting a bad example" to his list of sins! Mallimak 11:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's not always easy to know where to go in these kind of situations. Assuming that you have tried to communicate with each other (ALWAYS the first step) and still can't resolve the issue, then you might try here for a problem of this nature. Badgerpatrol 12:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that Mais_oui does indulge in edit warring, and attacking the contributions of other users. After I had nominated a Scottish template for deletion in favour of the British one- he responded by reverting all my recent edits with the comments- "rv English Nationalist" (see for example- [9]). Also any attempts to engage with the user and avoid edit wars is usually met with personal abuse- eg [10]. Astrotrain 13:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He is difficult, he is aggressive, and he is a POV-pusher. By the same token, he does make very valuable contributions. I'm not taking sides in this particular issue, because it seems to me that neither are angels. But in general, I think many problems could be solved here simply by more communication and less unilateral action. Badgerpatrol 14:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are User:Mais oui!'s contributions really so valuable that they make up for all the contributions lost to Wikipedia on account of his actions chasing other contributors away and putting others off bothering contributing? 81.158.163.232 15:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC) - (Now, look at that! I was away from the computer for a while and Wikipedia has automatically logged me off, so my IP address is given. Does that constitute sockpuppetry? Mallimak 15:47, 17 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

An observation... I have noticed a series of less than helpful edits (removal of valid categories, switching Scottish to either Orcadian or British... you could call them disruptive) from a large number of IP accounts in the same range as Mallimak (talk · contribs)'s IP above:

• 81.156.60.96 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.219 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.207 (talk · contribs) (I left a comment on this IP's talk page)
• 81.155.33.133 (talk · contribs) (only made a talk page comment - cleary by Mallimak)
• 81.153.148.0 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.56.25 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.167.232 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.163.17 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.190 (talk · contribs)
• 81.158.163.17 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.190 (talk · contribs)
• 81.129.246.185 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.91.225 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.224 (talk · contribs) (blanking WP:SFD entry)
• 81.158.162.234 (talk · contribs)
• 81.154.95.18 (talk · contribs)
• 81.156.57.185 (talk · contribs)

Clearly Mais oui! (talk · contribs) thinks these edits are being made from an IP account to get around associating them with Mallimak's account. Thanks/wangi 16:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Many of these IPs have been checkusered and are likely Mallimak. The question is do these IPs edit in a way that is abusive or to give the false impression of consensus, or is it plausible as Mallimak says that sometimes his computer logs out without him noticing. Of more concern are the two logged in accounts that are also likely Mallimak socks. Thatcher131 (talk) 16:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The IP accounts themself seem to be used for nonsense switching of nationality - there is the potential of avoiding 3RR with them, but I don't think it's been the case. On the other hand Mallimak, Gruelliebelkie (talk · contribs) and Orkadian (talk · contribs) have all taken part in the current Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Orkney MfD. Although to be honest it is possible they are three different people, in the same area / telephone exchange who all use BT for a broadband connection... Some of the comments in the MfD discussion are very similar. Thanks/wangi 16:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to see I'm not the only one continually getting logged out. It's not only plausible, it's a damn nuisance. I get logged out during any good-sized edit, and am saving more often because of it - clogging the edit history with nonsense versions. I'd dated it from approx Chris73's total Tiscali block a few weeks ago, but it it's affecting BT users as well, maybe I'm wrong... JackyR | Talk 16:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For long edits I work in a personal sandbox, saving as often as I need, then copy to the article when its done. Thatcher131 (talk) 17:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Will User:Mais oui!'s harrassment never stop? More sock puppet allegations: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion#Portal:Orkney, and deletion of an entry on the Wikipedia:Orcadian Wikipedians' notice board, which he labelled as "bogus" - obviously, on reading it, it was not his POV. Can nobody rid us of this bogus Wikipedian? Mallimak 23:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found myself in dispute with User:Travb concerning the article Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America. I had initiated an AfD for this article and result was keep by no consensus. Since the AfD I have tried to clean up the article a bit and perhaps I am not always diplomatic in this endeavour or maybe I shouldn't have after the AfD. However, my edits are in good faith. Travb B has, however, even during the AfD, hounded me with baseless accusations and implied I behave like a vandal. He streeses I should not be deleting sections that I believe are not appropriate because I don't add anything. This is contrary to policy, I should not be required to add to an article in order to delete inappropraite sections. Also, by looking at his edits here, here, here and here (note edit summary I see a pattern of accusing me of vandalism and not acting in good faith because I "lost" the AfD. As someone who has always had the best of WP in mind I resent these accusations which almost make me want to quit the project over it. See also the talk sections on the article here, here and here and finally here where there is apparently a tabulation of words I added and deleted.

I would highly appreciate an outside admin looking into this.

I apologize for the length of this post. Thank you, Kalsermar 01:46, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also been accused of vandalism for deleting original and poorly researched material from the article. The article suffers from lots of POV-advocacy, and needs to be pared frequently to keep it within Wikipedia policy. I recommend that the article be kept in a protected mode until people can educate themselves about WP:RS, WP:OR and WP:Verify. Morton devonshire 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Kalsermar has deleted 1,857 words, and added 3 words to this article, please see my temporary page User:Travb/Deletions. This page lists every single edit of User:Kalsermar since he began posting to this page. He has deleted several very well referenced sections, see User:Travb/Deletions. As I stated on User:Kalsermar page, stating wikipedia policy: about vandalism: Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia. For example, adding a personal opinion once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. User:Kalsermar, who lost the AfD, now is attempting to delete the entire article, section by section. A ratio of 3:1,857 words deleted, especially just days after User:Kalsermar lost an AfD, makes me question his alleged "good faith" efforts. I have removed my accusation of stating that User:Kalsermar are bording on vandalism. I have requested that this page be protected.[11] I have attempted to change the name of the article to a less controversial one, and have actively attempted to define terrorism on the talk page to stop revert wars. Travb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for strengthening my case Travb. Since when is it appropriate to keep tabs on how many words an editor adds or deletes? Seems like stalking to me. And again, how does one loose an AfD?--Kalsermar 02:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. "I expect the implication of [stalking] on my part to be removed from this message forthwith or I will take this further." (your words) I am simply showing the reason why I am requesting this page to be protected. You did not mention that I apologized in the AfD for stating that you are not assuming good faith, said I was wrong, and struck the words out.[12] Travb (talk) 02:23, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't clear what admin action is needed. This sounds more like something that should go to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics or perhaps Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Jkelly 02:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm not overly familiar with dispute resolution protocols and where to go with that or how to initiate it. The help I was seeking is in how to deal with the accusations against me. My request has not to do with content dispute.--Kalsermar 02:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion Jkelly. I will post something on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Politics I have considered a third party neutral mediator, I will request one now. Can you protect the page Jkelly? Travb (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If everyone would get away from the keyboard for a while much of this would work out. It's not the end of the world if the "wrong version" is up for a day or two. Tom Harrison ^Talk 02:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it is not the content dispute I seek to resolve rather the accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb. Either way, I won't be back till tomorrow afternoon anyways so I'll see what happens in the meantime.--Kalsermar 02:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

> I apologize for accusing you of your edits of "bordering on vandalism". I deleted those words,[13] and stated I did so here.

> What are you implying here? : accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb As mentioned, I also apologized about 10 days ago for accusing you of not having "good faith". I was wrong. I am sorry. I would appreciate you striking out that I am "stalking" you, and apologize to me.

> The three edits which User:Kalsermar siteshere, here, here are all posted on User:Kalsermar wikipage, and the information which has offended User:Kalsermar has been removed.

> The other edit did not accuse User:Kalsermar of anything[14], and in this edit I accidently deleted a large section which User:Kalsermar has deleted himself. In trying to restore User:Kalsermar deletions, I made a mistake, which was quickly changed by another user.

> I find it ironic that User:Kalsermar is pointing out my accidental deletion "note edit summary" when he has deleted a ratio of 3:1,857 words, and started the AfD without ever contributing a single word to the article. My accidental mistake in no way lessens User:Kalsermar guilt or innocent, they are mutually exclusive actions, under Tu quoque logic. If this "is not the content dispute" as User:Kalsermar states, why would he bring up my accidental deletions stating: "note edit summary"? User:Kalsermar can't have it both ways: it is either a content dispute or it is not.

> User:Kalsermar wants this not to be a content dispute because what led me to say those things, is because the "content dispute" involves User:Kalsermar's behavior, with a ratio of 3:1,857 word deletions, paints him in a bad light. This argument is about a content dispute, and began because of a content dispute. I don't understand how User:Kalsermar is able to seperate the two, especially when he himself mentions my accidental deletion: "note edit summary".

> The talk page links here, here and here that User:Kalsermar links to are statments I have stated here, to my knowledge I do not accuse User:Kalsermar of anything anywhere else, if I have, I will remove those comments, and apologize.

> I need to apologize one more time though, I was wrong, User:Kalsermar has contributed 3 words to this article, not zero. I will change this right now. Sorry User:Kalsermar, my mistake. (talk) 02:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will state this once more, I am not required to add anything to an article in order to be justified in removing sections I believe are not supposed to be in the article for whatever reason. If I delete a million words without adding a single one I am still contributing to the article. Can you even understand that. I have explained my reasoning for the deletion of the sections involved and they have been reverted without any substantial refuting of my arguments. I have not, in doing so, accused you of vandalism or destructive behaviour. You on the other hand continually do so against anyone who does not conform to your POV. I struck out the stalking comment and I apologize for assuming bad faith in your behavioural pattern. I will not, however, let accusations of vandalism or destructive behaviour on my part stand and I again request an admin's help in this matter.--Kalsermar 18:15, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

>User:Kalsermar wrote: I will state this once more, I am not required to add anything to an article in order to be justified in removing sections I believe are not supposed to be in the article for whatever reason. If I delete a million words without adding a single one I am still contributing to the article. Can you even understand that. I have explained my reasoning for the deletion of the sections involved and they have been reverted without any substantial refuting of my arguments Wait, didn't you just say yesterday, "Again, it is not the content dispute I seek to resolve rather the accusations against me wich on my talk page are now being deleted by Travb." I thought this had nothing to do with the content dispute?

>I will state this once more, I am not required to defend referenced material in the article in order to be justified in keeping the sections I believe are supposed to be in the article, when you support no referenced material on why this should be deleted and contribute nothing to the article. If I add a million referenced words which met WP:V and the other rules, and you come along and delete all of them, this is not contibuting to the article. I have explained my reasoning for the sections to remain and they have still been deleted without any substantial refuting of my arguments. I have not, in doing so, accused you of wikistalking. You on the other hand continually do so against anyone who does not conform to your POV. I struck out the vandalism comment and I apologize for assuming bad faith in your behavioural pattern. I will not, however, let accusations of stalking on my part stand and I again request an admin's help in this matter.

>It goes both ways User:Kalsermar it is obvious your 3 words and your 1,857 words deleted is not any signifigant contribution. If you can't see this, then we will have to let others decide this in arbitration. Since you are too stubborn to respect the decision of the AfD, which was no consensus, which by default means keep, and you continue to delete large sections, I will be forced to start a RfC, followed by arbitration. The entire two months this is going on, the article will be protected. All of those words you want to delete will stay on wikipedia. Then, the arbitors will punish any large deletion of referenced material by booting you, for one day up to a month. So: you have a choice. Stop deleting content that does not match you POV, try to reach a consensus on the talk page, or the page remains protected for months, and then you get booted when you start deleting large portions of referenced, verifiable material. I already know the conclusion to this, I have seen the same behavior a million times before. I wish you would surprise me but there appears to be no comprimising with you. Travb (talk) 00:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again my dear Travb, you are strengthening my case. Just look at your diatribes, and o, of course you know how it will end. I suggest strongly you shut up addressing me before I will say something nasty.--Kalsermar 00:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• My tentative investigation of this matter (as a neutral third-party at the suggestion of Kalsermar) suggests that -- as one might expect -- some of the content-removal by Kalsermar was clearly justified, and some was questionable. The correct course here is for neither editor to alter the article at this point without seeking talk-page consensus, a measure enforced for the moment by protection. It is important to note that, as Kalsermar says, content-removal is oftentimes a positive contribution to an article, deleting bias and increasing focus. The ratio of "words deleted vs. words added" is irrelevant: the merits of the edits are the only question that matters. Xoloz 01:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user has altered User:Robdurbar's 3RR report edit and reverted to his altered version now five times.

• rv1
• rv2
• rv3
• rv4
• rv5

I warned this editor that he was nearing violation of WP:3RR but he continued to revert (and subsequently removed my warning).

Another pair of eyes would be useful here towards preventative ends.

Thanks. (→Netscott) 03:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "altering" is simply removing the tag, as I do not believe the incident was correctly tagged. The 3RR was not correctly dealt with as anyone can see from actually looking at the reverts in question. There are 5 reverts in a 24 hour period! How can that not be a violation? There is no rule that a random admin's decision is binding, and anyway I will just relist if it is deleted. Deuterium 03:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR states that one can make no more than three reversions on the same article in a 24 hour period, so your 5 reversions clearly constitutes a violation.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that Deuterium (talk · contribs) was not aware of the type of vandalism referred to as, "Changing people's comments" when he altered User:Robdurbar's original comment. (→Netscott) 03:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't alter his comment, you're lying. I changed the tag of the incident because it was incorrectly tagged. Deuterium 03:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not incorrectly tagged since you did indeed violate the 3RR, so it was inappropriate for you to remove it.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk

Yes User:Deuterium is way over the 3RR limit. Now he's removing my own commentary. Could someone please wield the cluebat with this editor? Thanks. (→Netscott) 06:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user, even in other contexts, knee-jerk blanket-reverts, rolling back spelling and grammar fixes. Nysin 07:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

N and D are both being mind-bogglingly silly about this. I'm blocking both for 12h for edit-warring on the 3RR page. Don't do it William M. Connolley 07:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has to be the stupidest place to get into a revert war. (Like using a sockpuppet to complain on a checkuser page) :-/ Thatcher131 (talk) 13:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it was a bit silly. User:Deuterium kept reverting a report marked as "No block" to read as though the report hadn't been reviewed (obviously in hopes that an inexperienced adminstrator would falsely block me.) My edits (they were not reversion) were to prevent that from occurring. Well today Deuterium (talk · contribs) is back to his old tricks of trying to get me blocked under false pretenses by again filing the same report. I honestly wish someone would take some action here... this has gone much beyond ridiculousness with this editor. (→Netscott) 23:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, this is just nuts. There's now been two admins who've seen User:Robdurbar's (Result: No block) tag and reverted it: User:William M. Connolley, and User:PinchasC but Deuterium still reverts it. Seriously this person needs to be blocked for Disruption a la WP:POINT. (→Netscott) 00:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having trouble understanding this. All I see from the diffs is what Netscott claims, that Deuterium is changing the admin decisions on WP/3RR because he, who filed the reports, thinks the decisions ought to have gone his way. It makes me blink in disbelief... especially when William MC states that both users are being "silly", and blocks them both. How is Netscott silly for reverting this absurd vandalism, or isn't it absurd vandalism, have I totally missed some vital point? I do have faith in William MC's experience and judgement, I'm more than willing to be convinced, but, what is it I'm not seeing? Please somebody explain? Bishonen | talk 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Net, I have asked Deuterium to drop the matter. If he continues I will block him. I suggest you drop the matter as well. JoshuaZ 00:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you kidding me?... this is an ongoing pattern from yesterday. This user has been making concerted efforts towards admin shopping. And now is displaying this report on his user page. I got blocked by User:William M. Connolley for reverting his 3RR vandalism of changing commentary... and now he's trying to get me blocked again. This guy seriously needs to be cooling off. (→Netscott) (→Netscott) 00:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he continues being disruptive, I will block him. He understands that. For now, I'd prefer if you both went back to editing articles. JoshuaZ 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather indicative of where this is going, " Alright, I'll remove the listing but I'm not letting this go. Deuterium 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" (→Netscott) 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: well, I hope somebody answers my concerns above eventually, but until then, I do consider that only one person was being disruptive and it wasn't Netscott. I would wield the cluebat, but since Joshua has an agreement (yes?) with Deuterium to block iff he makes any more of those edits on WP/3RR, and since I seem alone in finding them outrageous, I'll leave well enough alone for now. Bishonen | talk 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

