On April 1st 00.22 Tokyo time I send a mail to info-en-c@wikipedia.org regarding registered trademark infringement by a Wikipedia author.

The ticket number is [Ticket#2007033110014917].

I was first replied to by Mr. Benn Newman who suggested that I follow the procedures proposed on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution. I read the page and considered that most of its contents was not relevant and replied with a request for more information since our case seemed to not be addressed there.

I received then a reply by Mr. Guy Chapman who told me he had considered my request and 1) removed the conflicting article and 2) banned the user "laseray".

Following that, the user laseray used an unregistered IP resolving to vandalize the OmegaT page and to remove references to OmegaT in other related pages.

see 216.252.81.89 on: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Computer-assisted_translation&action=history http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=OmegaT&action=history

We know that it is highly probable that it is him since the IP resolves to a domain he advertises as using on other sites: http://www.proz.com/post/543150 (Proz is a site for professional translators). His profile page is at: http://www.proz.com/profile/649046

where he indicates he uses the colba.net server, the same name than the one to which the IP 216.252.81.89 resolves.

For a little background information, OmegaT is one of the few existing free (GPL) software to help translators. It is developped by a team of volunteers of which the Wikipedia user "laseray" (Raymond Martin) was a member from the automn of 2004 to the spring of 2005 when he left after upsetting pretty much everybody in the team. He went on to create his fork and since then never ceased to arrass us. We were forced to register the "OmegaT" trademark and started to request that our right to that name be enforced in various places on the web of which Wikipedia is one.

Currently, all the IP that resolve to colva.net that do edits on computer aided translation related pages (translation memory etc) are used by people to falsify information concerning OmegaT, althought it is highly probable that all the edits are made by one and the same person: Mr. Raymond Martin. It is starting to take a significant amount of time to maintain the pages, where, out of honesty, we even added information related to Mr. Martin's fork.

We are currently at loss and would like to know what is possible to do. We do not want to have the page locked because there are a number of contributors to that page who would be harmed by that process but we would like to know how to deal with such savage vandalism.

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

These two users have bombarded me with more posts than humanly possible to answer, they continue to harrass me, give me not even the time to reply resulting in edit conflicts, talk about me behind my back on as many other pages as they can, please someone please help I cannot explain my actions to every post, watch I bet you anything that one of them will delete this post, someone please help me. -PatPeter 18:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume this is somehow related to this.--Isotope23 18:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have checked your userpage and the above AN/I report and can see no evidence of harrassment whatsoever, beyond Coelecan, Alison, and WJBscribe telling you that your actions rearding wikiprojects in userspace and random campaigns against categories are inappropriate. Being repeatedly edit conflicted is not a policy violation. Could you support your allegations with diffs please? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Dev920 (I was just reviewing the reporter's usertalkpage as well) and I don't see anything from User:Alison and just a few posts from User:Coelacan in regards to the fact that User:PatPeter edited another editors's userpage userboxes.--Isotope23 18:17, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• How can I reply to all the posts that they have made about me? It is like they are recruiting an army against me. I will try to find every point where they have bombarded me. -PatPeter 18:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps you should think about why they are bombarding you instead of merely shouting out "conspiracy!" Of course, I'm just being figurative, but disputes are a two-way street. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence

• User talk:PatPeter#Subpages - They sneak in remarks under other replys, I have no clue which are new, which are old, etc.
• User talk:The Boy that time forgot#Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short - Why would I check this? You can see how coelacan is directing yet another user to hate me.
• User talk:Coelacan#Subpages - now they are calling me sinister
• Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:PatPeter and Category:User templates and subcat tree - I just found out today that this has been going on.

And as much as I would like to take the time to find the diffs and more pages, I have other things to do. -PatPeter 19:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatPeter, regarding your concerns: 1) replying in a non-linear fashion is a common way to do things here. I am not trying to "sneak" anything anywhere, but rather to put comments where it is obvious what I am replying to. 2) I left a note to The Boy that time forgot to tell him that your requests were not policy and not something he needed to act on, because you made it appear that they were. 3) That user asked me if I thought there was something sinister in your actions, I replied that I thought not, that your actions were rather well intended but heavy handed; you act in good faith, but with biting. 4) Blast San began the above thread on this page because of a legitimate concern about your actions and more biting. No one is out to get you, but this page needs to be a place where people can bring issues that they feel might need administrator intervention. They don't always need administrator intervention, but it's better that there is a place to raise concerns, just in case.

Now, my discussion with Alison amounts to us agreeing that you have good intentions and poor execution. If you are upset about this discussion, I'm sorry to hear that, but it is necessary sometimes for editors to discuss other people's actions. You respond, yet again, by saying that we are trying to discredit you, in a way that suggests you are very stressed. We are not, and I personally am troubled by your reaction. Perhaps you could benefit from a wikibreak. I am trying to do some damage control around some of the pages you've used lately, but I want Wikipedia to be a place you can enjoy spending your time.

Finally, I have to wonder, how do I tell you that I think your Wikipedia:Wikiproject Source to Short and Wikipedia:Wikiproject Category Cleanup need to go to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion, without you taking this personally? I don't think you're a bad person, but I do think these particular ideas are ill-conceived, and full of instruction creep. — coelacan — 19:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've invesigated this thoroughly now, and the conclusion I've come to is you are a misguided editor who means well but doesn't really get what we're like at Wikipedia (I won't comment on the separate issue I found of your campaign against gay categories, which I suspect is why so many members of WP:LGBT are involved in this). Your main objection seems to be that people are replying to your comments with indents, a typical practice here to enable people to follow discussions, whereas you want them to use section headings and line dividers. The message Coelcan originally left on TBTTF's page didn't mention you at all by name, and was correcting misinformation you had sent him. TBTTF called your actions sinister - by contrast, you have accused him and Coel of bombaridng you and conspriing aainst you, as well as telling Coelacan and Alison to "shut up". Finally, while it may have been polite to inform you you were mentioned on AN/I, they were certainly not obliged to do so.

Basically, you have been pushing your own interpretation of the rules, editing other people's userpages (a BIG no-no here) and quoting a redirect (WP:StS) which leads to your own userspace. When Coelacan, as well as several other editors by now, not unsurprisingly informed you that this wasn't allowed on Wkipedia, you got defensive and started arguing incivilly and shouting "conspiracy" anywhere you could. Dude, you made a simple mistake but blew it out of all proportion. Accept that and go edit. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dev, the WP:StS page is now in Wikipedia namespace, without the misleading title override. That's better. It just means now that the community needs to evaluate whether we want it in Wikipedia namespace. — coelacan — 19:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean whether such a project should exist at all (I have no opinion on the matter). —²¹⁰physicq (c) 19:50, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I essentially agree with Dev920's assessment. From PatPeter's talkpage and some of the "rules" and requests for things not to move forward without him, I'd say he doesn't fully get how things work here at Wikipedia. That seems to be the root of the problem more than anything Alison or Coelacan have done here.--Isotope23 19:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Physicq, that's what I meant. — coelacan — 20:03, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It takes two to tango

• Your complaint is not clear.

1. What did you do?
2. What did they do?
3. When did this incident begin?
4. Have you warned them?
5. Have they warned you?
6. What in your opinion needs to take place to correct the incident?

Your explaining an unclear one-sided version. I've looked at this and its not clear what if anything happened. --Masterpedia 19:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suicide

PatPeter has put up notices on his userpage and talk that he intends to commit suicide shortly. Do we have a specific policy to deal with userpages of known deceased Wikipedians? Would it be appropriate to delete or blank the page, or maybe create a tasteful template for these eventualities? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not a clue as to what to do here with the userpage. Any ideas, anyone? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My idea involves someone with checkuser access contacting Oregon State University and trying to help them figure out which one of their students is planning suicide, before it happens. Thoughts? — coelacan — 20:25, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do they need checkuser access? Call the uni and tell them to look for a Patrick Peter who's a talented musician. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, he appears to still be in high school. So call the high school and ask for a boy, possibly called Patrick, who is studying Latin and Western Civilisation. Can't be that many of them. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His userpage says he's against suicide prevention (or was it intervention?), so I think that would be a gross invasion of privacy, unfortunately. My personal opinion (harsh though it may be, sorry if I offend anybody) is that threatening suicide on an anonymous internet messageboard is the worst form of emotional blackmail. People who really want help should seek it somewhere accessible. Anchoress 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ideals are very nice, up till a point. Hoax or no hoax, it is better to be safe than sorry. Somebody'd better make a call. Valentinian ^{T / C} 20:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has threatened suicide and you're planning what template to affix to their page when they're dead?! Are you serious?

What did we do last time? Handed it over to the office I think? --kingboyk 20:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC) (e/c)[reply]

The template isn't for suicides, it's for all dead Wikipedians. This guy's threat raises an issue I don't believe we have addressed yet - what to do with the userpage of a deceased Wikipedian? My proposal wasn't lighthearted, but I'll go propose it at the bottom of the page instead of here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why checkuser? If you know the educational establishment, why can't anyone do this? Having said that, judging by the userpage, shouldn't the place to contact be Marist High School (Illinois)? Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 20:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think the guy should be left alone on that count. His userboxes suggest he has issues with depression and, as someone who's acquainted with both matters, I suggest we be as sympathetic and kind as possible. As I said on WP:AN yesterday, even jokey suicide messages often have an underlying something to them - Alison^☺ 20:36, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh no. Not Freud... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • This shouldn't be taken lightly, but this guy hates suicide intervention and talking to him would just make things worse. Tread lightly. {PTO} {speak} 20:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seriously. It's not funny. Been there, tried that - Alison^☺ 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Look, I might be harsh, but we're not here to be intimidated. I'm not saying take a laissez-faire approach, but threatening suicide to get one's way (whether true or not) is the most despicable form of blackmail and the most abhorrent form of morality. Wikipedia is not therapy. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 20:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yep, agreed with that. We simply can't be intimidated in this matter. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's saying we need to let PatPeter create his strange rules? Aren't we discussing whether to contact his school to get him help? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being intimidated by the guy. I'm just concerned right now that he's okay. I notice that he's been putting up and taking down his suicide message over the last few days or so. He's obviously not in a good place right now - Alison^☺ 22:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're here to create an encyclopedia anyone can read or edit. If there is someone involved in this discussion who believes that getting involved in this editor's personal RL drama (or suffering if drama is too pejorative) will further that goal, then that person should do so. Anchoress 21:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about being a Wikipedian. It's about being decent human beings. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 21:39, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be a decent human being by going and doing whatever your conscience dictates. But that doesn't require discussion on the AN. Anyone can send this user an email, leave a message on her/his talkpage, or track down some RL help. Anchoress 22:02, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am respectfully requesting that anyone with the needed authority takes immediate action to share relevant information with appropriate authorities to protect this user. If you have this authority and do not feel that this action is correct please review this immediately with anyone available with higher authority. Thank you. 71.82.88.117 04:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC) I did not take the time to sign in before. Edivorce 04:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Change the user page to "I told you I was hardcore." Vodak 13:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from User:Alison

Hi all. I just found out about this now, sorry for the delay.

Ok, the first time I encountered PatPeter was on Coel's talk page where he made this comment[1] re. title overrides. I replied with a gentle reminder of AGF[2]. In return, I got this message[3] from PatPeter. I replied here[4].

I then found out that PatPeter was using WP shortcuts in an unorthodox manner (and with the whole override thing) and this concerned me [5]. I brought the matter up on WP:AN here without mentioning the editor's name. I wanted advice, not more eyes at that point. There, I found out that the editor was already mentioned on ANI here and here. I found out that PatPeter had put Category:Cub Wikipedians on CfD here. As you can see, I commented there but recommended that the CfD stay open until PatPeter returned. As it was ruled that PatPeter orphaned the category himself and previously tried to have it speedied, the CfD was closed anyway. PatPeter posted another CfD the next day [6] which I decided to keep out of in the interests of civility other than asking one question. His response let me know! This eventually got closed for being inappropriate to CfD (should be WP:UCFD).

I'd like to point out that I *am* a member of WP:LGBT, as it happens, but hadn't made the connection until now. User PatPeter has an "Anti-Gay" userbox on his page which I find offensive. It was speedied for WP:CSD#T1 by another admin and immediately re-created by PatPeter, with a snippy comment on the userbox page. I have left it alone other than commenting on someone's talk page that I approved of their T1 deletion decision.

Since then, I've been largely trying to keep out of the guy's way. I did comment on PatPeter's WP:RFD here where I suggested deletion because of their misuse to-date. As you can see, I offered to help the guy with his WikiProjects and explained about the contrib log function. Like I said, I've tried to keep away but he's been posting on my talk page again this morning. I replied and asked him why he was bringing up the AGF thing again.

I have no doubt that PatPeter is editing in good faith and means well for the project however, I have certain issues with his approach around WP:BITE and how he's handling edits to other people's userpages. I'd rather help the guy than get into a battle with him as this is in nobody's interests - Alison^☺ 20:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email sent to school

I may be out of my league here, but just to be bold in a non-wiki kind of way, I sent an email on behalf of myself and only myself to the school's counselor. For the benefit of all, I've reproduced it here:

Sorry if this is the wrong person to email about this, but I did not see another Department thats apt for it. Im a user of the http://www.wikipedia.org website, and it has recently come to my and others attention that a user on the site, who is a high school student and spends a lot of time editing the article on your school, has make public notices that he intends to commit suicide. The user in question goes by the name PatPeters, leading me to suspect the student is named Patrick Peters or something close to it. The public notices can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:PatPeter&oldid=120797540 and at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:PatPeter&oldid=120797919 and there is a discussion coing on among the major contributors at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Suicide

The only other information that seems to be useful to you is that he has expressed a paticular interest in Latin and Western Civilization as well as claiming to be a talented musician.

Thank you for your help, if I can be of further assistance, just let me know.

-<name redacted>

-M^ask? 21:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

edit: it was sent to

Guidance Staff Bro. Vito Aresto, FMS - Department Chair aresto.vito@marist.net -M^ask? 21:14, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that was out of line, and it's probably better than unending debate about whether or not to get in touch with anyone. Natalie 21:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm.... just realized I outed my name too, but I really dont care too much about that. -M^ask? 21:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name redacted from above. See WP:OVERSIGHT if you want it removed from the page history. Newyorkbrad 21:34, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

naw, like I said, I dont care too much. Brandt allready has it. -M^ask? 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's hope Mr Brandt doesn't see this, you'll be on his website next :) More seriously, I think that's fine. Not sure there's too much more we can do bar a possible phone call to someone. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already had it. He sent me a message, and just to prove not everyone was as batshit crazy as him, I sent him my name, birthdate, hometown and a picture. Take a look at our correspondance at User:AKMask/Brandt. -M^ask? 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Better safe than sorry. Even if it is just a namby-pamby boo-hoo for attention, the last thing we need is for this kid to kill himself and then have the press descend upon us with stories of "Wikipedia Administration Did Nothing As User Follows Through With Threat Of Suicide." --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Contact the Foundation, maybe? After that it's all really out of our hands. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:44, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have also contacted the school to provide additional information found on his userpage - the fact that he is on the school math team and takes Latin must narrow down the search considerably. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward a copy to cbass (at) wikimedia (dot) org as well, with a short explanation, to keep them abrest of what people send out. -M^ask? 21:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 22:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's easter friday The school will be closed. Contact the local police. Andy Mabbett 00:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Can someone volunteer to do that and reply here? - Alison^☺ 00:48, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • Is there anyone IN CHICAGO who can call 3-1-1 and report it to Chicago PD there? I've spent 10 min looking on their website for an externally accessible number and I haven't found anything useful. Georgewilliamherbert 01:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • • I am aware of Bro. Aresto since I am catholic and have friends in the Chicago area. I will forward that email to the Provincial Office of the Marist Brothers (email: info@maristbr.org) and let them know. They should be able to contact Br. Aresto over the weekend. Thor Malmjursson 01:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • This is not a "email someone" situation; please try and call in to Chicago PD. I just found and tried a 312-747-6000 contact number for Chicago PD but it hangs up when I reach it, seems broken. Anyone in the Chicago area, please make the local 3-1-1 call... (And then report doing so here so they don't get 10 calls...) Georgewilliamherbert 01:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am aware its not an email someone situation. I thought to try and get hold of Br. Aresto a bit faster than mailing the school and waiting till Tuesday. Anyone who can 311 Chicago PD go ahead and do it. Thor Malmjursson 01:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • • • According to [7] (312) 744-5501 is the right number? I live in the UK so I don't know how American numbers work. I would try it myself but I have no credit on my phone for long distance calls and have no idea how to call abroad anyways. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Tried it. The source does say that's who it is, but it turns out to be the scheduling assistant for Chicago's mayor, not the Police Department. Everyone keep looking if you can help... Georgewilliamherbert 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • According to that source you could try (312) 744-5000 which appears to be a 24 hour emergency number. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • And failing that, contacting just about any public department in Chicago and explaining what you need might work as they could point you in the right direction. Veesicle (Talk) (Contribs) 01:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The number is (312) 746-6000 or one of the other numbers listed here. AmiDaniel (talk) 01:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's what Information told me, too, but Georgewilliamherbert just tried it and it doesn't work. He's pursuing another lead... —Steve Summit (talk) 02:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Status update: (312) 744-5000 worked to get their emergency operations center, who sent me to the police communications center. Who politely declined to take a report, and instead asked me to call my local PD and have them send an electronic report to Chicago PD. *beating head on door*. So I'm doing that. Georgewilliamherbert 02:11, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If all else fails, maybe try the 3-1-1 or 9-1-1? But they're emergency numbers... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 02:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those only work if you're in the same city as the problem. Otherwise you get your local police department. Which is what I ultimately did, but they haven't finished getting the report info to forward to Chicago. This is bizarrely difficult. Georgewilliamherbert 02:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There should be someone around here who lives in Chicago... --KZ ^{Talk • Contribs} 02:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Danny's contacted his local police and they are on the way to his location... anyone knowing anything should go to the #patpeter IRC channel. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with a suicide note in December, looked up the IP address, and contacted the Pennsylvania state police. It took the dispatcher a moment to understand why I was calling but once he caught on it was straightforward and businesslike: I advised him to forward the IP address to his tech department to determine the street address and supplied instructions for how he could confirm the information I was reporting. A suicide note is one of the very few situations where I think that sort of action is not only justified, I'd regret if I hadn't followed through. Durova^Charge! 02:55, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... Danny's police is forwarding the information to the Chicago PD, and they'll try to find him there. —Pilotguy cleared for takeoff 02:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I heard the police came and have filed a report, hope Danny will update us all soon on this page. Salaskan 03:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The local police were at my apartment, and they have promised to send all the information I gave them to the Chicago police department. That is about all we can do right now, but if anything else pops up, please contact me and I will relay the information. Thank you to everyone for helping with this. You may have saved someone's life. Danny 03:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right after Danny posted, I got a callback for my local PD to take my report; at this point, since Danny's is on the way, we both agreed that it seemed like that was good enough and we left it at that. I would also like to thank everyone who helped. Georgewilliamherbert 03:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awww...I'm too late. I was busy when Veesicle contacted me...thus, I never received the message. Gosh, I'm so sorry guys. I would have been able to get the information in sooner. :( Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would we be better off if we had a policy for these things? If so, I think that I'm going to be bold and create a policy page for this...--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 04:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Use_common_sense :) El hombre de haha 09:05, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's editing again, so presumably he's still alive. His IP is 67.167.255.36, and he's now saying "PatPeter is currently sleeping and will be for 8-10 hours, or the rest of eternity." on his talk page, so I guess the cops didn't get to him yet either. --Rory096 05:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He's logged into his account right now. Someone should leave a message on his talk page, let him know we're all concerned for him & offer what help we can - Alison^☺ 05:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be a wild goose chase if his name isn't Patrick Peter... The "rest of eternity" part doesn't sound too comforting either. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a good chance he/she (Pat could mean Patricia) is just being dramatic, however on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. I'm agnostic, so I could be wrong, but doesn't that guarantee one a straight ticket to hell? If there really is a hell, killing oneself in order to improve their situation is a pretty big mistake. Anynobody 07:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never heard of a girl named Patricia calling herself "Pat"... I doubt the person will take that into account...I didn't even think about it till you mentioned it. But its worth a try if we have a volunteer... Oh and I nearly forgot...how coincidental that you mentioned it today. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many females have used "Pat". Pat Kennedy did. IrishGuy ^talk 07:35, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proven wrong. Yet again.... Well at least I know something about JFK's sister now.... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't feel bad, my original reason for pointing it out was that SNL character "Pat". Later I realized I have an Aunt who goes by Pat. Anynobody 07:54, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any editors who claim/have Catholic credentials and if unknown what would be the best way to search? I really would mention my point to the editor directly, but I can't even tell you where in the Bible it says that (plus if he decides I'm right in my beliefs he could decide to roll the dice). Anynobody 08:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my recollection of the bible, I don't think that it actually states that suicide is a one way path to hell, but people simply assume that it is... But then again, I am Protestant and maybe they have different interpretations? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC):[reply]