You weren't alone in finding them outrageous - see his talk page, eg [15] and also the 3RR page - eg comment by PinchasC - I would support a block of Deuterium for a violation of WP:POINT for relisting this--Arktos ^talk 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Given the edit summary in this diff I think it'd be pretty safe to say that User:William M. Connolley'd support this block for POINT violation as well. (→Netscott) 01:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

InShaneee has blocked him for 48 hours for trolling and WP:POINT. Bishonen | talk 02:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

User:Deuterium again

This User's User page is a personal attack and should have the attacking information removed. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed it. This should probably be made a subthread of the above discussion of this user, though. --InShaneee 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a further POINT violation by this user. (→Netscott) 02:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice, now he's edit warring with User:InShaneee over his user page. (→Netscott) 02:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hope I am not out of place adding my two cents here as I am not an admin and have nowhere near the reputation many of the people who contribute to this page do but I think that a block for being so blatantly disruptive would not be out of place here as Deuterium has repeatedly assumed bad faith on his comments and by the fact that he has repeatedly disruptived the 3RR noticeboard among other pages with his comments and despite being first suggested and then told that it would be better for everyone if he just dropped it he has continued to be disruptive. Please feel free to remove this if I am out of line here but that's just my $.02 Cat-five - talk 02:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been blocked, "with an expiry time of 48 hours (trolling, POINT violations)" by User:InShaneee but is requesting an {{unblock}}. Obviously, I would advise against unblocking. (→Netscott) 02:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are some of the user's recent edit summaries which are extremely hostile:

• fluffery elimination; main Allende bio doesn't contain this "gushing", so there's no reason to entertain it here [16]
• Please stop the *BS*, Vints. This bloated, irrelevent, even redundant, paragraph concercing cessation of foreign aid DOES NOT BELONG in a "intervention" section. [17]
• And furthermore, Allende's "Marxist expirement" was a complete success -- it proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that Marxism was a dismal economic failure on every conceivable level. [18]
• If you're going to brag about your spiffy new source in Talk, why don't you actually use it in the ARTICLE, Vints? This is so tedious.. [19]
• Hey, look over there.... [20]

Also, take a look at Talk:Chile under Allende which has been turned into a soapbox. The user has already been blocked several times for these kinds of actions.--Jersey Devil 03:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following is a recent comment made by the above user to User:Vints:

Perhaps Vints should go over to the Nazism page and edit in a couple remarks reminding everyone, obsessively, that the Nazis were freely elected. Because, after all, that's soooo relevent and justifies dictatorship. Er, right.--Mike18xx 05:06, 15 August 2006 (UTC) [21][reply]

The hell they do. Go breathlessly announce it on the Nazism page, Vints, and see how far the fluffing gets. [22]--Jersey Devil 03:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user appears to have been blocked multiple times before with little effect. A long block may be appropriate and would have my support. ++Lar: t/c 04:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now the user is making false accusations of vandalism:

rv errors, loaded-insinuation phrases and straight-up rubbish for reasons cited previously. This is just vandalism now. [23]--Jersey Devil 02:01, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Light current has already had a block review declined, but he's asking the two admins currently involved User:Lar and User:Drini to make sure they're acting on the correct info. I'm not on either side of this but just passing on the info. --Anchoress 05:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As another independant observer, based on his explanation there does seem to be a possibility that he was re-blocked on a misunderstanding. I would urge an admin to take a fresh look at this, perhaps User:Drini could confirm whether s/he intended to unblock as User:Light current suggests. Rockpocket 05:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the crux of Drini's block was a belief that Light current made an attack page that an EnthusiastFRANCE sock made. While Light current's behaviour has been less than spectacular on his talk page (particularly with respect to his discourse with Pschemp) I don't think it warrants a month's block. -- Samir धर्म 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i concur. I think (hope) Light current will see the, uh, light and realise that the way forward is an apology to Pschemp, a better understanding of WP:CIVIL and then he can get back to his excellent work on engineering related articles. Thanks for your attention, Samir. Rockpocket 07:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tecnincally am the last admin to block... I happened to see the block by Drini, and it looked like (due to an error calculating timespans on my part) like Drini was trying to extend. So I unblocked and reblocked. It turns out I goofed, it was a new block not an extension so my action was unneeded. Allegations have been made that Drini lifted or meant to lift, which I think are incorrect. I've left a note on Drini's talk page stating that I am fine with whatever Drini does, leave it, reduce, lift... I gotta say that I see a LOT of nastiness and intransigence in this user's behaviour though. At a time when a month long block of Giano is being seriously mooted for one funny suggestion to a known troublemaker who really needs a community banning, I don't see a month in this case as disproportionate... but I'm not at all wedded to this block, and, particularly, defer to Drini. ++Lar: t/c 12:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short version: Drini made the original block. Please speak with him about it. pschemp | talk 17:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's "apologised" 4 times now (under his definition) but hasn't yet actually admitted fault. We can't force people to apologise but my metric for how closely to watch a user includes whether they apologised sincerely or not, a sincere apology tends to be a sign of reduced risk of further problems. I wish Drini would weigh in. ++Lar: t/c 10:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still wish Drini would weigh in. But all in all this user is now showing more understanding (see this) so I've taken it upon myself to reduce the block to 3 hours from now, menaing that the user will have been blocked for about 3 days. That now feels right to me. Drini or anyone else is welcome to comment on my actions. ++Lar: t/c 21:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did try to unblock you soon after, then the block dialog said "the blockid is not vlaid, probablky user is already unblocked". I did lift an autoblock (you may check), so I assumed it was all clear, as I dont' follow every AN thread, I rather got ocnfused about waht was going on 4444

Tywright (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continues to censor the Charlie Crist article and add POV to Tom Gallagher article. This appears to be a vandalism-only account and it should be blocked as such. --CFIF (talk to me) 10:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User made some POV edits, and one edit I'd classify as vandalism, but hasn't edited at all since the 15th, and has been warned twice (by Bastique and by you) only since then (on the 16th and 17th). Seems to be more of a POV pusher than an outright vandal. I feel a warning should suffice for now. Other opinions?--Firsfron of Ronchester 11:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like someone with a stake in the election that these two politicians are involved in, rather than an ordinary vandal. We may need to act to block indefinitely if there are further edits to those pages, and further warnings don't work quickly. Suggest some eyes are kept on the relevant pages (i.e. the two politicians and the contributions of Tywright). Metamagician3000 12:12, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Watching appropriate pages.--Firsfron of Ronchester 06:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proudzionist2347 is a sock puppet of Zonerocks as established by CheckUser and the evidence provided therein (similar article edits, self-congratulatory, stacking a move poll, and signing in the wrong place). It would seem there are other concerns about Zonerocks, but at the least the puppet should be blocked, correct (even though the poll was over weeks ago)? I'm loathe to use {{sockpuppetcheckuser}} as it says the user has been blocked already, which obviously I can't do. -- nae'blis 15:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked the Proudzionist2347 account indefinitely. Jkelly 17:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Jkelly. I noticed that he removed talk page comments twice about sockpuppetry, but since he's left it alone on his userpage, I'm not too worried about it. -- nae'blis 14:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I find myself in a slow motion edit war.

Whilst reading Nobby Nobbs, I came upon a link to Kleptomania. I was vaguly disturbed to find an article that smelled funny, rambling on about Monomania; I googled, found that Kleptomania was listed in the DSM, and checked the history.

And found that the current version was the work of one editor, User:Tobias Müller, who wrote the only modern paper cited as a source.

I reverted; and have since had to revert again.

And I'm wondering:

What should I do now?

^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 20:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I noticed you haven't tried communicating with Tobias. No wonder why you two are in an edit war, both the article's talk page and his user talk page are empty. Start a dialogue with him and try resolve your differences civilly. There's no real point raising a complaint here unless he continues to ignore you. PS: You're not allowed t blank your own User Talk page, you're only allowed to archive old messages. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really hoping to be able to hand this situation off to somebody (preferably an admin, thus my posting here) who can deal with a POV warrior and/or a crank (which is what Tobias Müller may very well turn out to be, given his choice of sources), as I suspect I wouldn't be very good at handling this sort of situation. Anybody care to volunteer? ^Thanks, _{Luc "Somethingorother" French} 21:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could also try stealing the article :) Cat-five - talk 00:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this user indefinitely blocked for a joke which, admittedly was in bad taste, but didn't violate any policy? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 22:52, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because nobody's thought that we needed a policy that says "Don't claim that other editors are dead, unless it is really obvious to everyone that you are here to write an encyclopedia and simply lapsed in judgement once". Jkelly 23:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well that user whom he claimed was dead has said it was a joke and one he found rather funny. I fail to see what harm has been done to anyone involved in the encyclopedia by this incident. I can understand a short block if Raven had been upset over the joke. But as he wasn't and it didn't violate any policy, indef blocking is overkill here and probably out of line. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not liking the indef block here at all. PhoenixPinion doesn't have much of an editing history, but he has done some OK looking stuff. If User:The_Raven_is_God doesn't have a problem with PhoenixPinion saying he was dead, I think we should treat it as a dumb joke, unblock now, and move on. Unless if there's more backstory that I'm missing. Is there? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I can tell. Raven may have even approved of the "claim" he was dead from what I can garner. He too is serving a block from what I can see which should also be lifted. Being the butt of a joke is hardly grounds for a 48 hour block. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would make sense to take this up with User:Cyde, the blocking admin in both cases. I note that the unblock was denied by User:Shell Kinney. Jkelly 23:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just asking him to join us here. (Raven's block has expired, BTW). —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't unblock in this circumstance, because what we are dealing with here is a clique of people who know each other in real life and came on Wikipedia to have fun, not write the encyclopedia. --Cyde Weys 23:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about that. I see several productive edits from this user. And it's not like he's either on here often or has a history of disruption. JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 23:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Somewhere along the way of having fun and not writing the encyclopedia, PhoenixPinion seems to have fallen into our trap of trying to make it inviting and fun to actually write an encyclopedia. Look at this: actual edits that not only include content but also cite sources properly. I feel a little uncomfortable citing WP:BITE, as often as it is bandied about like a weapon, but this is what it is about: we attract people for all sorts of reasons and some of them just might make good editors. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreee with Bunch and Johnny. Recommend the block be lifted. JoshuaZ 23:32, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I support unblocking--Arktos ^talk 23:44, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since there does seem to be a good amount of support for an unblock can it be reconsidered? JohnnyBGood t c VIVA! 00:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, he and the other involved users do have a history of disruption and vote stacking (and multiple accounts, at least in the case of User:The Raven and User:The Raven is God), but that doesn't become immediately clear from their contribution history as the hoax articles in question have been deleted. You can check their edits to WP:AFD and related pages, and their edits to each others home pages. But I don't mind that the block is lifted, it was perhaps enough to stop the joking and disruption. Fram 06:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, yes I did find Phoenixpinion's edits of my page humorous (upon logging in I discovered that I was dead, and of a monitor induced seizure no less!). Seeing as it is his first offense too (at least, his first block), I see absolutely no reason that it should be indefinite. While I wouldnt go so far as to call him a regular contributor to wikipedia, I would say he has made quite a few notable edits in his stay here (much more than me in any case)... which is why I strongly advocate the re-considering of his block (See his talk page). --The Raven is God 01:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A user has expressed concern over this block. I think I can shed some light on this; Cyde (the blocking admin) and I were in a rather extended dispute for a while. I know Phoenix in real life in a similar way that Raven is God knows him, and I fear that Cyde may have noticed Phoenix's actions and been a bit harsh due to his association with me. (Cyde blocked me for 34 hours for adding myself to a category that was on CfD after I put it through DRV because Cyde closed the previous CfD prematurely.) I don't know if that's really why Cyde did it, but he didn't respond to my inquiries about it so I pretty much let it go, as I assumed that the community would agree to unblock Phoenix. I've pretty much given up on trying to resolve things with Cyde, and as much as I hate to let it just slip by, I don't have the time to do much of anything about his actions. At any rate, that's what I believe happened, as it's unlikely that Cyde would've noticed the edit (since the first one was made weeks before he blocked Phoenix) had I not questioned him about blocking me, the premature CfD closing, etc. syphonbyte _(t|c) 03:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not "weeks before he blocked Phoenix", but 12 days[24]. And the important thing is not the first edit, but obviously the time since the last edit, which was less than 2 days[25], and which was the edit that put The Raven is God into the category (before that, it was only a text on his userpage). So your statements are incorrect wrt the timing. Fram 15:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

12 days is very close to 2 weeks, I didn't really check the specific amount of time. I think that the important thing was that the first edit was still 12 days prior to the banning. syphonbyte _(t|c) 22:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• RoyalFrush (talk · contribs) is JohnnyCanuck (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) attempting to evade his indef block. A block would be appreciated. Thank. -- pm_shef 23:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That is a suspicious user. However, it is not as clearcut as most of his other sockpuppets. Let this one go until it starts playing the games that the others do. -- JamesTeterenko 02:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophecy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has a series of vandalistic redirects. (The last being my talk page and user page.) I temporarily blocked the user, though it should probably be a permanent block for a vandalism only account. I'd appreciate some help with reverting the mess. Thanks. — ERcheck (talk) 00:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm new to this and not sure where to start. I don't want to delete pertinent histories. — ERcheck (talk) 00:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried moving the Aginar page back, but it failed because he created a page with the same title as the one it had moved from. I think what needs to happen is that a bunch of articles need to be deleted (the redirects and so on) so that the pages can be moved back to their original locations for starters. I'll try reverting the edits he made to any content, that should be easy--BigCow 00:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I got it. He started with moving Aginar to Large Mammals and then kept moving it to a series of expletive/nonsense titles. I fixed the Aginar and my user pages, I think all the rest can be deleted. Just need to take care. — ERcheck (talk) 00:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All deleted; I think it's fixed now. Thanks for posting the notice. Antandrus (talk) 00:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks to you Antandrus. — ERcheck (talk) 00:40, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About three weeks ago Maru was blocked indefinitely by me for a fairly serious BOT useage violation. The incident was discussed here but is now archived. Maru has now requested the block be removed, which I've done, as he's given a promise [26] that he won't do it again. -- I@n 00:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. Reblock if the bot reappears though, I assume. --W.marsh 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has become a most serious and depressing affair.