The Catechism lists suicide as a mortal sin, and if you do without confessing a mortal sin you get a one-way ticket to hell - kinda difficult to confess suicide... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 10:17, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia does not give theological advice to suicidal teenagers. This is a Bad Idea. -Wooty Woot? contribs 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Like I said before there is a big chance this is just drama, if it isn't what would you have us do? I realize this isn't exactly a Brandon Vedas situation, but it seems to me if we do nothing it could make Wikipedia look bad. Anynobody 23:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying nothing should be done, but it is way out of our league to try to convince the kid not to kill himself ("owever on the off chance that anyone is stupid enough to end their lives perhaps a fellow Catholic should jump in there and explain why that's not a good idea. ") and may very well actually turn out to be worse than doing nothing if it is real. "Wikipedia does not give X (medical, legal, whatever) advice" was created for this very reason. -Wooty Woot? contribs 02:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand you aren't saying nothing should be done, and I also understand you are saying what shouldn't be done. "...what would you have us do?" It's a Catch-22 situation, say nothing to him/her and risk them following through. Say something risk them following through too. I don't mean for this to sound like rhetoric, but seriously try to imagine what news outlets and people like Bill O'Reilly would say in either case. Anynobody 05:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lesser of two evils principle. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a catch-22 situation at all. Wikipedia contributors are not qualified to give psychological advice. It's the equivalent of having somebody post on the refdesk "help there's a suspicious object outside my house", somebody calling the police, and then some doofus stepping in and yelling "YOU SHOULD GO UP TO IT AND TAKE OFF THE COVER AND CUT THE GREEN WIRE OKEY". Not only does this set the Foundation up for one big-ass lawsuit, it could be dangerous and irresponsible. Let the professionals (police) handle this, please. Would you rather have a T.V. news outlet say "Teen commits suicide after he posted on Wikipedia, contributors contacted authorities but it was too late" or "Teen commits suicide after he posted on Wikipedia, contributors may have accidental role in the teen's death? I can certainly see someone responding negatively to a post saying LOL THIS IS WHY YOU SHOULDN'T KILL YOURSELF: CAUSE GOD HAETS SUICIDE LOL, and that coupled with the instability of someone that may commit suicide may push them over the edge. -Wooty Woot? contribs 06:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying anyone is qualified to do anything, I certainly wouldn't advocate a layperson trying to handle a possible explosive device. Respectfully, your analogy is not truly descriptive of this situation. To sum up this situation in an analogy:

You're standing near the edge of the Grand Canyon, resting on the safety barrier which itself is about three or four feet from the edge. Out of nowhere a man climbs over, walks to the edge and says "I'm going to kill myself!"

You:

A) Ask him not to.

B) Say nothing.

If I understand you correctly, the answer is B unless you the observer happen to be trained for suicide intervention? The police probably aren't going to make it in time to stop the guy in my example so waiting for them is consigning him to succeed. People can be figuratively compared to bombs, but in this case a literal comparison is not accurate. We have no idea the police were successful in locating this person, until we do know it's us (Wikipedia) and the person in question. Anynobody 08:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You guys still talking about that? Hopefully we wouldn't need to go to Arbitration (Joke). In another issue altogether, is there any recent news of the Chicago police? --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

Many of the comments left in this section are shameless and shameful, and I don't only mean the ones that treat things as a joke. FNMF 09:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True, but some are very responsible. Next we need to create a page on how to respond to a suicide note. - Kittybrewster (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't treat things as a joke, FNMF. It's my attempt at softening the mood of the grim situation that we were in. May you enlightening me about how my comments are shameless and shameful?. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:59, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some levity is called for. But obviously, it's a very delicate situation. --Otheus 12:23, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with that. Obviously, my comments aren't exactly the best, but they are still a long way from being classified shameless. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 12:29, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get of your high horse. You do not have the market cornered on how to deal with every situation. People deal with things differently and it is not up to you to critique others on how that is done. You have no right to label anyone shameless and shameful--Looper5920 17:09, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by what I said, and I stand by my right to say what I said. FNMF 04:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your rights in calling other editor's comments shameful to Wikipedia? I don't think so... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this isn't the first instance of someone saying they were going to commit suicide on wikipedia and sadly it's unlikely to be the last. Things appear to have been handled resonably well. Even if it may be unlikely that an editor is serious, we should generally take such threats seriously and contact people as required. As I understand it in this particular instance it doesn't appear the person was serious and appears to have thought the whole thing was a bit of a joke. It's rather sad that this person thought saying they were going to commit suicide was a joking matter. It appears that this person was previously involved in hurtful comments as well and perhaps they similarly didn't thought it mattered. Hopefully the person has now learnt that things on the internet aren't just a joke and can be quite serious. At least then one good thing would come out of this whole sorry mess Nil Einne 18:55, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive, please?

May I suggest we archive the whole school and suicide section of this. If and when User:PatPeter returns, this is the last thing he's going to want to see. Leave the other sections, by all means, but this may be embarrassing to him. It's served its purpose & the guy is obviously already upset. Let him make a fresh start.

Thoughts? - Alison^☺ 18:32, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would seriously impede our ability to handle and discuss things, and no matter what we do we can't let the actions of a user interrupt the normal operation of Wikipedia. If and when the school and/or Chicago PD contacts one of us, then yes, do it, but until then it is an ongoing matter and should remain up, regardless of his feelings. -M^ask? 19:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I kinda agree with you both, I think we should wait for the Chicago PD to call or something like that, or perhaps even PatPeter himself to leave a message, until we archive this. He may indeed be very embarrassed when seeing this and we should just archive this if possible, but that's not really possible when it's still an ongoing issue. Salaskan 19:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The police department will contact the foundation, I doubt they'll leave a note here. Nothing is getting accomplished in this discussion, higher authorities have already done what is needed. For the benefit of the reputations of all involved parties, I support the archival of this thread. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 01:56, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly should we care? If he wants to kill himself, that's his prerogative. HalfShadow 04:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to suicide threats, they should be taken seriously, as it could save someone's life. It's better to take it seriously than not worry about it, as suicide is a worry. --SunStar Net ^talk 18:49, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PatPeter returns

Given PatPeter has returned and started posting abusive messages to people telling them to shut up and he never intended to kill himself anyway, I think the police found him. Now we know he's safe, can we please block him for abusive attacks and removing of warnings from his talkpage? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• He's now been blocked for 48 hours by User:Cyde so that's that. I'm just glad that he's okay - Alison^☺ 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the update, it's nice to know. Anynobody 00:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems the block has been upgraded to one year. - auburnpilot talk 06:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#A_bold_solution. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 07:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should have known....another discussion split between several places. ;-) I can't say I disagree, Pat seems to have caused more than his/her share of trouble. - auburnpilot talk 07:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good block. Maybe he can take some of his new found free time to visit Wikisource.--Isotope23 13:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no assurance that the facts a user claims on his user page have any relationship whatsoever to reality, as in the Essjay affair, and a user who says he is at some school in some department with some name could be a prankster who thinks it would be funny to see the police banging on someone else's door. Colleges now routinely dismiss suicidal students and send them home to their parents to avoid the publicity of a campus suicide, and it might be hard for someone to prove they were not the Wikipedian in question, if a shared terminal were used or a terminal at an Internet cafe, or a wireless connection were used. Regardless of the true events of this particular sad case, many jokes about suicide or threats of suicide or even questions on the RefDesk about typical contents of suicide notes can be cries for help. We should respond to blatant suicide threats by making an appropriate referral to school authorities if it comes from a school computer or local police if the individual has identified himself. If the individual is an anonymous username, I suppose there could be a checkuser and referral to legal authorities, who could subpeona the subscriber's name from the internet provider. I agree that it is morally repugnant to sit and do nothing in the face of a blatant suicide threat. A threat to do away with onself is as much a nonpermissible threat as is a threat to do away with someone else, so banning the person for a time is as appropriate in the one case as in the other. Edison 21:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This article was moved to Earth's Universe today by another user and the history needs to be restored.--JEF 22:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems intact. User:Bbatsell fixed it. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 22:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user who moved it started a new article at Universe that had to be deleted to make way for the move. I (or another admin) will restore it somewhere else upon request. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 22:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I presume the title "Universe" was not specific enough, and "Earth's Universe" clarified which universe was the referent. I am looking forward to reading the corresponding articles about all the other specific universes out there. Why, Wikipedia's content might easily double, or triple, or whatever multiple fits the number of different universes to be inventoried -- encyclopedically, of course. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

212.51.199.173 (talk · contribs) claims to be a shared IP but is still making the same kind of edits as he was before being blocked as a Devout Christian (talk · contribs) sock. --Ideogram 23:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for 2 weeks. --Coredesat 00:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I guess being a Christian is even worse than being a sockpuppet. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This account was just created today on April 9 and responds to a 48 hour block I made on User:Bosniak back in mid-March. [8] I'm not sure whom this is a sockpuppet account for but I thought I should just bring it to the attention of others here because I am not sure of what to do.--Jersey Devil 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it doesn't really matter... The account would be blocked indef. in accordance to the username policy. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Which part of the username policy? Anchoress 04:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The name "Mozart: doesn't really qualify as a the name of a well-known living or recently deceased person --Iamunknown 04:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I wish people would read the username policy before reporting violations. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To describe this as an inappropriate username is not sensible. Nobody would mistake this chap for someone who has been dead for 200 years. If he's being naughty, tell him to stop. --Tony Sidaway 12:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is another user with a similar name, though: Wolfgang Mozart (talk · contribs). I don't think s/he is super active, though. Natalie 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really should read the username policy more...sorry for all the confusion. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having still having trouble keeping some comments on the talk page. They keep being removed at WP:ASSIST.(direct link) --CyclePat 03:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused as to what you want. There's a dispute about whether or not that stuff should be included, and as you know, this isn't the "Please take my side" noticeboard. -Amarkov moo! 03:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see how this requires admin intervention. Please note WP:CANVASS before putting it on unrelated places. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One should point out that the "comments" CyclePat is complaining about is a move poll that he tried to force on WP:ASSIST. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In response to me removal of his move poll, CyclePat posted a vandal warning template to my page, and wrote this dleightful comment: "You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[9] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from to the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate how desperate the members of WP:ASSIST and to what extent they are truly willing to do go. A further technique is being used by WP:ASSIST which is called bandwagon, inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience." The conversation and comments regarding AMA and ASSIST (move page/merger), even if it is not a successful conversation as portrayed by some, is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule and on top of that falls within the criteria of vandalism. I suggest the conversation be archived. Again, in short, removing it creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and again, violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

Someone who characterises a 100% rejection rate and several strongly worded warnings from various users as "desperate", "propaganda", and "advertising attempts to destroy AMA" clearly doesn't have the project in mind. I believe JzG said he would try to talk some sense in CyclePat - it appears to have had no effect whatsoever. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 04:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone who removes such beautiful comments, which are so very constructive in helping build and understand EA, clearly (sarcastically) has the project in mind. (Not really!) You may wish to read WP:AGF and to see my comments at Wikipedia talk:editor assistance#Request move archive talk page (if you or someone hasn't already reverted them)... here is the permenant link just in case.(link). FYI: it talks about harassment. --CyclePat 04:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat, I'm speechless. May I suggest that you check out Wikipedia:Assume good faith if you think that EA members are suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience"; additionally why is it bad that we are inviting everyone to participate?...hmm --Iamunknown 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what is with the "gathered up and shot" comment? [10] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I came here to complain about that comment. The fact that it's a 'metaphor' doesn't diminish its offensiveness. Anchoress 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the benefit of everyone, CyclePat's "metaphor" was

"I call EA a mutiny on a boat, and currently, the mutineers, instead of trying to fix ship have decided to bail into a little life boat. It's time the ship went back, even if we have to do it with our guns, and gather the mutineers. We need their help just as much as they need our help to make it out alive of the high sea. Personnally, I think they should all be gathered up and shot... forced to do one AMA case."

This was during another of his attempts to force us to join AMA. To be honest, I can't think of such a post from someone who wasn't eventually indef blocked. Someone may wish to intervene before he starts trying to gather us up. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 06:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A mutiny? So you have, in effect, an editor not just declaring ownership on a page, but on a group of editors? That's just nuts. --Calton | Talk 07:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CyclePat is clearly being very disruptive and very silly. If he keeps on going, he should be blocked for a suitably lengthy period of time. The kid gloves have been put on for this guy far too often and it's gotten us nowhere. Please, stop. You're shooting yourself in the foot and bringing the day of the AMA's next MfD much closer. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I would think that CyclePat's behavior is a perfect example of why AMA is a patently bad idea. It is obvious from the earlier MFD that there is no consensus for the continued running of AMA, and it is obvious from AMA's recent actions that they are quite unwilling to make any changes. They are way overdue for being shut down. >Radiant< 11:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Radiant, please do not make false statements. The AMA is more than willing to make changes and is currently undergoing a major revision. WP:ASSIST was created by User:Seraphimblade as a way to pick back up the AMA's function if the AMA were to be shut down, but is now populated by a large number of anti-AMA editors. The animosity between the two groups must stop, as well as the animosity against the AMA. Comments like this fall short of WP:CIVIL, and we're all in the same boat. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, that view of mine was based on the most vocal AMAs (e.g. Pat) and if that doesn't represent the entire group I'm glad to hear that. Still, the AMA talk page does not exactly have a lot of dialogue on the changes proposed there. >Radiant< 08:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever my personal feelings about AMA, I would like to point out that they have tried very, very hard to get CyclePat to stop harrassing EA. I respect them for that and do not hold CyclePat's increasing insane actions gainst them. AMA is actually trying to get their ship in order, and while I don't think that will save them, I respect their attempts to reform and current right to exist alongside EA, and they accept EA in return. I think the only bad blood being stirred up at the moment is by CyclePat. But it's nice to know that Steve considers himself in the same boat as EA, maybe CyclePat would like to have him gathered up and shot as well... Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• • The only current source of animosity is Pat...otherwise, I'm totally for live-and-let-live. You must realize, however, that CyclePat is currently the only form of interaction between the groups (other than a few AMA members signing the ASSIST roster). Certainly leaves something to be desired. --Iamunknown 20:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• For em the fact that they let Pat join as an advocate was a sure sign that AMA was doomed. Not that I bear any malice towards Pat, but as you see above his skills lie more in escalating than in resolving disputes. Guy (Help!) 13:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Today's moment of irony (OK, it is a few days old... but after seeing this I nearly couldn't believe what I was reading here)...--Isotope23 13:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still having trouble

Since my comments keep being removed from the WP:ASSIST I guess this is where... I'll need to post them:

The following consist of extract taken from the talk page of WP:ASSIST: I would also like to comment that user:Dev920 has threatened to continue stalking me. (Just kidding, that's not true!: That would be a WP:POINT and a lie... But sometimes people say things that are out of context and only quote part of what you say just so see what your reaction). My reaction is that should be considered a type of harassment, but it probably wouldn't fly... That is why I will reply and say tha "those comments where meant to express that both teams need each other, and if you read further on I also stated I believe AMA members should do an EA case... as much as EA member should help AMA... Mutual help!).(This is all off topic... This entire conflict is all about not building concencus. Perhaps I may have jumped the gun in starting an RM, but the comments and discussion should not be removed. Those comments are helpfull, and will help the AMA understand what may be wrong. If we can just keep those comments there for longer than a 24 hours perhaps we would be able to move on to other constructive elements and improving both associations. Nevertherless MY COMMENT ARE STILL BEING REMOVED... and I consider this Harassment as I shall discuss. --CyclePat 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert vandalism

Even as I try to have proper discussion regarding your past edits... my edits are reverted. User:Dev920 did it again, not even more than 1 hour later. Here is the comments he has vagrantly removed. [THIS editing] is becoming a harassment. Here is part of what I had posted. (minus the archived discussion on RM which was at the end). For fairness I will be posting this at WP:ANI... and I sugest someone starts an RfC because I don't see your way at all. --CyclePat 16:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

as per the discussion on my talk page: : I will not leave in peace until my comments are returned and or archived on this talk page. There is nothing offencive about them and nothing that warrants the removal. My attempts to have a discusssion as suggested by others... to try and "abduct" the WP:ASSIST are NOT RELEVANT to keeping the following conversation. It must be preserved for historical purposes. Removal of the comment bellow is considered a violation of wikipedia's rules on vandalism, "Talk page vandalism". Wikipedia has built a concensus which states:

"Removing the comments of other users from talk pages other than your own, aside from removing internal spam, vandalism, etc. is generally considered vandalism. An obvious exception is moving posts to a proper place (e.g. protection requests to WP:RFPP). Removing personal attacks is often considered legitimate, and it is considered acceptable to archive an overly long talk page by creating an archive page and moving the text from the main talk page there. The above rules do not apply to a user's own talk page, where this policy does not itself prohibit the removal and archival of comments at the user's discretion."

It appears that more than one editor has taken the liberty to remove my comments and other users comments. I'm not going to start naming names, because you know who you are but if need be I can go get each time it has been removed. It has been more than 3 times. As per WP:HAR, it is said that:

"Harassment is defined as a pattern of disruptive behavior that appears to a reasonable and objective observer to have the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely."

Pressently, editor that keep removing my comments have created an unpleasant experience and many editors are trying to encourage me to stop editing. Truly we can corelate with this guideline of Harassment. With a specific exemple included such as "disruption intended to support a cause" it is easy to associate our current situation with the term "harassment."

The cause supported is WP:ASSIST and the method is by removing comments from people that clearly object or voice their opinion against the association. Such an exemple includes the RM discussion which was most recently removed by user:Dev920.[11] By removing this information, we are essentially forced back at "square one." similarly, when user:Kim Bruning kept removing that conversation/survey we where un-able to proceed towards a fair discussion regarding the subject.

Again, as per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempts at a conversation to build WP:CON. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference on the talk page. This is why I will keep placing the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[12] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism. This conversation, should at least remain archived. (It should have also probably followed a fair time. Unfortunatelly that was not the case.) Again, in short, removing the archive bellow creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note, this was cross posted from Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance by CyclePat. --Iamunknown 17:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know all the details of this dispute, but I can readily gather that CyclePat is being grossly disruptive and incivil, with the claims of vandalism and propaganda being inappropriate, and the Hitler reference being truly over-the-top. If I see much more of this sort of thing I may block this editor indefinitely (meaning not necessarily forever, but until there is evidence of a change of attitude) as being unsuitable for the collaborative environment of Wikipedia. Newyorkbrad 17:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with NYBrad, to the letter. We can't have this sort of behaviour, ever. Even if no admin blocks him for his disruption, if this continues I will request that CyclePat be banned from WP:ASSIST and all related pages at the community sanctions noticeboard. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with Newyorkbrad here. The Godwin's ref is particularly inflammatory. I suggested on CyclePat's talkpage that he disengage here for the time being to let the situation cool down. Apparently he has no intention of doing that. I've been watching the WP:ASSIST/WP:AMA drama for a few days now and it is time for the two projects to separate for a while. A conversation about overlap does need to happen at some point, but the environment that exist right now isn't going to be conducive to anything meaningful happening. All parties seem to have Wikipedia's best interests at heart and it would be a shame to see this continue to escalate to the point where someone else needs to step in. I'd suggest everyone take some time to cool off. If specific editors need to be blocked, or page banned to make that happen, I'd say that might be the right thing to do.--Isotope23 17:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with an indef (not forever) block. Apparently my 3 hour "cool down" block didn't take. John Reaves (talk) 17:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone far enough. I'm writing up a request that CyclePat be banned from WP:ASSIST. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!}

Please discuss this community ban at WP:CN. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, given in the midst of all this, CyclePat has a delivered another vandalism warning to Moreschi, I move that he be indef blocked immediately. NOTHING is getting through to this guy. His talkpage is ringing off the hook with people telling him to stop and he is still complaining about "vandalism" on his community ban proposal. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 20:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but in the heat of the moment people do stupid things. Maybe I'm a romantic milksoppy idiot, but I think we should give this limited ban a chance to work. I'm willing to let that "warning" slide. Clemency is a virtue. We can get this guy back on the straight and narrow. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 20:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, he sent the warning before he started participating in the WP:CN discussion and before he stated he would leave WP:ASSIST alone. Let's see how that works out first.--Isotope23 20:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though I rather think we need more than just his word to be sure he will really stay away, for good, from ASSIST - which in fact he has not promised. Which is why there is currently consensus for this community sanction. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you choose. I am simply getting very angry that someone is actually trying to help him out of the hot water he's in and he responds by warning them against "vandalism". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 21:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're not the only one :) Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As evidenced on his talk page, this user is having a lot of problems with stupid reports to various noticeboard. And I feel stupid, because I completely failed to make any connection until he claimed to be sir Lego's brother. So, anyway, can we do the same "stop editing projectspace or you're out" thing, and then can we formally ban him when it's violated? -Amarkov moo! 04:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that Saturation2 self-nommed a RFA that needs speedy closing. --Coredesat 04:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done enough IAR today, so can someone else please go do that? -Amarkov moo! 04:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, left a warning on his talk, so if he does it again, he'll be whacked with a sledgehammer blocked. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) RFA closed. Navou ^banter 04:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. New user. Using Twinkle a hell of a lot. Making a signature book. Appearing within two days of LegoAxiom's block. Does anyone else hear quacking?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, but the duck dancing in front of my computer might be distracting me from it. -Amarkov moo! 04:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's that noise?? :) - Alison^☺ 05:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe it's a duck... though I could be wrong. Saturation2 seemed to have stopped editing now, but he definitely doesn't seem to be a newbie. Quack, Quack.... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gah, someone block this guy, please. He's only here to disrupt. Brother - yeah, and my best mate's the Easter Bunny. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 10:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: He is currently blocked for three hours for bowdlerizing this page. I recommend escalating blocks if he continues on this course. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Escalating? We're being trolled. The next one should be indef: this is a disruptive editor evading his indefblock. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know anything about the sockpuppet situation; my block was strictly in response to the more immediate dicking around. If a permanent block is in order, don't let me get in the way. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unsurprising. – Riana ^ऋ 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indefblocked him. His use of Twinkle was too much for me not to realize it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And he changed my post? I sure hope he doesn't quack so loud when he comes back (it's inevitable at this point).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:193.188.12.20 has vandalized articles and has made personal attacks. Please see [13], and [14]. Also, [15], [16], [17], [18] appears to be vandalisim. This is user is at the very least a troll. Agha Nader 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