Quite a while ago, Maru was blocked indefinitely for continually running an unregistered bot that constantly misbehaved. He unblocked himself, claiming that the bots were shut down, then resumed running his bots that same day.

Some time later he was blocked again, for the same reason, and during the discussion around this later block it was discovered that he had previously unblocked himself on a pretext. He was then warned in the strongest of terms that he must not unblock himself. IIRC, Essjay even threatened an emergency de-sysopping.

As I@n says above, Maru has now promised not to run any unauthorised bots, and requested an unblocking.

However, now things get really sleazy. Maru has just disclosed on his user page that he sometimes uses another account, Rhwawn. [27] Nothing wrong with that, and kudos to him for making it public, except...

He created this account three days after he was blocked, and has made over 700 edits with it. If blatant evasion of a block isn't bad enough, most of Maru's edits through the Rhwawn account are unauthorised bot edits!

This has gone on too long. I am going to apply indefinite blocks to both Maru and Rhwawn, ask Essjay to look into an emergency desysopping, and request a CheckUser.

Snottygobble 01:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse permanently banning Rhwawn as an unauthorized bot account and sockpuppet. Endorse indefinite block (in the sense of to be determined) on Maru. Essjay has not been around for several days so you might want to contact another bureaucrat about the de-sysopping and an arbitrator about the checkuser. Thatcher131 (talk) 01:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the main account is unblocked, I don't see a (policy) reason to block the sock, if the evasion was in the past. An alternative is arbitration now, but since as far as I know he's promised in good faith to stop the bot then I think we should give him a chance. --W.marsh 02:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FYI As far as I've been able to gather (from Marudabshinki), he *is* using the pywikipediabot framework, but he's using a manual or semi-auto tool. This is a lot faster than editing the wiki directly, but it's still under manual control. Kim Bruning 01:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about Maru's bot flag anymore. It is about Wikipedia having an admin that

1. Unblocks himself on a pretext
2. Creates socks to avoid blocks
3. Requests unblocking on a pretext

Snottygobble 02:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse block and emergency desysopping. This guy has always struck me as a bit reckless, and he isn't playing by the rules anymore. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion struck per below. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 02:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, like the original block was really dumb? I think the separate account is for when running the bot... (as long as he possibly declared it) , and requesting unblocking is always ok. Granting the request is something else.

I'm not saying that I'm nescesarily right, but it does still seem possible to assume good faith in this instance.

If Marus story is true, then perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else. There's some decent ways to determine the truth though.

We could have an admin or two unblock him, and watch him carefully for a little while. Is that ok? Worst case he messes up, and they can block him again. Kim Bruning 02:12, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify your "perhaps we could think about desysopping someone else" comment for me? Snottygobble 02:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um that pretext stuff is pretty assuming bad faith there snotty. Did he evade the block? Yes. Was it stupid? Yes. Is it worth a desysopping? No. He didn't abuse any admin tools this time, just made a sock that did good edits. pschemp | talk 02:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In the first case, Maru was blocked indefinitely, explicitly told not to unblock himself, and told that he would be unblocked once he agreed not to run an unauthorised bot. He unblocked himself, with edit summary "bot shut down", then started up the bot again the same day. That is unblocking on a pretext; its pretty hard to argue with that. The quality of his subsequent edits have nothing to do with it. Snottygobble 02:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to reduce the blocking to maybe a week or less. Others agree? User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is a means to protect the wiki. Not a punishment. Unblock right away, but keep an eye on Marudabshinki for a while so everyone stays happy. If he's truely the root of all evil, we can always block him again for good. I have some doubt if that'll happen though. Either way, I'd just like to have a couple of extra pairs of competent eyes on the matter. Kim Bruning 02:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you guys want an admin running around that unblocks himself, evades blocks by creating sockpuppets, and promises not to run unauthorised bots while running an unauthorised bot through a sock, you go ahead an unblock him. I won't wheel war with you, but I will think your decision is stunningly stupid. Snottygobble 02:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maru has posted this on his user page; posting here as a courtesy. Snottygobble 02:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needless to say, I strongly disagree with this block. I don't particularly mind you blocking the Rhwawn account, since it was originally for the Board election, and I don't expect to need it again, but blocking my main account for semi-automated disambiguating and de-selflinking edits really cooks my chestnuts. Was I ban avading? Under a strict interpretation, I suppose so. A process wonk could surely argue that this is grounds for a few days or weeks banned, but an indef ban? Look at my edits. THey were good edits. We're supposed to judge by results, not mindlessly follow process; that's what IAR is all about, and we keep it around for a reason. Does de-sysoping, an indef blocking (with an apparent intention of making it truly indefinite and infinite) truly seem proportional to my actual offenses? I've contributed so much good work to Wikipedia, and so little bad work; doesn't that merit any consideration when I violate your interpretation of policy in my haste to actually get something done? I'd reply on AN/I, but there seems to be some technical problem. --maru (talk) contribs 02:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we're having him follow procedure now, and watching him. If he is really being stupid, that's all there is to it. If he's actually being smart and someone else is being stupid, we'll find that out quickly enough too. Kim Bruning 02:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zscout has unblocked citing "reducing duration to time served". That's a strange basis, considering the block was for running an unauthorised bot, and Maru spent his "time served" running his unauthorised bot through a sock. Honestly, I find this decision absolutely mind-bogglingly incomprehensible. Snottygobble 02:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really want to be making any more suggestions of my own here but some history might be useful. See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive124#User:Marudubshinki running unauthorized robots.

1. He ran a bot account, Bot-maru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), which was blocked as an unauthorized bot, and because it was not assisted and was making mistakes. Rather than go to WP:BRFA, he started running the bot on his main account.
2. He was blocked again because the bot was making mistakes, with the understanding that he could unblock himself if he stopped running the bot. He unblocked himself, and started running the bot again.
3. The bot was deleting pages, using Maru's sysop bit. Quoting Essjay, This is greatly concerning, as the use of bots with admin privs is opposed very strongly on en.wiki (with the possible exception of Curps, though his is not without it's critics, and may or may not still be running) and by the Foundation (an adminbot on another wiki was desysopped by Anthere not too long ago).
4. He was blocked again with instructions not to unblock himself. He did anyway, and started running the bot again.
5. He was blocked a third time and told to stop running the bot. Rather than accept responsibility and seek bot approval at WP:BRFA, he started running the bot on a second account, thereby violating both bot policy and policy against using socks to edit while blocked.

I'll let the rest of you make the decisions. I wonder whether you really expect he will stop running the bot this time, or you just don't care; and I wonder how long he will run it in assisted mode before he turns it loose again; and I wonder if he will lend it his own sysop functions again. But it's not really in my hands. Thatcher131 (talk) 03:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If he runs the bot again without requesting approval first, we will take him out for some ParkingLotTherapy. Basically we're giving him a bit of a last chance, but watching him carefully. We'll soon see if he behaves or not. :-) Kim Bruning 02:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just come back here after an hour off-line and see the sh*t has hit the fan. I'm in total agreement with Snottygobble - I'd thought that his last block was his last chance. Maru must have been awfully close to being de-sysopped after he was exposed for unblocking himself to continue using an unauthorised admin-bot. We now find he was using a sock in order to to evade the block. I'd assumed good faith in unblocking him but clearly that was misguided - Maru was cheating his block all along. He is a loose cannon and has shown ongoing behaviour unbecoming of an administrator. -- I@n 02:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that he should be de-sysoped but not blocked because he makes lots of useful articles. ⇒ JarlaxleArtemis 04:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based only on the information presented here (having not yet done the research myself) I'd support the dead-minning. - brenneman ^{L} 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the death penalty is the answer here. --Cyde Weys 05:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe take this to a RFC, and/or the ArbCom? If I was an admin, I wouldn't have bots running until I got them authorised.

Marudubshinki (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has made good edits, as JarlaxleArtemis said, so I don't think an indefinite block is warranted. --TheM62Manchester 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a de-adminship (not an indef block, too harsh) based on evidence presented here too. - Mailer Diablo 08:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't an RFC or ArbCom be a better solution? --TheM62Manchester 09:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, just that we'll need someone willing to do the filing process. - Mailer Diablo 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

---

A lot of people seem to be saying that an indef block is too harsh. But I haven't heard anyone actually propose an indef block, so I'm not sure who you're arguing against. I hope you people don't think my reinstatement of I@n's block was intended to be a final solution; as I stated on Maru's talk page, I reinstated the block "while we thrash out the implications of you running unauthorised bot edits through an alternative account created to avoid an indefinite block applied for running unauthorised bot edits".

For the record, I also do not think Maru should be blocked indefinitely. But I am firmly opposed to him retaining his sysop flag. Snottygobble 09:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indef block isn't appropriate given his good contributions, but unless someone is disputing the facts as laid out above, he has clearly abused the admin tools, and thus should not retain them. Just remove the problem and allow the good contributions. Then block later if it becomes becessary. If consensus here isn't enough for a steward to go on to desysop, send it to arbcom. - Taxman ^Talk 11:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not rush to any unnecessarily hasty decisions. This isn't dangerous. This isn't an emergency. Bring the case to the ArbComm. De-adminship in non-cut-and-dry situations (i.e. repeatedly unblocking self or deleting the main page) is the role of the ArbComm. He is unblocked. Don't reblock him, please. If you think it's serious enough, bring the case to the Committee. No vigilante justice, thank you very much. Sam Korn ^(smoddy) 12:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. ArbCom is appropriate if someone wants to do it. If there are further problems, I'll do it myself. Extra chances are good for minor infractions, but at a certain point we have to assert firmly that admins are as bound by policy as everyone else. -- SCZenz 14:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should take you up on that. If you're willing to draw up the formalities for ArbCom, let it go there. The alternative is going to be widespread support for a steward taking action anyway. The current situation is clearly not satisfactory, per Snottygobble and others. Metamagician3000 07:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two anon editors 128.97.143.170 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 71.135.249.20 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (probably the same person) have been making unencyclopedic rewrites to MEChA over the last few days (see here and here for two examples). 71.135.249.20 also blanked sections of the talk page and made personal attacks. [28] [29] [30] I tried to show good faith and have left messages on the talk pages of both the IP's regarding their actions, but none of my attempts have been responded to. I keep urging this user to discuss their edits on the talk page, but they have yet to do so in any meaningful way. There is also a small bit on this topic at Meeples' talk page. If some more people can keep an eye on these pages and try and talk to this person, that would be great. If the actions continue, I think a block may be in order. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, TheKaplan has found the source of these edits. [31] So in addition to being unencyclopedic, it's also a possible copywrite violation. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 01:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll semi-protect the page. -Will Beback 06:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 07:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over the last few days there has been some contestation between myself and several users regarding the use of a logo from the Legend of Zelda series of games. In particular the image that is at the middle of this is Image:Triforce.svg. A very close likeness of this image is featured prominently at http://www.zelda.com/universe/, and is in fact the avatar Nintendo uses for that website. My stance is that Image:Triforce.svg is a copyrighted work, and I've changed the tagging it from {{pd-self}} to {{logo}} (though perhaps {{game-icon}} is more appropriate). The counter response to this is that the image is a Sierpinski triangle and is inherently uncopyrightable as a result, plus being user created. My counter-response has been that the image being a mathematical construct does not change the fact that it is a copyrighted work. The logo for Mitsubishi is also a mathematical construct (simply parallelograms arranged around a focal point). A quick summary of these respective positions may be found at Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#Image:Triforce.svg.

As of now, the point remains in dispute. Recently, a used replaced the image with a yellow triangle, which from my chair is perfectly acceptable (see [32]). A day later, this was replaced by using the same triangle image three times, creating essentially the same image as Image:Triforce.svg (see [33]). I reverted this change since it did create an essentially identical image [34]. Shortly thereafter, the original Image:Triforce.svg was placed back on the template [35]. I've reverted this change as well, returning to the single triangle version [36].

This dispute has gone on for four days now, and I've reverted/replaced five times over those days vs. three other users who have been reverting me. The dispute has also involved {{Zeldaproj}} and {{Zelda-stub}} though with less reversion in their histories. User:BigNate37 who put in place the single triangle (a good move I thought) also made a good suggestion my talk page to "call in a second opinion" [37]. Since Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems didn't produce any dialogue, I'm bringing it here.

For the record, I think it's blatantly apparent this is a copyrighted image both by nature of the presence of it on Nintendo's website and by the fact that several users are quite interested in having some version of it on the various templates. If the image were not tightly related to Zelda, there would not be such interest. The image is tightly related because Nintendo markets it as such. They have a vested interest in protecting the use of such logos. The single yellow triangle is an acceptable, free-use alternative.

Lastly, I think the core of the dispute and its value is questionable; the argument is over using a copyrighted image (potentially or otherwise) on templates that do not contribute content to the main article namespace. The stub marker for example is not compromised by the lack of the logo; it would be served just as well by a single triangle. I do not see the value in potentially violating Nintendo's copyright in order to support a (subjectively) prettier version of three templates. I would much rather see the people who think this image is usable contact Nintendo regarding its specific stance regarding this image; this is the right path to take, not presume it isn't copyrighted.