No activity since March 28. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 04:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unregistered users rarely are active. This is no reason to excuse vandalisim, personal attacks, and trolling. Agha Nader 19:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone willing to look thoroughly into the sole supporter's edit history? Highly uncivil and trollish support, and the userpage does not inspire confidence. Can anyone else find any really useful edits? – Chacor 07:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hi, did you want pie man to go through the process without receiving ONE SUPPORT? Well? El hombre de haha 07:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with that? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 07:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen that rainbow blinking text before... On ED.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check here and here.--MONGO 14:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to haha's page.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 18:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, on my talk page, I've been having some problems with trolls from another site that I am affiliated with spamming it with rude comments and warnings for things I did not do. Since the Wiki guidelines state it is NOT prohibited to delete content on your own talk page, I did so, only to have people to keep reversing my deletions. Finally, I got fed up and put a message asking people to stop doing that. This seemed to work up until recently. An admin by the name of Hu12 kept reversing my deletions, giving me warnings about deleting talk page comments and warnings. I informed him about the fake warnings and also provided him with the quote from the guidelines that says my actions are allowed. Another individual also backed me up on this. He left another warning, not even responding to this message. I repeated it, and again he warned me. I asked him to stop, because it was becoming harassment, and he blocked me. I appealed the block, stating that I had done nothing that was against the guidelines. This block was turned down by an admin named auburnpilot, because of all the warnings I had got and because I had been blocked before. Not only is this unfair, since these things had nothing to do with my blockage, but she was also wrong. According to her, I was blocked three times, while, in reality, I was only blocked two. The first time was actually by her, and she did not even bother to post the three warnings until either after or at the same time she blocked me. The second time was after a mistaken warning that was revoked by the person who issued it BEFORE the block and the block was later removed. And most of the warnings were either the fake ones from the trolls or the equally-uncalled for ones from Hu12. Now, to top it off, my page has been locked from editing. I have been treated extremely unfairly by these two admins. The guidelines state specifically that a user can delete their own talk pages. I would like my talk page to be unlocked and for these two admins to be at least talked to for their rude treatment of me.67.163.193.239 08:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've unprotected your talk page since you are unblocked. I don't really understand why the users were so intent on reverting your talk page, there isn't any policy that forbids it. I also don't see why you were so uncivil and persisted on reverting. Seems like it would have been easier to just let it die down and deal with it later. John Reaves (talk) 09:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And to be clear, my only reasoning was not your previous warnings but your continued behavior. I've blocked this user previously and the same behavior from previous blocks is ongoing. As I said in the decline message, I would have made the block for a longer duration. Oh, and I'm male. - auburnpilot talk 17:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The behavior of this individual has been disruptive and ongoing. Today after block expired, has recieved yet another warning [19] for vandalism. Deletion of of good-faith warnings on his talk page to hide the continued abuse seems to be the reason for the deletions. This user also has a history of Modifying other users' comments ([20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31] ) in order to substantially change their meaning, and a history of making personalthreats to editors. The previous warnings have been archived appropriatly here User_talk:67.163.193.239/Archive_1. If the archive is deleted a permanant history of the shear magnitude of abuse is avaliable here I regret not blocking for a longer period due to the continuous disruption.--Hu12 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The last I heard, deletion of warnings (be they good-faith or otherwise) from one's own talk page is not against the rules, and does not merit further warnings, blocking the user, or protecting the talk page. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. Warning users for blanking templates does nothing to help anyone. All it serves to do is to frustrate and confuse the user. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 20:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's the point I am trying to make. I have done nothing to deserve this kind of harassment. And that so-called "vandalism warning" was not a warning. A person was informing me that he reverted an edit I made. I have already contacted him about this, since what he reverted was part of an important discussion and am waiting a reply. And as I stated, most of the warnings recieved in the past were ones for things I did not do, given by a troll with a grudge who is NOT a staff member. You need to do your research before you start attacking and blocking someone.67.163.193.239 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, this IP considers any warning left by an non-admin (what she calls "staff members") "invalid". Additionally, many of the warnings were appropriate, given concerns over WP:3RR and WP:POINT violations (some ANI history here). Not a dog 21:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question: Does the concept that a user "owns" their talk page also apply to IP pages? I was under the impression that because those talk pages are typically shared by multiple (and often unrelated) users, no one person controls them, so it would be permissible for another editor to restore blanked warnings. In other words, the guidelines at WP:USER#Ownership and editing of pages in the user space do not fully apply. Am I mistaken? If anyone could direct me to previous discussions concerning IP talk pages it would be greatly appreciated. -- Satori Son 21:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nearly all of the warnings on my page were left by YOU, Not a Dog, who has been spamming my talk page and following me all over Wikipedia for quite a while now. I've asked you to stop multiple times, but you refused. You were not a staff member, yet you threatened to block me. Also, those warnings were discussed on my talk page and found to be invalid. And yes, I do think the warnings given bu Hu12 were unfair, given that it is not against the rules to delete my own talk page. If you all would stop messing with my talk page after being repeatedly asked not to, I would not have to keep reverting it. And I am the only one in my house who has a computer, so I am the only one with this IP.67.163.193.239 22:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:USER should not apply. The net range 67.160.0.0 - 67.191.255.255 is owned Comcast Cable Communications, Inc. This is an anon IP, not a user page. This IP talk pages is the target of obvious vandalism and edit warring. When edit wars or vandalism persist, the affected page should be protected from editing.--Hu12 22:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only thing going on is harassment. I clearly asked you and many others to stop messing with my talk page, but you will not. The warnings you left were uncalled for, as were Hu12's. And now some other admins are reverting my deletions. Will someone please do something? And again, will someone unprotect my page so it can be edited?67.163.193.239 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP talk page is not yours. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia without having a risk of another person vandalizing through the IP address, then I suggest you to create an account. Real96 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That talk page is mine. That is my IP. Why create an account too and let that page also be attacked? I intend to contact wikipedia personally about this harassment, since it is shameful coming from staff. I am sick of the way you guys are treating me. The guidelines say it is my right, so stop going against them and leave me alone!!67.163.193.239 22:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Sigh) This discussion isn't going to resolve is it? I'll make a few points clear:

1) All of us here are volunteers contributing to Wikipedia, so please stop calling us staff.

2) The talk page does not belong too you, but to the community. You do not own it.

3) The ip address in question is either shared, or you've been vandalizing a lot, which justifies the warnings on the talk. If you have a shared ip, I ask you to create an account, to avoid the confusion. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon users are guests to their talk page, it may not belong to them in 5 minutes or a day. Anons should not be blanking their talk pages. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:23, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just move it all to User talk:67.163.193.239/Archive 1 and get over it. John Reaves (talk) 23:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is my IP and I do not plan to be moving anytime soon. And if it did belong to multiple people, that would be all the more reason for the spam and wrong warnings to be deleted. Archiving it won't help, since I want that stuff deleted from my talk page. Why should my repuation have to be trashed everytime someone looks at my talk page, especially given all those unfair warnings. I've had quite a few admins block me or insult me because of stuff on that talk page, including the unfair warnings. And while these individuals have all been reported, I'm sick of having to deal with the harassment, especiaily from people who are supposed to be preventing this kind of thing.67.163.193.239 23:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reputation have to be trashed? That's a bit harsh. And anyway, if multiple people are using your ip, there's more the reason to keep the warning as a reminder to them. More of a reason to create your own account so you can't be mistaken for someone else. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67, I suggest you get a username, because we have know way of actually knowing that you are going to be on this IP tomorrow. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I've been watching this cautiously for a while, and I now feel the need to explain a few things to User:67.163.193.239 that I feel haven't been addressed. People need to be more patient with new users. By the way, User:67.163.193.239, I'm going to refer to you as 'The User' from now on to save my sanity, kay?

First of all, Wikipedia doesn't really have "staff." Administrators are NOT moderators or staff members in any sense of the word. Administrators are users who have been given the ability, by the community, to do certain things that we don't feel safe letting everyone do.

Any Wikipedia member is allowed to warn a user. Administrators are the only users who are ABLE to block, but that does not mean that a regular user can't handle your case up until that point.

Nobody is asking you to change your IP address. We're simply asking you to register an account. If you've got an account, you've got a lot more control over what can happen on your userpage. REGISTERED users have a fair amount of control over their pages, under the policies and guidelines you've been talking about. UNREGISTERED users (i.e. IP addresses) do not have this kind of control, because technically speaking, your IP could be yours today, and tomorrow, it could belong to someone on the other side of your town. I also don't understand why you're so opposed to creating an account. Making an account and logging in would basically give you a clean slate: a clean userpage, a clean record. --Moralis (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To create an account, click this link. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to create an account and have the same thing happen all over again. Even if a regular use can warn, they should not be able to do so falsely nor should they be able to threaten to block you. I've been getting blocked for warnings that were either false or uncalled for. The administrators responsible never even bothered to look into the warnings or simply did not care, otherwise, I never would have gotten blocked in the first place. The issue here is my talk page. I am the only one with this IP. The guidelines do not specify that you have to be registered to delete content on your talk page, so it should not be a problem. This is exactly the reason why I never bothered to edit on Wikipedia before-it is just not worth the harassment the comes with it. For these past few weeks, both admins and regular users have been extremely discourteous towards me. I've recieved lawsuit threats for no reason, been personally attacked, and have certain users who literally stalk me all over Wikipedia, as evidence by the actions of Not a Dog and Pablo. But no one does anything about this.67.163.193.239 00:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you aren't understanding: if you make an account, this will not happen all over again. None of us will even know that it's still you. But okay, I'll play.

If these users are really following you to Wikipedia from another site, and harassing you, leaving illegitimate warnings, et cetera... how do they have your IP address? And if they have your IP address, wouldn't it be logical to create an account, so that they could no longer see your IP address and therefore no longer harass you? --Moralis (talk) 00:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: just to clarify. We understand that you are the only person who has this IP -now-. However, one of two things is going on: either you have had this IP for a while, and have a bad track record, OR someone else has had this IP before you, and you have inherited their bad track record. --Moralis (talk) 00:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

67.163: If you're worried about "this happening all over again" if you create an account, that is unlikely to happen. The privacy policy here is very strong, and only a very very few editors have the ability to lookup username's IPs, and only under the strictest of conditions. If you would just create an account, this would all go away. (btw, since this IP's talk page is protected, I'm not sure how else to communicate with her about such issues) Not a dog 01:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The user is continuing to blank the page, post John's archiving of old user warnings. I am not an admin, but I agree with auburnpilot. This user has been given many chances to reform, but has not. I support a 1 week block for disruption. (And, semi-page protection during that block). Real96 07:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The edit war is lame, I agree. However, the editor has been making