If consensus is otherwise to my stance, I'll quite happily concede the point. --Durin 01:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP isn't my daily grind, but -- FWIW -- Nintendo has probably trademarked the triangle as a mark of the Zelda game. The company couldn't copyright a construct discovered in 1915, and Mitsubishi hasn't copyrighted theirs either. As a trademark, use of the symbol is permitted to any party not competing with Nintendo. Trademarking does not remove a mark from the public domain, and only restricts its use within the limited industry or trade to the party trademarking. In short, the triangle is usable, unless we start "Wikipedia:The Video Game". :) Xoloz 01:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to recall a story that that arangement of trangles, was printed on various goods in Japan before the existance of the video game. This needs to be looked into. If it is true, the symbol may be inelligible for copyright. (Of course, without a reference, this is only a theory!) Though, as stated, its relation and use in video games may be trademarked by the Nintendo company. --Kevin_b_er 02:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is also pretty much the logo of the American Academy of Actuaries, Image:2006AAALOGO.jpg -- Avi 04:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would say copyright fears have been allayed. Gateman1997 05:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I took a look at Nintendo's trademarks on the USPTO site. They have 287 active registered trademarks, including the word "Triforce" for a huge range of uses. They've trademarked several pictures of Mario, several variants of their "circle within a circle" logo; their cube of the letter N, and the outline of each of their controllers. They've trademarked a long list of Pokemon names, plus "Gotta catch em all!". But they don't seem to have trademarked that triangle symbol. --John Nagle 06:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks everybody for your hard work! Much appreciated. Based on this discussion, I've retagged the image as {{pd-ineligible}} and put it back [38][39][40] on the templates in question. --Durin 12:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone please explain fair use to User:Mineralè? User:Zoe|(talk) 02:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His personal attacks ([41] have gone over the edge, and I will not deal with him any more. All of this because I listed his image as a copyvio. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you linnk the right diff there? - brenneman ^{L} 02:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't think "please note some of us are actually trying to build a wikipedia, not just play whack a vandal MMPORG." is an attack? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I do, but that was the diff before and I wanted to make sure which one you were talking about rather than guessing. He's clearly incivil and wrong about the image to boot. - brenneman ^{L} 03:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zoe is absolutely correct here. Non-iconic images from press agencies are not candidates for fair use. (→Netscott) 03:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As its silly and a legal liability to have this copyright violation sitting around, and since Minerale keeps taking the non fair use tags off, I have deleted this image. Take it to DRV if anyone disagrees. pschemp | talk 03:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pschemp: I only removed the tag once, the second time it was a bot generated tag becuase it was briefly orphaned. Like it or not His image will be plastered around the media for the next year or so as the trial, conviction, sentencing and appeals go through, his image will be on that article. I see many people here do not like APF, and I understand that, here's a Reuters photo: [42]

• http://www.cnn.com his photo is on front page
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com Front page
• http://www.ajc.com front page

The image of Karr will serve as a reminder of the grave mistakes the media made in accusing the Ramsey family. I urge you to upload and use the Reuters photo, looks like y'all are not going to agree with me on this for now, consider it for next week. —Mineralè 2006-08-18 03:34Z

You are totally missing the fact that is is illegal to use images from AFP. There is no attempt at censorship here, just a protection of Wikipedia's legal liability. pschemp | talk 03:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If an image qualifies under fair use, it does not matter who 'sells it'. Even if IF AFP were to specifically deny wikipedia the right. See: [43] —Mineralè 2006-08-18 03:54Z

Mineralè, please see Wikipedia:Fair_use#Counterexamples #5 and know that guideline (and the policy below) is what Wikipedia operates under. (→Netscott) 03:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's correct, grandparent entry said it's illegall to use no matter what, point five carves out an exception. —Mineralè 2006-08-18 04:09Z

Indeed, an exception to which the photo you uploaded did not fall under. The photo itself was not newsworthy merely the individual in the photo. I would recommend that you use your time in an effort to source an image that will qualify for fair usage or better yet a "free" image. (→Netscott) 04:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've misunderstood the meaning of "iconic". If the photo became so well known that it merited an article of its own, then reproduction of this photo would be fair use in the article about the photo itself. It will virtually never be fair use in an article about the subject of the photo. Snottygobble 04:13, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, there's nothing to agree to. The photos of agencies like Reuters, AFP etc. will never qualify for fair usage unless the image in question is "iconic". (→Netscott) 03:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

209.107.99.199 (talk · contribs · count) has been making legal threats regarding edits made to Myron Wolf Child. The IP has been blocked for a 6 month period, but claims that Myron Wolf Child's nation-wide network and Legal Defense Team will continue correcting the information until legal matters have been settled. Just wanted to mention this here before it escalated into something nasty. -- Natalya 03:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the legal threats; if it continues, then I would protect the page. Iolakana•T 15:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am somewhat bothered by the way that SuperJumbo (talk · contribs) seems to have unilaterally decided to reformat dates. As I understand it, there is a longstanding semi-formal agreement that in articles dealing with things outside of the English-speaking world, we don't particularly favor U.S. or Commonwealth style on dates; instead, we wikify and let the software format it to the users' preferences. Hence, edits like these ([44], [45]) are at least mildly annoying. Tazmaniacs (talk · contribs) reversion of these ([46], [47]) was, of course, almost inevitable; but what I really don't like is what comes next: Superjumbo using popups ([48] [49]) to revert. The navigation tools are not intended as utilities for edit warring. - Jmabel | Talk 05:02, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Jmabel to be, on the whole, correct (the issue ought, IMHO, for unwikified dates, to be treated as is AE/BE by the MoS, which treatment WP:DATE seems to suggest), but if I'm not crazy almost all of the dates over which edit-warring has occurred here are wikified, such that, for registered users (who necessarily, IIRC, make a date preference election), that which displays will not be affected; aren't most of these edits purposeless? Joe 05:15, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This is a non–issue, I'm afraid. Go to your "my preferences" and change your dating format preference from "No preference" (or "15 January 2000") to "January 15, 2000", and all dates that he "re-formatted" will appear as you have selected. His changing of these dates is pointless as any one user can select preference for one of these methods over the other. That's why this preference selection was created. — ^{`</sup>CRAZY`(lN)`SANE<sup>` [discl.]} 05:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It would be a non-issue if and only if people like SuperJumbo didn't unilaterally change dates to match their personal preference. The "preference selection" was designed to prevent such changes by rendering them pointless. No one thought anyone would be so silly as to go on a jihad to convert dates to his "preferred preference" just in order to have non-logged in users see them, but obviously we didn't reckon on how bellicose people can be in insisting you adopt their whims as default. But that is the argument he offered when I objected to him converting all articles relating to Monaco to day-month-year. - Nunh-huh 06:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why it matters. It might be pointless for him to do this, but why would anyone go to the trouble of reverting it? He has wikified so that it will appear as per whatever preference users have adopted. If people don't have accounts or haven't logged in, I don't think they'll suffer greatly if the date appears the way he prefers in the articles he's edited. Or am I missing something here? Metamagician3000 07:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the fact that it's fundamentally disrespectful to insist on having one's own way in what is supposed to be a cooperative or at least collegial editing environment. When you change "color" to "colour" or "haemophilia" to "hemophilia", it annoys people because you are insisting "their" way is wrong and your way is right. It's the same with dates. If it doesn't, or shouldn't, matter, then it shouldn't be changed. You should have the decency to leave de minimus matters alone, and respect other's choices, rather than privileging your own. If you don't, you encourage edit wars, ill-feeling, and distract from the business of writing an encyclopedia. - Nunh-huh 07:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand all that, I guess. I still don't understand why it matters so much, given what the outcome actually is for users of the encyclopedia. If someone changed the way I had the dates (but wikified them properly) I would smile at their relatively harmless idiosyncracy rather than thinking this was terribly important or needed to be dealt with by admins. It seems that any disruption is de minimus. Oh well, maybe another admin will take a greater interest in it. Metamagician3000 08:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SuperJimbo wikified the dates so that date preferences are enabled. Tazmaniac's blind reversion de-wikified the dates. I agree we shouldn't edit war over which date style is the default, but all dates should have date preferences enabled when possible. —Quarl ^(talk) 2006-08-18 08:16Z

Eh, no SuperJimbo changed, for example, [[November 11]], [[1942]] (November 11, 1942) to [[11 November]] [[1942]] (11 November 1942) — both formats are valid and display dates as per the user preferences. It was a pointless edit. Thanks/wangi 08:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a good number of his changes and warned him that if he does this again he will be blocked. We have a policy in place that warns against doing this for a very good reason. --Cyde Weys 13:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm coming in late to this discussion, but may I suggest that rather than edit warring, and reverting all of my careful work, people take a moment to read the guidelines laid down in WP:MoS? I'll thank Cyde to go and undo his reverts, and request that in future he discuss before acting against consensus.

I quote from the Manual of Style:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

Using this as a guide, I suggest that Cyde's changes to the King Edward VIII article were insufficiently considered, to be polite. --Jumbo 22:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, can you promise to confine yourself to topics that clearly relate to the UK, etc., and to UN agencies? Maybe you're already doing this, but that's not clear to me. You should give that undertaking and stick to it. I think that talk of blocking is overreacting as long as your activities are so confined. I still think is all a bit of storm in a teacup, but I suppose what you're doing could be irritating if it's not clearly confined to appropriate articles. Metamagician3000 22:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My actions have been in accordance with the Manual of Style throughout. Jtdirl, an expert on style, and familiar with the precise history of dating conventions in Wikipedia, has seen fit to comment on several occasions:

• On my talk page
• On Nunh-hunh's talk page
• On the talk page for Prince Rainier III

I would appreciate it if participants in this discussion would familiarise themselves with the consensus guidelines before commenting and proffering advice. --Jumbo 23:11, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly your interpretation of the MOS is at odds with others equally "expert". You have no consensus to make the changes you are making and have resisted suggestions that you actually try to build one. Why don't you just stop, and do so, instead of becoming a Wikilawyer? - Nunh-huh 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your assertion may be clear to you, but I beg your indulgence in asking for further clarification. Who is it that offers both a dissenting view to jtdirl and shares his wealth of experience and knowledge on the subject? For my part, I act only in accordance with established policy and guidelines, and if you have a different view, I ask that you take it up with those who set the guidelines after years of diligent and detailed discussion. In particular, please do not make changes such as this recent one to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven. WP:MoS explicitly directs that articles on British subjects use International Dating. --Jumbo 00:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pretty much everyone who's raised the issue with is every bit as qualified as jtdirl to opine on the subject. You seem to equate "agrees with me" with "is an expert". No, you are not acting within guidelines, and MoS does not "direct" British dates. - Nunh-huh 00:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your assumption that experts are those who agree with me. This is not the case. Jtdirl and I have disagreed on other matters, but I find it hard to understand how anybody could discount his years of participation in styles and formats. His knowledge and advice are of immense value in this discussion.

Your comment about the MoS likewise turns out not to be the case when we examine the relevant section:

If the topic itself concerns a specific country, editors may choose to use the date format used in that country. This is useful even if the dates are linked, because new users and users without a Wikipedia account do not have any date preferences set, and so they see whatever format was typed. For topics concerning the UK, Australia, Ireland, New Zealand, most member states of the Commonwealth of Nations, and most international organizations such as the United Nations, the formatting is usually [[17 February]] [[1958]] (no comma and no "th"). In the United States and Canada, it is [[February 17]], [[1958]]. Elsewhere, either format is acceptable. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English for more guidance.

In view ofthe above, may I ask you again why you are choosing to insert American format dates into an explicitly British article? And how many times need I quote the MoS before you accept that this document means what it says? You are not being helpful in your contributions. --01:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's see. If you quote the same thing 1,000 times, and I've told you I've disagreed with your interpretation of it, why would your repetition persuade me that your interpretation of it is correct. The simple fact is that the last time there were rampant date jihadists such as yourself, the compromise that allowed productive editing to resume was to link dates and invoke preferences rather than having people unilaterally change them. You now want to nullify that compromise. That's not a good way to procede. - Nunh-huh 01:59, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions so far, insomuch as they reveal your position. I am asking you to correct your edits to Louis Mountbatten, 1st Marquess of Milford Haven, as WP:MoS explicitly directs that articles on British subjects use International Dating. --Jumbo 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've been asking you to stop your jihad, inasmuch as it's not authorized by any policy, and is antithetically opposed to the basic compromise on dates. So apparently asking isn't enough. - Nunh-huh 03:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This issue erupted in a major edit war some time ago. We agreed on a simple solution.

• Set preferences to choose whether one wanted to read International Dating dd/mm/yyyy or American Dating mm/dd/yyyy.

However as one has to have a WP account to set preferences, it was also agreed to apply another two simple rules:

• If a country uses either ID or AD predominantly, articles should be written in it.
• Where they don't, go by the initial choice made by the initial editor.

That was placed in the MoS through the giving of some examples of countries that use ID. The list in the MoS was never intended to be the only countries. If it was then users of ID would never have agreed to the compromise. It was always intended to be an example.

So when anyone of us edits and American article we always use American Dating (in fact for many international editors of WP it is probably the only time in their lives when they ever write dates in the month/day format as most of the planet use day/month, hence its name, International Dating). I have got into edit wars on American pages stopping users from replacing American Dating on American pages with International Dating.

The same is also true. All SuperJumbo has been doing is applying that rule. He has not been blanket changing dates. He has been

• ensuring that dates on British topics all follow ID rather than, as is the case a lot of the time, being a mishmash of both;
• fixing other articles so that all the date structures are the same, whether ID or AD;
• ensuring that date usage on WP reflects national usage in the country being written about. Many of the articles he has been working on lately have been French ones. France does not use American Dating, and it is as offensive for French people to have their articles written in American Dating (and spelling) as it is for Americans to have their articles written in International Dating and International English.

Cyde, as usual, bungled in to the process with his usual sledgehammer approach and blanket reverted SuperJumbo's corrections, insisting that

• a British topic like Edward VIII of the United Kingdom be a mishmash of International and American Dating, with sometimes both formats used in the one sentence
• an Irish topic like Bono be in American Dating even though Ireland does not use American Dating and Irish users on WP get extremely pissed off when Americans on WP keep converting articles to follow American Dating.

Rather than accuse Cyde of vandalism for forcing messes onto articles all over the place, perhaps the most charitable thing that could be said was that, as he does sometimes, he screwed up. International Dating users are however at this stage getting a bit fed up with some (and it is only a small number) of American users consistently trying to force a format of dating on country articles where that country never uses AD. ID users have been more than willing to ensure that countries that use AD have AD in them, and to revert any changes from AD. It would be nice if AD users showed the same willingness to accept that, as was the agreement that stopped the last major edit war on dating, some countries use ID, some AD and the articles on topics from each country should reflect usage.

The reality is simple:

• the US uses AD.
• Most of the Commonwealth of Nations uses ID.
• Most of Europe uses ID.

I don't know what various countries in South America and Africa use.

Maybe we should simply compile a list of countries and set down explicitly what dating should be used for each. We could establish a project on dates. That might be the solution. But in the meantime, SuperJumbo is perfectly correct to adjust European topics to ID, American topics to AD, and where a mishmash occurs in articles to fix it. FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 00:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two things:

1. The MoS guideline as it stands quite clearly refers to the English-speaking world. Elsewhere, either should be acceptable, just as articles may be in U.S. or Commonwealth English. Although countries outside the English-speaking world each have their own date preferences, we do not normally apply those. To follow that logic, we would have to give dates in Hungarian-related articles in the form 2006-8-20.
2. No one has addressed my remark about using "popups" as an edit-warring tool. - Jmabel | Talk 22:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taeguk Warrior (talk · contribs) refuses to stop removing warnings and similar notices from his page. He was recently blocked for a week due to this behavior, and resumed it immediately upon "release". I've blocked him for another week in order to give us time to discuss what should be done. I'm all in favor of blocking for at least a month, if not longer. Taeguk Warrior is constantly revert-warring on many different articles in addition to his own user talk page [50]. He has also gotten into rows over whether or not an image is tagged properly, and has removed dispute tags on several images: [51], [52], [53], [54], and there are others. So, what say ye? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:04, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone else want to put in a thought on this one? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added a case for his block evasion down below--I didn't see this section until just now. Perhaps that should be moved here? —LactoseTI^T 19:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've done so. Your post from below has been moved directly below this one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User continuously skirts blocks with large block of IP's.

Here [[55]], he seems to imply that a comment was left by him here [[56]]. That IP (71.124.113.216) is from a hostname ending with ".chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net." Here again [[57]] he mentions he forgot to sign in and had the IP 71.124.122.59, another from the same block.

He has been blocked repeatedly for blanking his talk page, removing PUI tags/vandalism from pictures he uploaded, etc. (now on his second 1 week block). The longest blocks were the last two consecutive week long ones which he seems to have avoided by editing from his IP directly:

• 02:43, August 18, 2006 1 week
• 01:10, August 11, 2006 1 week

He seems to have skirted his first one week block using the ip 71.124.34.4 (from the "chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net" pool, contributions here [[58]], where he amassed first a 24 hour and then a 48 block. Started editing on August 12, 2006 from this IP, one day into his first 1 week block, diving right into the same Masutatsu Oyama article, removing PUI tags /from the images uploaded by Taeguk Warrior here [[59]], [[60]], [[61]], [[62]], [[63]], [[64]], etc. (there are many).