WP:3RR violations, personal attacks, etc. Hu12 made the block 24h. Real96 07:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At this point its just blatent vandalism, blocked for a week.--Hu12 07:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looks like he's back. SirShiek (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Once again, vandalizing other users' comments, and using the new account for Voting and other shows of support in a external link dispute on Talk:Rule of Rose, in which its apparent the individual has a conflic of interest with the site. Oh, of course... blanking the talk page to prove a WP:POINT, and removing legitimate warnings.--Hu12 13:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can assume good faith with the comment edit - I'm guessing she wanted to use the [[WP:EL]] link in her own comment, and cut & pasted it from my comment, rather than copy & pasted. Not a dog 14:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So shouldn't a sock of a blocked user be blocked in turn, and perhaps the length of the original block extended. Or is that not possible because the original block was an IP? Note, it will be hard for me to assume good faith with the person in question on any of their actions. IvoShandor 14:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, many of us urged 67.163 to create an account in order to avoid some of the problems she was experiencing, so SirShiek might be the result of that suggestion. If, however, it was created in order to evade the subsequent block of teh IP, then we have a different issue. Perhaps a CheckUser would need to be performed to confirm that. Not a dog 19:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a bit of an odd situation, and while I support the extension to a one week block of the IP, I do not support a checkuser or block on the registered account. The only reason the account was created was due to our requests and to block as a sock would be a bit ridiculous/hypocritical. You can't give somebody a cookie, then slap them for eating it. - auburnpilot talk 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. Let SirShiek (talk · contribs) sink or swim on its own merits. Not a dog 21:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still, Doesn't confer a license to create the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists even when it's true, per WP:SOCK. see [32][33][34][35][36]. --Hu12 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its become considerably apparent the conduct of SirShiek (talk · contribs) is sliding down the same slippery slope as the IP. At this point blocking based on th creation of the account would go against the consensus here, as the individual was asked to create an account. However, how this account is being used is quite another thing. Asside from Obviously trolling the project, one such Forbidden use of an account is, as mentioned above, creating the illusion of broader support for a position than actually exists. We still need to take in to consideration the history of the individual, which includes disruptive editing to the project as evidenced in the the contribs. This individuals conduct is inconsistent with a civil, collegial atmosphere and interferes with the process of editors working together harmoniously to create an encyclopedia. There must be some sort of community sanction against this type of behavior that can be taken?--Hu12 23:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

by 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs) on Talk:Nadine Gordimer (diff). user has been warned and blocked a couple of times before for incivility and personal attacks. Doldrums 08:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After a new series of diatribes ([37][38], etc., I blocked this account for 1 month. This is the 4th block of the account for personal attacks or incivility. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative review

Yakuman has questioned my one-month block of 70.23.199.239 (talk · contribs · WHOIS). I have offered to immediately remove the block if the user communicates his intent to avoid stop making uncivil remarks and personal attacks. I invite review of this block. -Will Beback · † · 19:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See also: WP:COIN:70.23.199.239, a recent, extended discussion of this user. -Will Beback · † · 19:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block appears reasonable. Guettarda 20:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is part of a long content dispute between both editors, stretching over several months. They frequent racially controversial articles; IP claims there's an ideological dispute, which boiled over into a number of policy violations by a group of people, including the admin. IP specifically alleges WP:NPA, WP:CIV, WP:AGF and especially WP:STALK against Will Beback, whom he says is looking for a chance to implement a permanent ban. (For specifics, ask him; I've only been following this a few weeks.)

Will Beback claims that "the block needs to be long enough to change the behavior." To IP, this is another attempt at intimidation, to which he answers per WP:IAR. Ergo the so-called diatribe must be read in context. In my view: I don't think the punishment fits the crime -- and a month-long ban is overkill. Will Beback was not the admin to handle this, as he inserted himself into a content dispute. Also, I suggested he cut it back and he refused. IMHO, this is a case of WP:BITE that got way, way out of hand. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yakuman, I've never been in any content dispute with this editor. My only dispute with him was over his insertion of dozens of link to his blogs and other self-promotion. -Will Beback · † · 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We discussed this before. You were tagging on-topic print magazine article cites as "blogs" until I showed up. (That's what made me interested in this mess.) When 70 spoke up, you apparently blew him off. Meanwhile, there remains some IP wikistalker (not you), who follows him around, reverting every edit. He showed up today and attacked him. Again, I don't see you doing anything, even though 70 has mentioned it several times. No wonder he's mad. Yakuman (数え役満) 21:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those were not content disputes. Whether blogs or print articles all the items I removed were links to online articles written by the editor. It was a simple case of WP:COI which was discussed at length on that noticeboard. Editors there agreed that the more immediate problem was 70.23.199.239's incivility and personal attacks. It would have probably ended there but 70.23.199.239 made this fresh set of extremely uncivil postings across a number of pages. The more correct length of a block should be "long enough to change the behavior or prevent further disruption'". I've offered to shorten the block if the user will commit to abiding by Wikipedia policies. -Will Beback · † · 21:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While hashing this out goes beyond the scope here, I'll just point out one thing: Look through his posts and look past the rhetorical hyperbole. He mentions some specific disputed items and sources that are not COI, even by your standard. Yakuman (数え役満) 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Though all of the edits I dealt with were self-promotional I'll grant you that he also made some that didn't include links to his own material. However what brought him here today were his personal attacks. User:Durova did nothing to deserve the despicable description posted by this editor. These attacks are inappropirate for Wikipedia. The user has been warned about incivility by many editors and has been blocked by four different admins, including myself. The community is losing patience with this user who doesn't seem to show any intention of changing his behavior. -Will Beback · † · 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a serious grievance, humourously stated. Also, I can't believe that the community consists of several people, plus sockpuppets, who follow this guy from page to page. Yakuman (数え役満) 23:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A footnote on the debate at WP:COIN:70.23.199.239: If 70.23 would calm down a little so we could actually talk to him, the editors at the COI noticeboard would have wanted to discuss his repeated addition of links to his own web-published articles. Will Beback supplied 39 examples. Often this editor would reinsert these links after they had been legitimately removed by other editors, sometimes with a scornful edit summary, announcing that he was repairing vandalism! He considers the removal of these links and the ensuing blocks to be part of a conspiracy against him, perhaps triggered off by an editing dispute at the Nadine Gordimer article. He seems unaware that those following up on this are trying to enforce policy and may not even have read the disputed article. EdJohnston 04:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I decided to enter this debate when on-topic print magazine articles were deleted as "blogs." Many of his edits were perfectly good cites and I vouched for then. Even when 70 posted other cites unrelated to Nicholas Stix, who is not verified as this IP, the same group was reverting them. That's not just enforcing policy.

As far as calming down and such, that's probably covered under NPA, I guess. You shouldn't be blocked for it, but neither should 70. He sees himself backed into a corner, with some justification. Let's lift that block. Yakuman (数え役満) 05:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've read through 70.23.*'s comments on his own talk page and the Nadine Gordimer talk page, extensively, and in general I have not seen other people (including myself) engaging in personal attacks or uncivil behavior. I'm sure there are occasional comments that someone could point to from other folks that could be construed as uncivil, but as generously as possible, at least 90% of the personal attacks and uncivil behavior in any engagement that I've seen 70.23.* involved in have come from 70.23.*. Moreover, 70.23.* claims he is being wikistalked, but from my read, the only thing that comes close is the ongoing edit war between 130.* and 70.23.*, which is mutual on both sides and spans multiple pages. I haven't seen "some justification" or any justification for 70.23.*'s behavior, and it makes the editing experience extremely unpleasant for people that 70.23.* disagrees with. People can assess for themselves: I've been assembling relevant links at User talk:Lquilter/NG7023history preparatory for future engagements with 70.23.* and mediation on the NG page.--lquilter 14:49, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following this since it was posted on the COI noticeboard in mid-March. The richly deserved one month block (after previous and equally deserved 31 hour, 24 hour and 48 hour blocks) is not an indefinite block. — Athænara ✉ 22:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to start an RfC on Talk:Black Death and User:Peter Isotalo keeps deleting it from the talk page.[39][40]. What should I do? -- Stbalbach 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would say there is some WP:OWN issues going on here. You are welcome to start a discussion, even in the form of a straw poll. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Hell! BC, I should remind you that you made a complete ass of yourself when you tried a similar footnote counting-stunt over at talk:medieval cuisine. Something like five other editors told you that you were out of your league and being nothing short of annoying. And now you're actually telling Stbalbach to call a bloody vote after no discussion at all? And voting in it no less! It's obvious that neither of you are interested in discussing this beyond the point of reason. Asking for a poll because you can't think of anything other than quoting vague policies for the umpteenth time is, to say the least, tactless.

Peter ^Isotalo 16:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, I am just holding a contrary point of view. I did not make an "ass" of myself at talk:medieval cuisine, I gave up after you got really upset. You already seem upset again, but I cannot just give up every time you get mad. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deep breaths all around. Are we seriously getting this riled up about where/how many footnotes to have in an article and whether or not to have a straw poll about it?--Isotope23 16:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're actually just being ignorant and refusing to admit it. You got your hat handed to you in the last discussion, and by more people than just me. And I'm not talking about any mad debating skillz, but the fact that you proved to everyone that you had no clue about the subject matter at hand. You refused to discuss facts but were still extremely adamant about getting your opinion through in article space. You stuck your nose where it didn't belong and stubbornly pouted when people told you that you weren't being constructive. And you're doing the same thing this time, adding absolutely nothing to the discussion other than a vote.

Peter ^Isotalo 17:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be civil, you are being very rude. What you don't seem to understand is that this is a style issue, and the specific facts at hand are not relevant to the manner in which we arrange our citations. My attempts to discuss this with you have been met with hostility. When you say things like "You stuck your nose where it didn't belong" it makes me think that you believe only certain editors should be working on certain subjects, please read WP:OWN. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 17:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe editors who have no prior knowledge and can't be bothered to read a single page of references should be entitled to demand token footnotes just because they feel like it. Do you?