Here [[65]] he copied an unusually worded warning onto my talk page from Taeguk Warrior's user page here [[66]].

When this IP was blocked for 48 hours, only a short time after coming off a 24 hour block, a couple of edits from 74.64.70.159 contributions here [[67]] (outside of the pool) continued his reverts on Masutatsu Oyama.

After a day or so, edits started coming in from 71.124.36.224 contributions here [[68]], again in the "chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net" pool to the same Masutatsu Oyama article. They continued edits on a few articles frequented by Taeguk Warrior, including one created by him here [[69]]. Here [[70]], his edit summary refers to me specifically (saying that since he added a free picture it must make me angry (I had cleaned up the article significantly and tagged some unfree images he uploaded).

At this point his week long block expired and he promptly found himself under another 1 week block for doing the same thing (removing tags, blanking his user page--unknowingly I may have fanned the flames a bit, my vandal script noticed him making the same changes I had tagged as vandalism. He reverted my warnings as well as those from administrators/others.

Now that he's on his second week-long block, he has started editing from 72.69.105.138 contributions here [[71]], again in the chi01.dsl-w.verizon.net pool. Again, he is reverting/removing bits of content from Masutatsu Oyama, though it's relatively minor compared to what he was doing before.

At first I didn't notice they were all from the same pool, but not only do they have blatantly the same edit patterns. I put it together when I realized the only time these IP's show up is when the main account is blocked, and happened to see his post on the Masuyama talk page where he seemed to indicate that he was in the same pool. There are other edits in other articles, but the Masuyama article illustrates it particularly well since there are very few editors involved with it (and I wanted to keep this as brief as possible).

I thought he'd cool down a bit and make some valuable contributions (he has the capability--he added to several articles with some nice pictures). It seems, though, that he might not be cooling down at all--perhaps because he just avoids the block and keeps editing. It's unfortunate because he's a relatively new user and just seems to be escalating the bad edits vs. the good ones. I had originally thought to request semi-protection for the Masuyama page, though it seems kind of unnecessary since he does seem to blank/revert less when he's blocked. Of course, I'm discouraged when my edits are undone and he's uncivil--namecalling and the like, but I'll stick around. I'd just avoid the articles he's editing, but he seems now to want to "follow me around," putting my contribution link on his user page (originally under a list of stalkers, now by itself). Sometimes he's particularly viscious, tagging good faith efforts as "vandalism" to confuse the issue. If anyone has some suggestions, I'm all ears. —LactoseTI^T 06:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User has been banned in the past for uploading unsources images, but is doing it again. He also created Sana (actress), consisting only of an image, and removed my PROD tag without explanation. -Elmer Clark 08:03, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked him for a month (yes I know, a bit on the short side) and will delete his images and the non-article. Kusma (討論) 08:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• PRODs can be contested for any reason (or the lack of it). I've speedied it as {{empty}}, which you should have tagged it with. - Mailer Diablo 08:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, right you are, sorry. And I did not restore the PROD he contested, I just asked him to explain why he did so. -Elmer Clark 08:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indefblock, please, impostor. - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Kimchi.sg 10:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Iron" InShaneeee? This guy's my new (indef blocked imposter) hero! --InShaneee 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is being overrun by obvious and ridiculous socks that have totally stolen the show. Would anyone please restore order? - CrazyRussian talk/email 10:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I don't see a huge overrun of socks. Every sock and point violation looks like they've been caught and noted as such for the bureaucrat to ignore. While I supposed we could sprotect, I'm not sure we've ever sprotected a RFA :). I'll just try to keep it on my watchlist for the remaining two days or so that its running. Syrthiss 11:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like it was sprotected anyhow. Syrthiss 12:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened before: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Eluchil404. -- nae'blis 12:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is an edit war occuring over a suspected sock template placed on that page. Anyone want to resolve? (Please note: first edit was to Consumed Crustracean's RfA). Viridae^Talk 12:29, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've full protected that userpage with the sock notice intact, tho the user is requesting changes to it with {{editprotected}} on their talk. I'm not inclined to edit it, but I won't stand in the way if another admin wishes to remove the protection. I'm also not going to stand in the way if another admin were to indefblock the user as a sleepersock. Syrthiss 12:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. --InShaneee 23:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is a nasty edit war at Srebrenica massacre. I've been a bit lax, hoping that with a bit of patience, advice and warnings it would resolve itself, but I'm now think some blocks are required to give some credibility to our policies. I'm probably too much involved myself to mete out blocks, so I'd like to request short blocks to what I see as the main problem users:

• Osli73 (talk · contribs) for constant edit warring (see the history). He violated the 3RR with reverts on 18 Aug 05:18, 17 Aug 16:34, 17 Aug 16:01, 17 Aug 06:58; look for instance at the section titled "(Dispute regarding) Serb casualties around Srebrenica", starting around line 435, to see that these are reverts. He was warned by User:Heah (diff), I also told him to stop (diff), but Osli replied that he will continue edit warring diff), and indeed he did. (I realize that there is a page for 3RR violations, but I'd like to have everything together.)
• Bosniak (talk · contribs) for personal attacks and sterile edit warring. Bosniak said that Osli "lack basic tenets of common sense, general knowledge, and intelligence." (diff). Bosniak was blocked for personal attacks before (log). Furthermore, he blindly reverts the article every day, without any regard of what has changed, and thus wipes out any improvements. For example, the reverts on 18 Aug 00:45, 17 Aug 01:11, 16 Aug 05:31, 15 Aug 05:25 and 14 Aug 04:02 all reintroduce spelling mistakes. He was told not to do this by Live Forever (diff) and me (same diff as my warning to Osli). This makes it very hard to find a compromise version.

Of course, I'd also appreciate help from anybody with experience in handling disputes. Specifically, I'm wondering about temporarily protecting the page. My only concern is that one of the parties is asking for page protection (diff, diff) — guess they've never heard about m:The Wrong Version — and I don't want them to think that their edit warring got them what they wanted. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 13:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • This response is from Bosniak (talk · contribs) ***

I agree that edit wars should stop, but you need to realize that [Osli73] is primary to blame for edit wars, blind reverts, and full blown vandalism of Srebrenica Massacre article. I would be more than glad to stop reverting the article to a more civilized versions, but please bear in mind that Osli73 (talk · contribs) needs to stop first, because he is leading a war with at least 10 other editors who refuse to accept his vandalism. In other words, [Osli73] is vandalizing article, he deletes facts such as the fact that 8,106 Bosniaks died in the massacre (well documented, with names, JMBR numbers, names of parents, etc). In my opinion, and in the opinion of at least 10 other editors, Osli73 needs to be banned from ever editing Srebrenica massacre article. Bosniak 00:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Árpád, Latinitas (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has filed a checkuser request against Árpád (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) for "Fascist edits." Both accounts are only a week old, and they edit Hungarian/Romanian topics. I'm pretty sure something else is going on here but I can't quite put my finger on it. Any help? Thatcher131 (talk) 14:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I see Latinitas' own edits on Magyarization [72], I start to wonder whether it is not a sock of a banned editor... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 14:42, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was a sock of permabanned User:Bonaparte abakharev 23:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yay, so I was right in my mail, Alex? What do I win? :P -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 23:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Caltrop blocked me for breaking the 3R rule during a dispute he was having with me at T-4 Euthanasia Program. Possibly I was in breach of 3R (I wasn't counting), but if I was, so was he. Furthermore, I had explained my reversion at the Talk page, to which he replied only with juvenile and ad hominem comments and made no attempt to engage with the issue. Finally I consider it most inappropriate for an admin to block an editor in a dispute to which they themselves are a party, and indeed largely initiated. I request that Caltrop be formally warned not to abuse his admin powers in this way. This is the first time in three years of editing that I have had occasion to complain about an admin. Adam 15:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was a mistake on his part and you were unblocked because of it - but - [73] is highly innapropriate for you to say after you were unblocked. I would suggest that you remove that, as it serves no purpose other than to taunt him and rub the issue in his face (not to mention the header, which in itself is extremely incivil). Thank you. Cowman109^Talk 15:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dare say. I have removed it. I don't deny I am very angry at this kind of stupid behaviour at an article on such a topic. Adam 15:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. It might be a good idea to ask for third opinions from the village pump if you need help with the issues on that page. Cowman109^Talk 15:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no need for advice on the article itself. It's a lousy article and I intend rewriting it. What I needed help with was an abuse of admin powers. Since Caltrop has apologised I won't pursue this matter, but I still think he should not be an admin. Adam 01:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, Special:Randompage landed me this morning on an article with a really bizarre section (that I removed) left by Acaryatid. I'm starting to look at his edit history, and see some things that look anomalous. I'd appreciate some more eyes on their contribs to help determine if there's a problem or not. Thanks. --Improv 15:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an admin, but I will go through from the beginning and see if there's anything problematic and, if so, remove it. The user doesn't seem to have top edit on anything, so I'll have to manually revert anything that's in violation of policy, if anything. UPDATE: I'm removing most of the politicalfriendster links, with a few exceptions where the spamminess is outweighed by usefulness. Captainktainer * Talk 16:05, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed pretty much everything I could find that hasn't already been removed, barring the rare occasion where this user's contributions have been helpful. Thanks for finding that. Captainktainer * Talk 17:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like several of his additions have been copyvios. · rodii · 16:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I would dump this here as it is outside my comfort level. User Vgfarmer (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to have an agenda to post new words and synonyms (neologisms) into existing articles and one new article Pratdigger. What is notable is that the words may all come from http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=57262821. From there: "We are planting Verbal Seeds around the world to see what will grow. Please help us disseminate the seeds, water the shoots and then reap the harvest." I began by reverting the additions, but I think it needs more than that, but I don't know what. There is some still unreverted in British coinage: I began by adding a "citation needed"... Notinasnaid 16:19, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Everything's been reverted no, and he's been warned. The behavior halted about six hours ago. --Durin 18:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO suddenly blocked a user with no apparent bad edits, indefinitely, and blocked his user page. The user is User:Weevlos. His contribs. He apparently suspects that this user spammed admins (but there is no apparent proof of this), and that page of template information was actually on dozens of pages all over Wikipedia during MONGO's conflict with an outside website. MONGO also protected this user's talk page so that he could not request a review, seen here. Would someone be willing to review this? This user appears to have done nothing to warrant this. Thank you. - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 202.172.234.92 (talk • contribs) 2006-08-18T13:16:36 (UTC)

Having examined a couple of the users edits, I see behaviour warranting a block. Not having examined all the edits, I will trust MONGO over an anon IP that the indefinite block was appropriate. -- JamesTeterenko 20:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The last edit was pretty much libel, so MONGO was right to block for it. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 21:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the last edit, IMHO, was in no way libellous (at least as regards United States law), even as it may have expressed a value judgment with which some of us might disagree; this doesn't, of course, speak to the broader issue, but it is useful for us to take care that we not use libel too broadly, if only because, in the context of mainspace, such broad use sometimes serves unnecessarily to temper contributions... Joe 22:10, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The evidence is at User:Weevlos/Compiling Evidence which MONGO deleted at 09:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC) with the reason "(same subpage used to email spam hndreds of admins a month ago)". Only another admin can see what it says. MONGO probably had a very good reason to react the way he did after reading that page. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  21:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But other than that single page (I'll take your word that it existed and wasn't just a typical rfc/rfar note-taking page), what else makes for a permanent ban based on the judgement of a single admin? I looked at the last two months of contribs, and they all seemed like good reliable edits - the majority of which are in article space, aren't vandalism, look sourced, etc. Based on what I can see as a non-admin, a permanent ban of a good editor based on one user sub-page seems way overblown. SchmuckyTheCat 22:21, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry Schmucky...all the encyclopedia dramatica trolls can always pull it from their pages at their website and use it once again to spam hundreds of admins about my "abuse"...interesting that you noticed.--MONGO 22:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just for what it is worth, do we have any evidence or proof beyond the one off color edit on AN/I from this user that he violated any policy? rootology (T) 22:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been spammed with the content of that page repeatedly; I'm glad MONGO ferreted out who it was and I support the block. Its too bad this editor had contributed productively in the past, but unfortunately, he let himself get so involved in one article that he went bananas. Shell ^babelfish 22:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought somebody else had been singled out already for sending the spam? I don't know or care why this user had the page (and I can't see the contents of deleted pages) but I don't see any evidence this person was sending the spam. SchmuckyTheCat 22:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Schmucky said, someone was previously banned for that spam. That content during the MONGO/ED fiasco was on many archived pages, on many users, even an admin's page, as seen here. Is there evidence that this user did this spamming? rootology (T) 22:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both rootlogy and Schmucky are encyclopedia dramatica editors. Rootology as of late has spent most of his time wikistalking several admins and also trying to figure out other ways to harass Wikipedia and Wikipedians...albeit in a "gentlemanly manner". --MONGO 22:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO, you have made such accusations in the past. Please proove them, file an RfC, or ArbCom, or please stop harassing me. If you look at my contribs, I do nothing of the sort. rootology (T) 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can an admin at least unprotect this person's talk page so that he can speak for himself? rootology (T) 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People are blocked all the time...interesting that you find this situation interesting.--MONGO 23:06, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've known this person for several years BEFORE I was ever on Wikipedia, from various online IT and computer science/research circles, and I had his page as someone I've known on my watchlist (same as ANI). I was amazed when I saw he was blocked, since I know this person DOESN'T do anything of the sort. What evidence/proof/policy violation did he do that warrants a one-person initiated indef ban? rootology (T) 23:09, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He should have thought twice about his last comment and about using his userspace to post the same harassment information that was used to spam hundreds of editors, both via email and on their talk pages, as well as in the admin noticeboard areas. Tony Sidaway has also commented about your direction here at Wikipedia...I don't think you're fooling anyone.--MONGO 23:17, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tony has been working with me rather civilly on a policy proposal, so I have no idea where you're going with that. As to "harassing" information on his userspace, please look at my above link--an admin had it on his user page for months, and it was on many other's pages after it was mailed by someone to a zillion people. Will an admin review how long that page has been idle before it was deleted? I'd venture that it was idle since around the time of the mass mailing. Will you please let me know what policy this user has violated, and why he cannot have his talk page unlocked so that the blocking can be reviewed? As for that last comment about Nathan in the history, I'd politely point out that in the past two weeks a lot of people have said inappropriate things about that user (I could care less why, I'm not involved), and I didn't see any mass bans over that. rootology (T) 23:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a side note, that was also the spam emailed out to many administrators about a month ago. -- Natalya 22:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would encourage all of my fellow admins to ignore Rootology, he has no credibility on this issue. He is involved with the same website (Encyclopedia Dramatica) as the trolls who were spamming this subpage. So of course he's going to come to their defense, and of course it's going to be a meaningless one. --Cyde Weys 23:32, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have a page attacking ME on there. What on Earth are you talking about? What evidence is there that this person did the spam that he's being blocked for? rootology (T) 23:38, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to take my own advice here. La dee da dee da ... Cyde Weys 23:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rootology is in no way involved with ED. As for the spam that occured a month ago, refer to this. The user that was blocked recently had nothing to do with the spamming of administrator's email acounts. Quite simply, he was blocked because MONGO doesn't like ED. Let's be honest with each other here, k? --Daisy Craft 23:49, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say they have a problem with me...I must be doing something right around here.--MONGO 05:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why yes, of course. Being <personal attack removed> is a desirable trait on Wikipedia. I have little respect for people like you who run around with the attitude "I'm right because I can ban you". No, you're still wrong. Silencing dissent doesn't suddenly make the dissenting viewpoint irrelevant, although I understand that it certainly is preferable for the cult to ignore dissent. I do have great respect for sysops like Can't Sleep, Clown Will Eat Me and Wiki Alf, because they don't throw their weight around. Rather, they work on improving the encyclopedia, and although they do deal with vandals firmly, they also treat them with civility and respect. Respect is a concept foreign to people like you, Cyde, and Kelly Martin. As long as people like you remain so full of themselves that they chuck out any semblance of respect for others, Wikipedia is doomed to failure. It seems that anyone who doesn't agree with the Elite is branded as a "troll" and eventually banned. Dispute resolution is one of the biggest oxymorons in this encyclopedia - dispute resolution consists of banning or censuring the user whose viewpoints are unpopular with the elite. Must... ban... anyone... who posts to Wikipedia Review. Must... ban... anyone... who edits Encyclopedia Dramatica. Trolls, the lot of them! Time for a nice, cold glass of Kool-Aid. --72.160.83.128 06:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC

Seriously though, you ban and threaten users for no reason than that you don't agree with what they have to say. That, my friend, is a problem. --72.160.83.128 06:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concur. 85.70.5.66 08:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blue ardvark...you are a troll..that is why you're banned. You have nothing to offer Wikipedia except disruption so troll on off.--MONGO 08:35, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gawd, at least spell my psuedonym right. "Blu Aardvark". I am banned because the Arbitration Committee doesn't understand the meaning of the word "arbitrate". I have plenty to contribute, but really don't see the point. As I said, being elitist towards users, not offering any degree of respect to contributors, and blindly labelling people "trolls" is a damned good way to make abusive users. --72.160.83.128 09:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that. 85.70.5.66 09:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess my friend is not going to get to at least see the evidence of his alleged spamming that he was blocked for, or the policy violation he allegedly violated, as no one will answer a question for the same. rootology (T) 00:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• This long ago stopped being about the issues. The only thing that matters anymore is the personalities involved in the discussion. SchmuckyTheCat 07:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Users User:Ceula, User:LeonardLorch, User:Edytore, User:199.88.72.4, and User:199.88.67.33 appear to be sockpuppets, switching accounts to avoid being blocked for spamming while continuing to try to include promotional information both as links and as content. Additionally, some of them have been editing others' comments about this behaviour of theirs. Most of this has been happening in Dental_floss. 01:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A request for checkuser was declined with the comment "obvious". Should this be moved to WP:SSP or is it fine here? 03:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I know that Wikipedia is meant to be a rightwing alternative to Britannica [74] but lifting an entire article (word for word) from the Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs is a bit too much, isn't it? Especially with this edit summary: "Iranian involvement in Lebanon (please explain in talk what is the problem. I took specila care to write it as NPOV as I can but I am willing to listen to any issue.)" [75] --Part of the thesis 01:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Confirmed by CopyScape. Deleted. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 02:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loged on RfAr/Zeq#Log of blocks and bans; see also, my RfAr/Request for clarification. El_C 18:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, there's a rather large backlog over at CAT:CSD. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 03:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

50 pages seems pretty normal... I don't do images but there's just one page right? Seems less than usual. Am I missing something? --W.marsh 04:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For CSD, a large backlog is ~250+. See the category tracker. Dragons flight 03:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it was fairly large earlier. Of course, I wouldn't know exactly what a "large backlog" was. --Mr. Lefty _{Talk to me!} 04:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think Mr. Lefty was right to bring it up. A backlog of 50 can be a backlog of 100 in no time, given how much garbage shows up and how well our volunteers tag the worst of it and how too few admins are doing new pages patrol at any time to deal with the influx. We should always get warnings here when the backlog hits 50, IMO. Geogre 12:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then like 90-99% of the threads on this board would be backlog warnings :-) --W.marsh 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here User:Hagiographer changed my signature to that of another user User:Pura Paja. Can an admin please do something to discourage him? SqueakBox 03:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The recent edits of Jayjg (talk · contribs) need to be looked at. Today, he's really on a POV tear with regard to Israel-related articles. All these edits are dated today, August 18th.

• Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America - removed criticism of CAMERA by Nuclear Spin.[76]
• Honest Reporting - removed links to criticism and to related organizations.[77]
• International Academic Friends of Israel - removed links to related organizations [78]
• Chris McGreal - changed "several pro-Israel media watchdog organizations" to "several media watchdog organizations". (Jayjg puts substantial and ongoing effort into making McGreal look bad; see his edits.)[79]
• Engage (organization) - removed "See also" links to similar organizations [80]

The overall effect of these edits is to make various controversial pro-Israel organizations appear as neutral in Wikipedia. There really isn't much doubt that these organizations are pro-Israel; even the Israeli media admit it, and appropriate cites are in the articles, although it may be necessary to go back in the article history to find them after Jayjg's deletions.

Jayjg (and some others) have previously removed material that makes Israel looks bad when it wasn't properly cited. I accept that. But now he's escalated to removing material that is properly cited. That's a serious POV issue.

Jayjg has previously refused communication (see deletion of message from talk page [81]) and refused informal mediation.(Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-08-03_Mosaic:_World_News_from_the_Middle_East) Jayjg is also involved in the messy arbitration proceeding (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid), but that's in the voting phase and voting is tending towards an amnesty, so we can't add these actions to it. So I'd like to ask for a 24-hour block on Jayjg, permission to revert the above listed changes, and formal mediation. Thanks. --John Nagle 03:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be obvious to anyone who looks at these instances that they are nothing more than content disputes. I really can't see how John Nagle could think it is appropriate to block someone merely for disagreeing with him on a few articles. There is nothing that Jayjg did that is a clear violation of policy, or even an abstract violation of policy for that matter.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 04:50, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a straightforward content dispute. There are no policy violations and if John wants formal mediation, this isn't the place to request it. John, when I last checked out some of these pages, I recall you were engaged in an attempt to draw links between people and groups that struck me as original research. I don't know whether that continues, but looking briefly at some of Jay's edits, that may have been what he was resisting. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a content dispute, but it's here because Jayjg is an admin and involved in an ArbComm proceeding. As part of the current arbitration, we currently have the proposed remedy, with six ArbComm votes, Humus sapiens, ChrisO, Kim van der Linde, SlimVirgin, and Jayjg are reminded to use mediation and other dispute resolution procedures sooner when conflicts occur. (Ref: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Israeli apartheid/Proposed decision). I'd appreciate it if an admin who does not normally edit on Israel issues would look at this. Meanwhile, I'm trying to fix some of Jayjg's edits, dealing with his objections by using the "cited to death" style we now have to use in such articles and using cited direct quotes whenever possible. --John Nagle 17:45, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three editors have now commented, and agree that this is an inappropriate complaint, because it's a regular content dispute. If you want mediation, by all means request it. Bear in mind, too, that edits can violate OR or be otherwise inappropriate even when cited. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the edits; to my mind Jayjg's edits improved the quality and neutrality of the articles. There's nothing to see here, move along please... Just zis Guy you know? 17:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There's nothing here that calls even remotely for a block or anything resembling one. This is what article talk pages and article RFCs are for. Asking for a block for content disputes such as this demonstrates a misunderstanding of how consensus is achieved on Wikipedia. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 17:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• John Nagle, the specific arbitration page, as well as 3rd opinion, RfC, and Mediation are that-a-way. El_C 18:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked Displaced Brit (talk · contribs) for three hours for disruption after a series of events over the past few days have escalated to the point that I felt a blocking was warranted. Displaced Brit and User:CFIF got involved in an arguement over an AfD, and both users, I feel at least somewhat violated WP:Civil. I left polite messages on both users' talk pages, and CFIF apologized to D.B. D.B. wanted further apologies, but was asked to let the matter drop by more than one admin. After days of sniping at CFIF, tonight he nominated a list for deletion which clearly CFIF worked on extensively, and the reasons for the nomination appear flimsy at best. I have blocked this user for three hours for disruption, and left a message on his talk page. DB has left a note on his page stating I'm in league with CFIF and that I've abused my powers. I invite review, as I feel it's clear I've been neutral throughout this matter; I left numerous notes for CFIF warning him to back off and assume good faith, and left various friendly warning notes for D.B. (see associated talk pages user talk:Displaced Brit, user talk:CFIF for details).--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I feel that User:CFIF has a history of abusive behaviour, branding those who he disagrees with as sockpuppets, stalkers, uncivil, etc. He then gets various administrators involved in his attack campaign, all whilst playing the victim. It seems almost if this user has a great parinoia, which is leading to his/her track record of jumping to conclusions and accusing people in deletion votes of bad behaviour in order to attempt to skew the vote in favour of his position. This user represents some of the worst of Wikipedia, acting as if it was a clique and he/she is the arbiter of who can join. It also should be noted that this user desires to be an administrator, something which if it was to occur would most likely cause more harm than good. I also feel that User:Firsfron is not an impartial arbiter in this matter and his behaviour should also be looked into. Displaced Brit 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been exchanging email with this user (whom you may remember I originally blocked), & he has admitted that he behaved badly & asked to be unblocked. In his own words:

Exactly. Just to be more clear, I'll rewrite those points:

1) I agree that my way of "promoting" my POV on the redundant AD issue was not correct, and against WP rules

2) I agree that my behaviour regarding the sockpuppets issue was uncorrect, and against WP rules

3) I shall not behave again as in 1 and 2, and abide to WP rules, avoiding any disruption

The whole point of blocking a user is not to punish, but to attempt to get that user to stop the troublesome behavior. Panairjdde has convinced me that he will stop being disruptive, so I'm unblocking his account. Further -- & not least importantly -- he has been blocked from Wikipedia for far longer than his original misdeed -- being disruptive -- called for.

Note: He has indicated to me that his original username was marred by a typo when he created it, so he may use another account (Panarjedde) instead. I have also unblocked that account for that reason.

If you have any questions or concerns about my act, please contact me offline. Until this recent event, he has always seemed to me a constructive member of the project. I would like to give Panairjdde a chance at a clean start. -- llywrch 05:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not an admin here, and haven't looked in depth at this. However if what the user states above with his acknowledgement of misdeeds and promise to avoid such in the future is sincere, I say unblock and let him roam wiki and become a great asset. To repeat my disclaimer though, if there are other things that are the root of the problems, ignore my comment. Arkon 18:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator User:William M. Connolley blocked me last week for following WP:BLP. I was removing poorly sourced material from a biography of a living person and was blocked for it even though WP:BLP states such removals are exempt from 3RR. I did make some mistakes, but I thought it unfair for Connolley to just block me without word from him to discuss it first. He also did not notify me of the block until an hour after the block. --HResearcher 06:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HR, did you declare in advance that you were reverting under the BLP provision (did you wave your white BLP flag, in other words?), and was the material negative and arguably defamatory? A link would help. This is a new policy so there are bound to be some teething troubles. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I found it and see it's been deleted. I can read the article but I can't view diffs once it's deleted, so I can't tell what the particular edit was (and if it was perhaps defamatory, please don't repeat it here). I can see in general that it had to do with using Usenet as a source. That would depend whether it was negative material, whether it was written by the subject, and so on. Generally, we don't use Usenet as a source (see WP:V, but that wouldn't necessarily allow you to revert under BLP. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response SlimVirgin. The article was deleted then recreated, so the diff's are unavailable. I'm assuming this was done to prevent legal problems, as now there's no evidence remaining. Note that the new version that was "recreated" was drastically cleaned up and then protected. Generally, and others agree on this including a comment from Fred Bauder about one of the editors, the page was being composed and used as an attack page by a couple of users. One of the users was the one who reported my "violation" of 3RR. I did wave the white flag, but was ignored. Blocked without discussion from the admin, and then a notice I'd been blocked an hour later. Instead I got a note from the admin saying that BPL "isn't a get out of jail free card". If William Connolly would have said something to me first, at least I would have had a chance to understand what I was doing wrong because I thought I was helping Wikipedia by removing poorly sourced claims. I did make a few mistakes by removing things that were sourced and I restored those before I was blocked, but one of the users using the page as an attack page used my deletion/restoration against my instead of assuming good faith. --HResearcher 08:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A pedantic point I know, but the deletion does not mean there is no evidence remaining, it means the evidence is restricted to admins. Otherwise you are right: the patern for WP:BLP / WP:OFFICE deletions is that the article is deleted, a stub created, and then new content may or may not be added with thorough sourcing, depending on the nature of the complaint and indeed the complainant. WP:3RR is pretty much automatic, so it's understandable if someone missed the BLP flag. Did you add {{unblock}} to your Talk page? I'm guessing it would have been sorted quite quickly, and you clearly understand why this BLP a particular problem and people tend to err on the side of caution. Never ascribe to malice that which can be adequately explained by a simple cock-up. William is not the sort of guy to go around blocking at random. Just zis Guy you know? 16:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lately, User:Dionyseus has been removing information from The Inquirer that is necessary to make the article NPOV [82] and keeps removing it after his changes have been reverted. This kind of disruptive POV-pushing is unacceptable.

He has a long history of adding malicious defamation to the article (e.g. [83] among others) and of trying to paint The Inquirer in the most negative light possible. In the past, he once re-added unsourced information that was removed [84] and made defamatory false accusations of vandalism against the person who removed the unsourced information [85].

His agenda needs to stop. Furthermore, I am thinking about contacting Jimbo or Danny and requesting WP:OFFICE protection of The Inquirer. Note that the Inquirer's founder has complained in the past about the libel being committed by Dionyseus [86]. jgp ^T_C 06:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now, he's removing legitimate warnings from his talk page, and provided an abusive edit summary [87]. I also find it very hypocritical that in the past, he has responded to any criticism of him by citing WP:AGF (e.g. [88]), but when he gets a deserved NPOV warning on his talk page, he immediately accuses me of bad faith. jgp ^T_C 06:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence was completely unencyclopedic. When he "re-added" the sentence, he did not simply re-add it, he changed it to be encyclopedic, an attempt to make it seem as if I had removed an encyclopedic sentence. Compare the sentence I removed: [[89]], with his "re-add": [90]. His new version is completely fine, but there was no need to call it a "re-add", and there was no need to claim that I violated NPOV. Dionyseus 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

His warning on my userpage is completely unwarranted and I will continue to remove them. Dionyseus 07:03, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is not for you to decide whether or not the warnings are legitimate. You have now violated WP:3RR, and you have been reported. jgp ^T_C 07:13, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jgp's unwarranted warning on my talk page has been removed by administrator Alex_Bakharev. [91] Dionyseus 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, before removing the warnings, Alex restored the warnings twice and there was much discussion over the issue. But since that has been resolved, I'll withdraw this request for protection. jgp ^T_C 08:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest removing the 3RR report too, it seems to be perpetuating an issue that has now been resolved. Viridae^Talk 08:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, would anyone be willing to review this? I have twice removed this personal attack, and MONGO has twice now put it back in place, despite my repeatedly asking him to either proove this or simply leave me alone and stop saying it. Often when I post now on various sections in the Wikipedia namespace he appears, and begins saying things like this. To me this is a personal attack, as I am not Wikistalking any admin, and any effort of my asking him to demonstrate this is simply met by "stop doing it". If I knew what exactly I was doing I'd be happy to stop that entailed wikistalking a given admin (which I'm not). MONGO also left a message on my talk page, notifying me I will be blocked if I "alter" his comments.

Never alter my comments...you will be blocked from editing if this happens one more time.--MONGO 06:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I am reposting this here as there is no policy against reposting comments in this fashion. I feel the comments he has twice restored are a violation of WP:NPA, because he keeps doing it, but when asked to demonstrate what I'm doing that he considers wikistalking, he never will. Again, if another admin could review this--I really would rather be free to edit the encyclopedia without having MONGO staring over my shoulder, accusing me of shadow policy violations that apparently cannot be explained to me for some reason. Please review my contributions. If I'm apparently wikistalking someone, I cannot see it. I would also appreciate some clarification from other admins if it is against policy to remove messages or content of this nature. I am basing my removal on WP:NPA and Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks.

Tony Sidaway and other admins I have seen routinely make use of this, to remove comments that they themselves feel are of an attacking nature, and I feel I was within my bounds to do so. I am completely perplexed by this, as I've been collegially working with other admins, Tony included, on a policy proposal over the past week (and Tony is one of the ones he accused me of wikistalking on the talk page of the recent Kelly Martin RfC). I am starting to feel as if it is simply retribution as I voiced support opposite to his personal wishes previously in an AfD that he was eager to see closed off. Given the conflict of interest, I ask that MONGO not edit my comments here in any fashion so that other administrators may review them. rootology (T) 06:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What was the need to make criticisms of fellow admins on a third party's talk page? There are times and places to make constructive, or even moderately robust, criticisms of actions by other admins; there are other times and places where collegiality and discretion should prevail. From a quick look, I think that MONGO shows a pretty good sense of which is which. Sorry I can't help you. Metamagician3000 06:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at my User Talk contributions, I assume you mean this comment on Samuel Blanning's page? This was during the full absurd heat of the Kelly Martin RfC. I left a completely perplexed response on the conversation to Tony Sidaway there. I had been speaking with him extensively on the RfC, and both our tempers (Tony's and mine) had gotten it appeared a bit frayed. I did not "stalk" anyone there, as Sam's talk page was on my watchlist from a previous conversation I had with him. I was talking with Aaron Brenneman here, and I noted that Cyde had successfully agitated me during the course of working on a policy proposal at WP:RECALL by summarily dismissing my ideas during normal conversation. However, if you look through the comments and talk there (the exchange in question is now in one of the archives), on that proposal, I'd been civilly and collegially working with the very admin I'd been supposedly stalking, and many others. If this isn't what you're referring to I'm a bit lost, and I still don't see where or how I am wikistalking anyone which is my big concern and the basis of MONOG's attack on me. I should also point out that I'm taking MONGO's comments as an attack, as wikistalking is a bannable offense, and his unfounded allegations are to be honest troubling me. I think his allegations might be based on the fact that I tend to edit some articles related to politcal topics which he might be interested in, I don't know. rootology (T) 07:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGO's statement is a personal attack. And I don't see MONGO providing any evidence of your alleged "wikistalking" or "dramatica". And then MONGO's revert removed your statement which was entirely a valid request for diffs. --HResearcher 07:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a personal attack, simply an observation. Rootology is disruptive and has been following myself and a number of other admins around, just as I stated.--MONGO 08:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you care to finally demonstrate for for me where and how I'm following you and the admins around, including diffs, beyond my one comment on Sam's page that was already on my watchlist from a previous conversation? If not, I ask you officially to stop making these incorrect statements about me in different venues, and the same for the ED stuff. If you have no proof, please stop. rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I strongly resent the fact you keep calling me disruptive. I'm no more vocal and outspoken (actually much less so, in some cases, and more polite in virtually all cases) than yourself, Ryan, and Cyde, the other admins who have also made that statement. I know you three disagree with my views, but labeling people as disruptive for being unafraid to disagree with an admin politely and vocally is rather funny. rootology (T) 17:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The harrassment comment is making a strong statement, but overall, I see no personal attack in what MONGO has written. ANI is a place where we speak freely, and if you bring forward cases, you should expect them to be discussed in this spirit. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of the statements that MONGO made were personal attacks. The statement that rootology is an ED editor is, iirc, something that rootology has stated in the past. Anyway, it's a simple factual statement, not an attack. Either it's accurate, or it's inaccurate. If you consider it to be damaging to have that information released, that's another matter, but it isn't a personal attack. As for harrassing people - that isn't a statement about who r. is, that's a statement about her/his actions. As such, it isn't a personal attack. Guettarda 14:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I was anywhere on Wikipedia, I don't know where you're getting that. For the harassment and wikistalking, which is a blockable offense, I can then begin saying on various talk and wikipedia name space pages that MONGO or Guettarda is wikistalking me? Without any proof? I've asked MONGO to repeatedly demonstrate this with evidence or stop, but he has refused. Does that seem fair or right? Would I get a free pass as he has to make similar false comments? rootology (T) 16:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RPA is a bad idea, and NPA is a bad idea, too

• This is just more evidence of what a rotten idea these two proposals are. We now have to spend our time getting out the scales and putting this comment in one pan and our own personal "insult" weight in the other and try to agree (or, much worse, leave it to the individual receiving the comments) that something is or isn't a personal attack. We have to spend our time doing this instead of resolving the dispute or concentrating on the question behind the curtain: is this disruption or disagreement? What a ridiculous pursuit!
• Then we get to RPA -- a "semi-policy" drafted by someone who wanted counter-arguments to disappear and who wanted accusations to go away. Oh, we'll keep garbage in an article history eternally. We'll keep vandalism in the history forever. However, the delicate flowers among our administrative ranks should be able to hide and annihilate something that is personally ill fitting? To hell with that. More to the point, we grind to a halt again while we try to consider "was that an insult bad enough to remove? should it have been just removed or archived?" What a ridiculous idea! This is what trolls do: they get sites to talk about themselves instead of whatever their function had been. They make things grind to a halt. Well, that's what these two things do.
• If there is a question of disruption, let's bring it up. If there is a need for mediation, let's get it going. If there is a need for an RFC, then let's kick start it. Let's not navel gaze and try to fix the mercury of insults. Geogre 12:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think NPA is a good idea, we should all be civil to each other. Editing comments of other users is a really really bad idea in almost any case, tho, and so is RPA. Otherwise, I totally agree with everything you said. --Conti|✉ 14:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I don't want to appear to even hint that I'm even suggesting a hint that I support incivility. It's just that codifying in the way we sort-of have is distracting from actually patrolling and considering and acting on those cases where we have disruption. I have a tendency to use ink horn terms and be "eloquent." Now, I can say nasty things to someone in the most circuitous manner, and I can get them so angry that they're doing no good. No "PA?" That's the thing. We used to assess disruptiveness, not ego attacks. We should still. We also needn't have some "insult of X severity = sanction of Y duration." We're humans, and that means we're smarter than any codification because, in the end, we always have to do the interpreting. Let's talk together, act together, and work together. Anyway, just some exasperation on my part. Geogre 14:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that drowning ourselves in policy is a bad idea. Causing people to become upset is also a bad idea, as is administrators setting a bad example. So let's *ommm* concentrate on our humanity and be courteous and forgiving and assuming good faith. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have wildly different opinions of what is and is not a 'personal attack' or 'uncivil'... but I think it is clear to everyone that what we have here is not cordial disagreement with everyone respecting their fellow editors. That's not good for Wikipedia and ought to be a sign to take a step back until you can be polite again. --CBD 18:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MONGOs threat to block me

Was this an appropriate threat? As RPA is a disputed policy, I would like to ask fior approval from at least one admin to remove (not archive) what I feel is out of bounds/beyond policy warning on my page, without having to worry about a retributive block from MONGO. rootology (T) 16:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is that a personal attack? He is questioning the manner in which he percieves you operate, not attacking you personally. Now, you may dispute the factual basis of the assertion and demand evidence, that's one thing, but not use RPA to de facto censor the comment. El_C 18:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no policy barring the removal of comments from one's user talk page. In some instances this may be considered 'hostile' if the comment is removed without response where one would be expected, or 'deceptive' if possibly removing warnings to hide evidence of past misbehaviour in an effort to continue getting away with it. However, those are generally minor issues of civility and there is certainly nothing which would justify a block for removal of comments. Editing of comments to change the apparent statements of another user is another matter entirely and generally prohibited except in the case of 'removing personal attacks'... though as you note even then it is a disputed practice. Looking at this particular situation I don't see any way that removal of MONGO's threat could be problematic... it clearly does not expect a response and removing it doesn't hide any 'past misdeed' on your part. Threats aren't exactly WP:CIVIL and I can't imagine anyone would seriously argue that you should be required to host them on your talk page. --CBD 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer the question, have you read the comment? (Yes.) Then it's your talk page. This type of warning isn't really in the "warning sock puppet" or other warning designed for other people to read. It was a message directed to you and not a tag, so, if you've read it, you should be free to delete it. No RPA involved. Geogre 18:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, well, I'm refering to RPA enacted on ANI, not on a talk page. El_C 18:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was/is that he was asking about his talk page. --CBD 18:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still unclear to me. Where was the pertinent diff cited (above)? El_C 19:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was asking about this, I guess, in "appropriate threat?." That's on his user talk page and is a message, not the kind of warning given that shouldn't be removed. He can delete it, if he wants, so long as he has read and understands it. Geogre 20:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For prerefrencing, read the following:

• Wikipedia:Requests_for_investigation/Archives/2006/06 See the section on UniverseToday
• ANI#Bad_Astronomy.2C_I_suppose ANI on him
• Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily for spam links
• See the page history of Universe Today, a page on a real website he keeps trying to change to include links to his website(s).

Major accounts:

• Universe Daily (talk · contribs)
• Bad Astronomer (talk · contribs)

This is a prolific spammer I've been tracking. All his spam link redirected to http://projectorion.proboards28.com/index.cgi or something that looked identical to it. Often the page would proclaim the link you just went to, but it was the same internet forum in any case. The pictures changed too I think. Pretty cruddy. The category link has a list of many of his spam websites.

BUT

He has a new bloody tactic. The links are now framing to actual websites. Of course, since he controls all the redirect sites, he can just change them to whatever once they've made their home on wikipedia articles

The latest accounts by him are as follows, and need to be blocked. This would be easier if he wasn't resorting to the subterfuge:

• Spacegoat (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Bloodredrover (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Dinohunter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Can there be defined community ban on this loser? People are going to start getting suspicous and complaining that I'm removing "valid" links. I'm sure other administrator's have met with his spam and have blocked his sockpuppets. To those, go check your own contribution histories, and you'll see the same spam links that you removed are now happily pointing to some innoculus website. I'm willing to stake plenty on seeing this guy go down. I'll answer any questions I can on this guy. Kevin_b_er 07:32, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation Kevin. I was wondering myself because I couldn't see the connection with Dinohunter at first. Nice catch I have to say. Start up a subpage page for him at Wikipedia:Long term abuse and create a Template similar to Template:GT pointing to that page and tag his accounts with it. In the meantime, file a request on all his known user accounts at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser for now so future admins can block on sight. I have a feeling this guy is going to be around awhile. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  07:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, a better solution is to list all his domains on meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist. If he's going to keep on spamming Wikipedia then it's going to cost real money for domain registrations. Don't forget to use Special:Linksearch to weed out all of his sockpuppets and articles he's attacking. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:01, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm at an impasse on that. See, if he's resorting to putting up framed webpages that appear to be 'good' sites, but are actually waiting to be changed to spam, its going to get really hard to track him if he starts making more websites that are superfake because his webpages are all blacklisted. Right now I'm having an easy time tracking his movements. Checkuser could be of some help, and while I'm not going to state my beliefs, I have a pretty good idea as a result of maintainence/clerking that I do on RFCU that most of his spam is outside the range of checkuser. Kevin_b_er 08:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'll start writing up a Long Term abuse profile on the guy tomorrow. By the way, don't use Category:Wikipedia:Sock puppets of Universe Daily anymore, move everything into Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily and tag his puppets using {{subst:sockpuppet|Universe Daily}} on their user pages. --  Netsnipe  ^(Talk)  08:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I would support a community block for an extended period, though not indefinite, because of the severity of what he's doing. In my pantheon of abuses, squabbling is low, but making us advertise is very, very high. Geogre 12:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Signed up today, has made one edit (to this page) [92] which had a suprisingly jargoned edit summary. Possible sock (of who - I don't know, maybe someone involved in that discussion) or just Encyclopedia Dramatica or Wikipedia Review editor? Might bear looking at. Viridae^Talk 12:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Danielpi insists on reinserting an off-topic request in The Inquirer talk page. [[93]] I asked him politely in his talk page to not reinsert it because of The Inquirer's personal attacks against me and Wikipedia, but he ignored me and reinserted it anyways. [94] Dionyseus 13:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Dionyseus is currently involved in an ArbCom case with me. Many of my assertions about his conduct are confirmed by his subsequent wiki behavior, and I am simply inviting users to share their opinions at the ArbCom workshop. Since he has a long history with The Inquirer, it seems relevant to the case in question. I am expected, as a participant in that ArbCom, to produce evidence. I assume testimonials count, and I am therefore inclined to say that posting solicitations for comment in Dionyseus's stomping grounds is relevant to those discussion pages. Danny Pi 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arbitration committee pretty much disagreed with everything Danielpi claimed about me, and it appears that he's going to be banned for his personal attacks against me. [95] [96] Anyways, I don't see how the arbitration case is related to The Inquirer talk page, and I definitely do not appreciate his discourteous solicitations. Dionyseus 20:37, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Today, I removed Image:RoyGrec.png from {{House of Oldenburg (Glucksburg-Greece)}} [97], leaving as I usually do (I've done about 2000 of these) a detailed edit summary of why it was removed along with links to policy and further explanation. A bit later, User:Jtdirl (also an admin) reverted my removal without commentary [98]. I reverted this reversion, stating again the basis and noting that I was taking the discussion to User:Jtdirl's talk page [99], which I did [100]. User:Jtdirl reverted the change again, this time indicating I should discuss this with people working on royalty templates, and that I did not know the law [101]. I reverted again, this time without commentary from me [102] hoping that User:Jtdirl will review the message I left on his talk page and discuss the change there.

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria item #9 is clear and unequivocal; images tagged with a fair use tag may not be used outside of the main article namespace. Image:RoyGrec.png is tagged with {{coatofarms}}. Strictly speaking if the image is considered as a coat of arms, the image does not qualify under fair use, per that template "A coat of arms can be depicted in multiple ways, and may only be used on Wikipedia if the design is available under a free licence. " Thus, the image essentially has no license and isn't usable here until a license is determined. If it is considered an emblem, then it's use qualifies as fair use.