Peter ^Isotalo 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stbalbach, according to the diffs you start this thread with, you're trying to start (and have by now succeeded in starting) a straw poll. Why do you call it "an RFC"? I don't see any invitation extended to outsiders, or any encouragement of anybody at all to help by discussing the issues. I see a straw poll. You yourself refer to it as a straw poll. I also think, even for a straw poll, it's not a very good one, see my comment here. Bishonen | talk 01:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm not sure how exactly to categorise this, but it seems to be a disruptive edit pattern that amounts to vandalism. Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is voting "Strong Keep" to every single article in WP:AFD - see history - for silly reasons such as "because I would like to learn more about this", "because I recall seeing Cracked frequently in stores growing up", "because cool idea for an article", "to keep things interesting!", "because Robot Chicken is an active show and always ends with that Stupid Monkey thing!" etc. Tearlach 16:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm not sure I would call this disruptive. It appears the editor is opining in good faith. Granted, if I were closing these I don't see most of his arguments having much merit to support the opinions he's rendering, but I also don't see evidence he's doing anything other than puting his two cents in. I'll hit his talkpage and suggest he review some policies, etc and try and frame his reasonings along those lines.--Isotope23 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, there are limits on what goes into Wikipedia (e.g. WP:ISNOT, failure to provide WP:RS) and also ones on what constitutes acceptable evidence for inclusion (such as WP:NOR). If this user's edits are not based within the framework of such policies and guidelines, it's disruptive to the purpose of creating Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to believe in the good faith of the more facetious reasons. Tearlach 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's trying to illustrate a point that he thinks "hard work shouldn't be deleted." He's made about 45 "Strong Keep" !votes in about an hour; there's no way to read an article and all of the arguments for or against it at that rate. I do think it's disruptive. Leebo ^T/C 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; realistically no closer is going to be swayed to keep based on the reasoning there. Another admin may see it differently though.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that there are much more heinous examples than this of "disruptive editing" that we should be focusing our attention on. People are allowed to make meritless arguments. - Crockspot 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've marked all of the AFD discussion contributions by that editor. Several of them were clearly made just for the sake of saying "strong keep" rather than out of any regard for writing an encyclopaedia, such as opining to keep clear hoaxes or unsourced rumours, and some other edits such as this indicate that disruption is the intent here. But this is something that we've dealt with at AFD before. The usual approach is to simply note the editor's actions so that the closing administrator can give xyr rationales an appropriate weight. Closing administrators are not vote-counting robots, and can be relied upon to treat such discussion contributions appropriately, once the pattern is pointed out. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! I thought my reasons were good, but I guess we all have different opinions, and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia and how it's users think every day. Anyway, I just wanted to help out others who spend time making articles that might be able to be improved rather than having their work wasted. Have an excellent evening! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like disruption to me...and anyway, his username is an obvious violation of WP:U. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • How? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I believe he's referring to the fact that it's generally discouraged to use "Wikipedia" in one's username. However, I do see some sort of disruption here. I will leave W,H,F? a message on his talk page summarizing these concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't see a problem with his username. After extensive discussion, WP:U no longer says not to use "Wikipedia" as a part of your username. The initial concern was that names that used Wikimedia-related terms violated the Foundation's copyright. In any sense, I doubt the rule was intended to ban names that refer to one's participation in/feelings about Wikipedia. If you feel his username is inappropriate, feel free to list him at WP:RFC/NAME. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Having been thoughtfully invited here from the Stoopid Monkey AfD by Uncle G, allow me to comment: I believe this user is acting in good faith in order to keep articles that he feels are valuable. A single instance of 45 similar edits in an hour is hardly indicitative of disruption unless it were clear vandalism; stating an opinion, even what might be a misguided one, in a discussion page doesn't even approach vandalism. And I'm sure if I looked in the AfD archives I could find plenty of examples of editors who have gone around to at least as many AfD pages, in at least as short an amount of time, inserting opinions of "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, fancruft", and they are not similarly chastised. If the arguments are meritless, the closing admin will see that and take it into consideration. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that following a user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions in an attempt to discount them based on the user's edit history (rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof of the individual arguments) is disruptive, being possibly an example of both stalking and biting a newbie, and perhaps even a personal attack. DHowell 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not the speed alone, nor is it the opinion. It's the speed combined with the facts that the opinion is the same everywhere, even in the cases of clear hoaxes, and the several edits that pretty much state outright that disruption is the intent. This is nothing new at AFD. It's not as if this is the first person ever to have gone on such a spree. The way that we deal with it, and have dealt with it for several years, now, as described in the Wikipedia:Guide to deletion, is to simply place a note against the discussion contributions for the benefit of the closing administrators. The only assumption of bad faith here is yours, in assuming that noting the pattern is a personal attack (which it of course isn't) and assuming that tracking a pattern of disruption is stalking (which that isn't, either, per the very page that you linked to above). Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I wish this user would spend more time analyzing these articles and providing clearer rationales for retention, I see nothing disruptive in his actions. The rationales provided are far more informative than many of the usual "Delete - nn" variety, often rattled off at rates far, far higher than the 45 per hour evidenced by the accused. If lack of rationale and time between votes are going to be treated seriously as an issue, and appropriate standards are established to eliminate the problem, there will be far many more delete voters eliminated than speedy keepers. Alansohn 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • That isn't the issue, and you should not be turning this into a proxy for a debate about inclusionism and deletionism, which it actually has nothing at all to do with. See the diffs hyperlinked to above and the contributions history, for what the issue actually is. (That you haven't got the opinion given in this case correct strongly indicates that you haven't reviewed the diffs provided or the contributions history. Please look at the actual edits in this case.) Moreover: Discussion contributions such as "NN, D" are also things that should be noted, with editors politely encouraged to provide good rationales in their stead, as a matter of fact; and there was once a case of an editor going on a similar spree to this one with that very rationale. Please read User:Uncle G/On notability#Giving rationales at AFD and Wikipedia:AfD Patrol. Uncle G 09:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no idea what this individual's motivations are. What I do see in having reviewed every single diff before weighing in with my opinion, is that the overwhelming majority of this individual's votes clearly address the articles in question and give specific reasons for retention, even if they do not use thw Wikibuzzwords and cryptic references to policy we'd all prefer to see. While I would also appreciate greater insight into Wikipedia policy, I see that this person is doing a far better job of justifying his votes than the overwhelming majority of AfD participants, pro or con. You have simply not established that this editor is being disruptive. Alansohn 14:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, he can go do that all he likes, and if he's not making a clear, policy- and source-based argument, whoever closes the AfD can and should ignore it. If he really wants the articles kept, he would certainly do himself a service to make such arguments, but if he wants to spam WP:ILIKEIT across every AfD we got it won't make a bit of difference anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I smell a sock. Will follow up with details soon. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is one of the site's long term vandals (and an excellent example of why it was a baaad idea to deactivate WP:RFI). The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? account is a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles whom I blocked for six weeks on November 8, 2006 for attempted vote fixing at WP:AFD and gross violations of WP:POINT.[41] And of course, the new account started its life while that lengthy block was in place.[42] This editor knew he couldn't get away with massive AFD disruption on the old account anymore (I had warned him he was close to an indef) so he returned with his usual florid courtesy on that account and kept the other one to play around as the new persona who supported absolutely every wretched article regardless of site policies. The prose style is inimitable and piqued my curiosity immediately. Two representative examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations (6 November 2006): Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,[43]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimelo! Records (10 April 2007): *Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers.[44]

I soon confirmed that, among other things, both accounts have edited Parma, Ohio and [45] and List of light gun games.[46] Slightly more complicated is obvious unregistered editing at 164.107.223.217, which resolves to Ohio State University.[47][48] I've indef blocked both registered accounts and put a 12 hour block on the IP - it's kind of hard to do longer if it could have a general effect on one of the largest universities in existence - but this person seems to know that unregistered users seldom carry weight at AFD.

Now for the rant: tracking this type of abuse is exactly the sort of thing that RFI excelled at when it had enough mops to operate. No other board has the focus and followup to replace its function and these problems do not go away; they go underground. These days my own user talk page gets about 60 new threads a week, a substantial percentage of which are personal appeals for assistance from people who know I do investigations, and I also get requests via e-mail. When the community deactivated WP:RFI it was shooting itself in the foot. WP:AN and WP:ANI do not and cannot replace it because they see too much other traffic. The ill effects of neglect in this area just aren't as obvious as an overstuffed WP:CSD backlog, but the consequences are more pernicious. Durova^Charge! 06:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, now I agree. I knew I'd seen that before (I was involved in the discussion with Le Grand Roi and basically going through CAT:PROD and removing everything), and it would have been useful to have something like that. I've gotten some similar requests too, and it would be nice to have a central place to track them. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work there Durova!--Isotope23 13:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still disagree with this, even if there is sockpuppetry involved. I don't think that any of this user's actions, either now, or then, amounted to "disruption" (which is an element of the "bad hand" sockpuppetry accusation). The November 2006 actions looked like a new user stating a similar opinion (probably misguided, maybe even totally wrong) on several AfD pages, several users biting him (but some giving him constructive criticism), and then he was temporarily blocked for "vote fixing" (I thought AfD wasn't a vote!) because apparently an IP address that was possibly his participated in an AfD that he was in. I also see a number of positive and constructive edits by this user. He is obviously an extreme inclusionist, and I can understand his frustration with the deletion process on Wikipedia, which in some cases does indeed go overboard on the side of deleting articles (it definitely goes overboard on the side of deleting images, but that's whole other discussion). Nevertheless this user was always extremely WP:CIVIL in his comments, and seemed willing to learn the process, though apparently it was taking longer than some people's patience would allow.

That being said, if this user wants to return he can appeal his block. He probably won't, however, and I believe that is Wikipedia's loss. DHowell 20:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The summary at this thread by no means covers all of the deception and inappropriate behavior on the part of this editor, such as his extensive sockpuppet attempts to thwart last fall's investigation or the disruption he's caused to articles that weren't up for AFD. This is a vandal, pure and simple, and one who's been clever enough to dodge scrutiny for several months. If there's a serious movement to unblock him I can post a more comprehensive report. Complex investigations are my specialty. Durova^Charge! 20:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at my first comment, I was more than ready to extend WP:AGF, but I trust Durova's judgement here. There are socks and disruptive editors that I could spot a mile away if they showed up again, just because I've dealt with them extensively in the past and I'm sure Durova can too.--Isotope23 20:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Durova's judgement here, but I have to mention that Wikipedian's edits on Parma, Ohio have been constructive, and I've been working with him/her on the article. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's tough when an editor who's been helpful in one area turns out to have been up to unacceptable behavior elsewhere. That happens sometimes and this individual had carried on this way for months. Durova^Charge! 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I am the user in question and just wanted to make the following comment. You can believe what you want, as that's what most people do anyway, but if you look at the edits I've made, the overwheming majority have not been criticized and as my talk page reveals, I've even received positive feedback from people whom I've worked with or tried to help out. I speed read and so I can read and react quite rapidly to AfD threads and after receiving suggestions from other users, I held off adding any additional comments. My record of creating valid articles, correcting poor grammar, and typos should speak for itself to some degree and if I've acted out of frustration at times, well, don't we all on occasion? To even suggest that I've caused disruption to other articles is ridiculous. Durova blocked the List of Light Guns article for example and yet ALL of the recent edits are entirely verifiable and constructive. How can that be called disruptive or vandalism when they are able to be sourced by anyone and no one has noticed problems? Regarding the Parma article, MANY users both registered and unregistered have disputed that article and I have done a good deal in the way of searching for references and discussing my points on the talk page. How about the people who just reverted stuff over and over WITHOUT using the talk page or that used insulting language against other users? Is challenging stuff that someone disagrees with or thinks is wrong vandalism? And incidentally edits inadvanterdly made by whatever IP I happened to be on by using university computer labs is NOT an effort at sockpuppetry. Seriously, has everyone who edits this thing used the same IP or user name from day one? If you're in a hurry and in public, and it's a minor edit, do you feel as if Big Brother will get you if you don't quickly log on and god forbid if you forget to log out. I obviously would not keep my user name and password stored on a computer that is not my own and so there are times when making a quick edit that it might not be worth logging on or there's other times where I've logged on, but for some reason I get logged out and I don't know why. Has that happened to others who use public computers? Finally, I did start the second account as I thought about changing the username, which I don't know how to do and that probably doesn't matter now anway, but I honestly didn't realize that we couldn't have a second username (I thought I read under some policy that it's okay in some instances?) and I did make it a point not to use the two in complimentary fashion. For example, I didn't go and add "Keep" using BOTH accounts and nor did I use one to agree with the other on discussions or something like that. The majority of my edits were correcting grammar and typos. Were someone to say, "Hey, are you the same person as X? If so, please merge the accounts and here's how to do it," that would have been fine by me.