Since I've already reverted User:Jtdirl twice in less than ten minutes, I'm bringing this here for others to be aware of, and if in agreement to remind User:Jtdirl of our policy on the use of fair use images. --Durin 15:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Left message on User:Jtdirl talk page encouraging discussion instead of reverting. --FloNight ^talk 16:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• And this edit is hardly helpful. :( --Durin 16:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Galassi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently "rewrote" the article on Carl Michael Bellman with large text chunks taken from http://www.kirjasto.sci.fi/bellman.htm, a Finnish literature website, and Grove Music Online, a subscription site difficult to identify through Google. Looking at his contributions, it turns out that at least this addition to the Sylvius Leopold Weiss article is also from Grove. With this attitude to copyrighted content, I suspect many or all his contributions are taken from Grove or other non-free sources. I have not systematically gone through and reverted all his contributions, as an admin can do this much more easily. A temporary block would probably be justified. Tupsharru 16:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CFlF (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has signed up in an attempt to impersonate me. --CFIF ☎ 16:44, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• [103] doesn't indicate this user has been created. Did you mean another account? --Durin 16:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, see the above...the account is CFlF, I fixed it. (CF lowercase L F) --CFIF ☎ 16:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked it. Mushroom (Talk) 16:51, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. --CFIF ☎ 16:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. On July 19, WP:CFD deleted Category:Articles with unsourced statements (log} which was used on {{fact}}.
2. On July 31, CFD deleted Category:Articles lacking sources (log) which was used {{unreferenced}} and had been added to {{fact}} following the above deletion.
3. Subsequently, Category:Articles needing sources was created and added to {{fact}}, et al. This was nominated for deletion on August 11: (log)

• On August 14, deletion review was begun on Category:Articles lacking sources. This morning that was closed with a unanimous verdict to overturn (log)

Based on that conclusion (closed by Xoloz), and the close relationship between these different rulings, I have taken some unusual actions, which I want to make others aware of for review and comment.

1. I closed the ongoing CFD on Category:Articles needing sources, and as it was now entirely redundant to the restored category, I deleted it after moving the references back to the restored category.
2. I restored Category:Articles with unsourced statements. Though this category is not specifically discussed in the DRV, the arguments and context are extremely similar. I believe the existence of this deletion largely escaped notice because most uses of it were converted to Articles lacking sources at the time of its deletion.

If people object to the second undeletion, we can run that through DRV also, but I am confident the result would be the same.

More generally, I think we have a problem if CFD can, through the course of active discussion involving dozens of participants, repeatedly reach a conclusion that can be unanimously overturned by dozens of other participants at DRV. At least one of these groups must be out of touch with the views of the larger community, and that in itself is a substantial problem, in my opinion. Dragons flight 18:11, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'll raise my hand to speak for some of the DRV group: our objection, repeated in many voices, was that the deletion left a large tear in scores of articles and that any xfD lacked a solution to the damage caused by the deletion. Inasmuch as this was an admonitory category and not a content category, we (most of us) felt that there could be no deletion without, simultaneously, a solution that would substitute for its old function. There were other factors, as well, mainly related to the fact that the compulsion to delete was based on a false premise, but I'll let server folks talk about that. Geogre 18:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have an idea ... this seems like a change to big to be undertaken by *FD alone. How about starting a discussion in project-space to go for two weeks and link it from {{cent}}? --Cyde Weys 18:46, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. As the admin who closed the first CFD above, you'll note that I disagreed with the consensus but considering that all of these categories spawn from changes in {fact} it seemed reasonable to assume that if we were going to put into place some metacategorization (by month? with a toc?) then the category itself was likely to be nuked in the process anyhow (and others added to {fact}, requiring little human intervention). I don't think CFD itself is the problem, but that it is somewhat the redheaded stepchild of *FD so discussions there aren't given enough eyes. Barring that, I'd be up for making a guideline to closing admins on CFD to bring maintenance category deletion notices to ANI or VP or something. Syrthiss 21:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't like the sound of that. There is already an inherent bias towards keeping things that are most useful to editors rather than the vastly greater number of readers, and this sounds like it would make it worse. It is people who visit Wikipedia:Categories for discussion who are most engaged with the management of the category system, which is an issue in its own right, and I don't think our rights should be taken away. We have a page called "Categories for discussion", so the question is are we going to be allowed to make decisions on categories at that page or not? If not, why not? There are an increasing number of comments on the page which simply scorn the process rather than engaging with the merits of the category, and it is becoming demoralising.

I am seriously concerned that the whole system is biased towards retention of marginal categories because it usually only takes the creator and a few other people to prevent deletion, and the people who (over)value a category are the ones who are most likely to notice that it is up for discussion. A bad example of this was the retention of the "entertainers by age of death categories"; there was an overwhelming consensus to delete after 7 days, but the debate wasn't closed promptly and after 9 days a bunch of meat puppets showed up and voted "keep" in the space of a few hours. It increasingly seems to me that over time the category system is likely to get steadily worse, because even if only 10% of bad categories are kept, that means that more and more bad categories will accumulate over time and eventually the category clutter on high profile articles will become so bad that they might as well not have categories at all. The way to tackle this is to keep as much control of the category system as possible in the hands of people who care about the category system as a whole and vote on that basis, rather than as partisans for or against specific categories, and that means the people who take the trouble to visit "Categories for discussion" regularly. Thus I deprecate anything that downgrades the decision making status of "Categories for discussion. Chicheley 23:07, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why an editor this well-regarded would be doing something like this, but the evidence is just undeniable. Michael seems to have a feud going with User:Billy Blythe. Billy created an article on Mariju Bofill. Michael removed much of the article's text, claiming it was "unverifiable. [104] However, the information was verifiable simply by googling "Mariju Bofill" [105]; in fact, Google provides stronger evidence for notability than the article asserted. Michael then took the gutted article to AfD, claiming he had removed only "unverifiable" information. I don't know, I don't really care, if Mariju Bofill's article should be deleted. I do care that Michael is not presenting the facts of this accurately. I won't go quite as far as the AfD comment that called this "bad faith," but something here really stinks. VivianDarkbloom 19:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. Certainly nothing you have described here merits the label 'vandalism'. Try using less loaded words. --Doc 19:41, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've verified and restored some of the content. But it is still a deletion candidate. --Doc 19:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I think you're wrong. This isn't the first time I've seen this on AfD, and it's dubious behavior at best. Especially given Michael's rather odd personal borderline attack on Billy as a stalker. (It looks more like the reverse.) VivianDarkbloom 20:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It might have been appropriate to have said "not verified" (which is a fact) rather than "unverifiable" (which is a surmise). However, it is up to an editor who wishes to retain material in an article to provide verification for it. Otherwise it can be removed. I realise this is only a part of the above discussion, but you might as well get this part cleared up. Then you can deal with the rest. Tyrenius 22:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appoloboy is once again removing comments from talk pages that do not agree with his opinions. Perhaps it would serve wikipedia well to ban him for about six years, giving him time to grow up randazzo56 19:31, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Randazzo, perhaps your opinions and edits should be looked into more so than ApolloBoy's. How is this [106] WP:CIVIL? Or this [107]? Or this [108]? Metros232 19:39, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been blocked for responding to someone warning me on my talk page about supposed trolling and threatening me with a block after he had inappropriately attempted to invalidate an AfR support which was valid according to policy, even though the account that made the vote is supposedly a troll. The only edit I made after that was to note that the user warning me had recently been inappropriately attempting to invalidate a legitimate support vote in an RfA, and so his warnings didn't mean much to me. However, within minutes I was blocked by Tyrenius because the warning I made was supposedly a personal attack, though it included no inflammatory language and did not in any way insult the user who had added a warning to my talk page.

I'd appreciate it if someone could help with the problems I'm having being blocked for so-called personal attacks that are completely benign and come no where near to being attacks. Love, Coyote (t) 20:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't vandalism in progress, because regrettably the front page has had to be protected. If you check the history, about 8 different IDs vandalised the same way (some using the saravulva.jpg clitoris picture) with the same edit summaries, all in about 5 minutes. Anchoress 20:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philwelch is a sysop, he redirected pages to a Cylon charcter list.

The charcters each had there own pages.

• 1st annother user reverted him. A discussion then began.
• Then i reverted him. He then blocked me and cited he was being bold [in his redirects?].
• Now annother user reveretd him and he blocked that user. He just pulled that block however.

He has violated 3RR five times, He has also violated two rules on WP:BLOCK (blocking to gain presedence in content dispute) and "Generally, caution should be exercised before blocking users who may be acting in good faith.". The fact that three users oppose his changes should mean that the prior version should be restored, right?

Pages: Leoben Conoy, Aaron Doral, Number Three, Brother Cavil, Cylon (Battlestar Galactica) MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 20:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't really a good venue for deciding content issues. Try discussing the merits of the merges on the appropriate talk pages. This block may be a bit questionable given Philwelch's personal involvement, but you've already been unblocked. What are you hoping to accomplish? If you don't like being blocked for excessive reverts, try not reverting. I see a couple other blocks for edit warring- surely you know by now that there are more effective ways to edit. Friday (talk) 21:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not botherd about my block personally its the fact he is blocking others for isagreeing with him, violating 3rr and wp:block. All pages he reverted are good and being bold doesnt justify a redirect :\. MatthewFenton (talk • contribs) 21:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've advised Phil to back off. There's simply no reason to edit war over such an insignificant topic. Kelly Martin (talk) 21:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I encourage everyone to participate in the ongoing content discussion at Talk:Battlestar Galactica (2004 TV series)#Merging minor Cylon characters into Cylon article. So far no one else has really made an attempt to address the concerns I'm bringing up. — Philwelch t 21:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Great idea Phil! Let's talk about it. Too bad you've BLOCKED EVERYONE who seems to have a problem with this issue today. So how are they supposed to retort?

BTW, to whoever gives a damn about this, I'm speaking on behalf of my friend User:Cyberia23 who was unjustifiably blocked from editing today by Philwelch who is clearly abusing his power as an admin. I'm not the only one who sees what he is doing and knows that it's wrong.

The problem started when Phil redirected all minor character articles from Battlestar Gallactica, (those in particular Leoben Conoy, Aaron Doral, Simon to name a few) to the default Cylon page without any real discussion on the matter (of course he's offering that now after the fact, how kind of him).

The so-called discussion ammounts to this: One person DrBat suggested here to merge the minor character articles to the Cylon and Phil barges in and makes the changes like he owns the place. Anyone who tried to tell him otherwise he blocks! He claims on his Cyberia's talk page under "Cylon Redirects", and per Being Bold, that no discussion is warranted which is complete BS. He has since told Cyberia he will be unblocked if he assuers he won't make changes - again complete abuse of admin power and being unfair to Cyberia who can't even plead his case since he is blocked from editing and participating. Cyberia said a few hours ago he won't make changes, but when will Phil show mercy and unblock him? Ina few minutes, a few hours, days, or whenever Phil feels like flexing his godly power and grant pity. Cyberia will not kiss his ass and no one else should either. Phil needs to have his admin powers revoked, and maybe sit in the time out chair for a while so he knows what it's like to be ignored and unable to defend yourself.

Someone please unblock Cyberia23 and get power-tripping admins like Phil out of here.

There are also other users he's blocked today. Please allow them to return. SkeezerPumba 23:38, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This Admin will not leave me alone. She blanked my userpage under false pretenses. Now she is leaving threats on my talkpage.

"Regarding edits such as this: This is your only warning. Make any more attacks or harrassing comments against other users and you will be blocked. --InShaneee 23:20, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" Diff: [[109]][reply]

Obviously there are no personal attacks or harassment. Someone needs to have a word with her on how to behave and remain civil. We don't need self-appoined censors on Wikipedia.

Sarastro777 21:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by bringing the matter here. I also don't appreciate your characterization of my comments; racial remarks of any sort, including "jew lover" (to use your example), is unacceptable. Mackensen (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What I hope to accomplish is that someone will tell Inshanee she cannot go around banning people for valid conversations. Uhhh.. you are contradicting yourself as I had filed a complaint about someone calling others "jew hater." You concluded it was "calling a spade a spade." You exactly confirmed the point I made on an unrelated talkpage that "jew lover" is equally unacceptable, but would be more readily enforced as so. I didn't call anybody a "jew lover." We also most certainly ARE allowed to discuss, edit, document "racial" language in the proper context. See nigger,Cracker_(pejorative),etc. Sarastro777 22:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are aware that to call a spade a spade is idiomatically defined as "To speak directly, precisely, and forthrightly" American Heritage Dictionary definition of "call" at Bartleby.com. Additonally, aside from whatever connotations you yourself place on the word, a spade is a shovel. Syrthiss 22:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would like User:Halibutt to be warned for personally attacking me(WP:NPA), multiple times, not only on my user talkpage, but also in numerous discussion threads.

one example comes from my talk page:Then perhaps you could tell me why do you believe black people should be exterminated? //Halibutt 12:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have never made any statements about black people and this was totally nonsensical and out of the blue, check my contribution history to see proof of that. This all started when he started a revert war over the proper name for Polish September Campaign

--Jadger 23:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was merely an example of the tactics Jadger's been using against my good name for the last week or so (claiming I said something I did not and then accusing me of it on several pages). And from Jadger's comment on my talk page it seems pretty obvious that he understood it as such, that is an example of the said tactics and not as a personal attack. It seems that this report here has been motivated solely by his recent actions being noticed and by the recent warning he received from one of the uninvolved admins, as well as from one of involved admins.

However, if Jadger indeed mistook my comment for an offence, which I seriously doubt, then I'm sorry, as it was not meant to be one. //Halibutt 23:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I'm concerned greatly about an annoymous user (last IP was 88.105.73.18) who seems to be on a crusade on the Entropia Universe arcitle. They have a very swift tendancy to edit *any* negativity in the arcitle out, often under the guise of 'Removing Vandalism'.

They have even targetted the talk page too (Clean Up, Removal of unnecessary negative ranting and Vandalism, Removal of Spam Advertising, Restoration of Balance and removal of troll comments.)

They never use an account, and from the user contributions on the user page the Entropia Universe article is the only place they seem to edit.

I don't want to turn this into an all out edit war - but this person is really trying my wick and I don't know where to turn. They have as of yet left no comments on the talk page of said article.

erm... help!

AvanniaRayzor 23:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

At a quick glance, I get the feeling that all his edits are hoaxes, but I don't have the time or energy to research British or Bulgarian TV shows right now. Help? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:29, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked User:TodorBozhinov to take a look. Jkelly 23:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He's been creating pages getting speedied for one reason or another left and right. I've blocked him for three hours to try to staunch the flow of nonsense; I'd appreciate if someone else took a look, made sure I wasn't on crack, and (probably) indef'd him. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most definately B.S. He's putting the name Josh Carter all over the place as an actor, game designer and even a football player. The account hasn't done anything else, indef seems warranted. Shell ^babelfish 23:42, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Claiming an affair with Jim Davidson, being creators of tv programmes all whilst being 16/17 years old.... --pgk^(talk) 23:53, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also see User:Josh Carter who I guess is now autoblocked as a result... --pgk^(talk) 23:58, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]