Anyway, though, I never blank pages, I don't insert swear words into articles, I don't deliberately include nonsense, I tend to avoid insulting people, etc. So, whatever! I'm really pleased with the many constructive contributions that I have made to this site and I still enjoy using it as a resource. I appreciate all those who have offered valid suggestions to me or who have worked with me and wish them the best in the future. Barring you want to merge the two accounts in a year or something, I'll avoid creating a new account for at least the immediate future if nothing else, because, again, it wouldn't be right for other people who use the same computers as me to get shampooed as a result of our disagreements. Nor is it worth anyone's time debating this trivia when all of our time can be used far more constructively. So, that's goodbye then. I see no need to appeal or discuss this further. If I find any other information of relevance to the Parma revisions that I was working on with the Jester guy, I'll email you or some other user instead, as it's not cool to me for others to be collateral damage about my disagreements with someone else. So, to the good and reasonable amongst you, farewell and have a spectacular Spring! Time to watch American Idol and eat a Caesar salad. Sincerely, and for probably the last time, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? --172.149.203.230 01:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On this BLP related issue, a user has accused me of slander for insisting that we not put unsourced material into an article. Specifically, I objected to the synthesis (original research) of how long a romantic relationship lasted. Previous attempts to put this information into the article had been reversed by others. Is this a legal threat by User:However whatever? - Denny ^(talk) 17:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if I'd call it a legal threat per se. "You slandered me and I'll sue you" is a legal threat; characterizing someone else's comments/observation as "slander" is not in my opinion, though it is rather uncivil and quite incorrect in this case.--Isotope23 18:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am left mystified as to what this user thinks is slanderous. --Iamunknown 18:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thats what I was trying to figure out. Did he think I slandered him (However whatever), Oefelein, Shipman, Nowak, the gods? - Denny ^(talk) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it's a legal threat, it's a rather inept one, since he/she probably means libel, not slander. I'd chalk it up as garden-variety incivility; I've left a comment at the article talk page asking him/her to stop. Try to take the high road; if it becomes a persistent problem in spite of warnings then action might be warranted. MastCell ^Talk 18:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, MastCell. - Denny ^(talk) 18:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I note that each time the user referd to "slander" the link was to the same diff, in which the edit summary included the word "misrepresentation". That could be construed (at a streach) as an accusation of intentional deception in writing the article, which the user might take as defamatory. obviously tha isn't what was meant, but that might be what the user was thinking of. DES ^(talk) 19:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

just vandalized recovered territories the way Serafin used to do (or I guess still does).

--Jadger 18:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

now has vandalized expulsion of Germans after World War II and Nicolaus Copernicus also, my bet is that he will also touch on Jan Dzierzon article.

--Jadger 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Cryptic has been deleting other users' comments on talk pages, and when s/he was warned about this, s/he deleted the warnings, such as here and here. The warnings have been deleted enough times that Cryptic is guilty of multiple violations of 3RR. I think Cryptic has admin powers, and it looks like s/he blocked the last person who brought this up, so I'm posting this anonymously so s/he doesn't block my account. 18:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.235.229.208 (talk • contribs).[reply]

Those are comments on Cryptic's own page and he or she is free, within limits, to do what he or she pleases with his or her user space and to manage his or her talk page appropriately. Why are you templating the regulars? --Iamunknown 18:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Users are allowed (though moderately discouraged) to remove comments from their talk page. Removing comments from other talk pages is generally not ok, though trolling and disruption and the like are exceptions. Unless they've done it elsewhere, please leave them alone. Georgewilliamherbert 18:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user is the same as another IP who was blocked for continually trolling. Nothing to see here, move on. Patstuart^talk·edits 18:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Another example why I think it would be helpful to Wikipedia talk:User page#Talkpage deletion of material by editors record some basic user talkpage guidelines as WP:USER.--Isotope23 18:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Context: 74.14.32.156 (talk · contribs · block log). I'd much rather annoy this guy by removing his spurious warnings from my talkpage every couple hours than have him redial and continue the behavior I blocked him for in the first place. —Cryptic 18:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't feed the large shaggy guy under the bridge. Georgewilliamherbert 19:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:CN. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has been lobbing personal attacks on multiple pages at multiple users. It's really getting out of hand.

• [49] labeling contributions of other users as "stupid"
• [50] calling people with whom he disagrees the "pseudoskeptical side"
• [51] referring to another user's "green cheese pseudoargument" (???)
• [52] calling another user "willfully stupid"

He has also been engaging in general incivility/belligerence/hostility toward other users:

• [53] telling a user "too bad" in response to his question.
• [54] sarcasm
• [55] hostile dismissal of a proffered source
• [56] dismissing an admin's advice by telling him to "dry [his] eyes"
• [57] referring to another user's (rather benign) comment as "racist bullshit"

And so on. This is getting to be an extreme nuisance, and as shown in one of the diffs (not to mention his 8+ blocks), he is unwilling to consider changing his social behavior. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for indef? I'd like to hear from others who have had contact with him. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to look at this RfC (particularly the talk page), where he has been involved. MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Despite complaints, he continues such behavior. - LuckyLouie 19:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend taking Davkal to WP:RFAR. Some six months ago, I tried to deal with him, and to protect editors and talkpages from his personal attacks and poisoning of the atmosphere. I blocked him for a week once, but I'm ashamed to say that I got out of the kitchen pretty soon. It was so unpleasant to interact with Davkal that I just took his pages off my watchlist. What put the lid on it for me was his unseemly triumph at having successfully driven his opponent Askolnick off the wiki. I didn't feel very supported by the community at that time, but I've noticed on Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Recent edits from Davkal and Talk:Electronic voice phenomenon#Arbitration is the next step that he now seems to have exhausted a lot of people's patience. His one great editing interest is the paranormal, a contentious subject which arouses high feelings on both sides, and for this reason I don't recommend proposing a community ban. It's just too hard to keep conduct questions and content questions separate. People on both sides are apt to let their own opinions on the subject influence their views on conduct, and I think it may be literally impossible to be so rude as to lose all support. Therefore I think Davkal's "social behavior" would be best dealt with by ArbCom. Bishonen | talk 00:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Based on the escalation at the Martinphi RfC, it looks like that will probably move on to arbcom. If there's a case there, I think it's inevitable that Davkal would be listed as a party, and likely to receive arbcom sanctions for persistent NPOV violations, incivility/npa, tenditious editing, etc. Anyone with RfA/Arbcom case experience have any recommendations on at what point the RfC situation can be considered to have run its course and arbcom action requested? --Minderbinder 22:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several aged accounts, with minimal edits but created months ago, are suddenly repeat-vandalizing George W. Bush today and yesterday. Is it time to fully protect it for a while? I don't want to list it for full protection without getting some input. Corvus cornix 20:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be appropriate and possible to RFCU the different editors to see if perhaps an IP or two could be blocked instead? --ElKevbo 21:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full protection isn't necessary. It's a highly viewed and edited article so its much easier to just block the perpetrators. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 21:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed; the George W. Bush article is always going to get loads of vandalism. In fact, the articles of all current world leaders get a lot of vandalism due to their significance. Acalamari 21:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above named user is stalking my AfD noms and other articles. He left WP temporarily during an ArbCom case, came back today, and has contributed to AfDs I literally just put up, ad only to those AfDs. Positive or not, he's clearly watching my contribs list. MSJapan 21:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could provide a list of diffs. But it is easier if I just direct you to the current problem page: Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada. Use the find command of your browser to look for "Humus" on the page, and check each occurrence until you find his replies to me or "Bless sins." Start with the section titled "Proposal to rename" and go down the page. It will be pretty obvious what I am complaining about concerning his treatment of me and the user "Bless Sins." Here is a link to the last revision:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Al-Aqsa_Intifada&oldid=121777542 --Timeshifter 22:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I invite the community to take a look at Talk:Al-Aqsa Intifada#Proposal to rename and below. Note how 2 problem users: Timeshifter and Bless sins are trying to impose their POV against the results of survey and against scholarly research. Using WP as a soapbox didn't help, so here we see another attempt to intimidate an opponent in content dispute. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving my point. I don't have a POV. And there was no survey or poll. Trying to follow wikipedia guidelines is not using WP as a soapbox. You have now amply proven my point about your method of personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. And I proposed using both article names in the title in the last section of the talk page before making the incident report here. "Second Intifada (Al-Aqsa Intifada)." So how does that fit into your POV-smearing attempts? --Timeshifter 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Girls, girls, calm down. Keep it polite. HalfShadow 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is trolling allowed on incident boards? Wikipedia:What is a troll. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong section is it? Fail to see why this requires any admin attention. Obviously a dispute. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 23:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is both a naming dispute and this incident report here concerning an admin's personal attacks, insinuations, and defamations. --Timeshifter 09:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be giving as good as you get there, and this is obviously a content/naming dispute. Please don't clutter the admin board with frivolous complaints. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I and others commented on an incident reported here earlier involving you and ChrisO. So there is an obvious conflict of interest in you commenting on this incident report here involving me. Please let other admins do the commenting on this. I have not attacked the character of Humus sapiens. I have commented on the content of his remarks. Whereas Humus sapiens has attacked my character and the character of other editors on that talk page. --Timeshifter 22:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See User_talk:143.231.249.141. Linkspamming Congressional Black Caucus to dozens of articles. Sooo .... who's going to block this one?? - Alison^☺ 22:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Or seems to be? – Luna Santin (talk) 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do we allow role accounts? User:Playgen --Fredrick day 22:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That user appears to be nothing more than spam; it's just advertising a video game company, and should therefore be blocked, as it violates policy. Acalamari 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Buh-bye. Account blocked, starting deletions now... EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beat ya. Splash - tk 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So I saw. Bastard. :P EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

143.231.249.141 (talk · contribs) which belongs to the house of representatives has been spamming thecongressionalblackcaucus.com after multiple warnings to stop. I'm posting here as a heads up, as the talk page of the IP advises me to do so. (an e-mail has been sent to the foundation). The block is for 3 hours, which is fairly short. I will be watching to see if spam returns in 3 hours, if it does I will extend the block to 6-12 hours or so. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I also mailed the foundation for direction on this but hadn't the nerve to impose a block. Kudos to you! - Alison^☺ 22:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oops!! You had the ACB flag set, which I think may be a bit strong for the House of Representatives. I took the liberty of unblocking and re-applying your block with account creation allowed. Hope that's okay - Alison^☺ 22:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did that to prevent spam socks, which is rather common when blocking an IP. But that works as well. :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't see why it's so important to allow account creation. It makes enforcement much more difficult and it doesn't matter for such a short block. —Centrx→talk • 22:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair point. My rationale was that collateral damage in this instance would not be a Good Thing given that it's a proxy address for a lot of folks and felt that the chances of malicious socks appearing on a three-hour block would be minimal. Having said that, I'm shocked at just how many previous blocks have been applied to that address in the last year. Dozens! That surprised me - Alison^☺ 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They had stopped with 5 more members left to do[58], so I think editor did eventually get some message. Question, since all these were indeed members of the Congressional Black Caucus, would it really be inappropriate to add the links? Though I was perplexed to see that at least one page, David Scott, doesn't mention his membership. Shenme 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the link violate WP:SPAM? It seems to qualify under WP:EL. -- THF 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link doesn't have to be "spam" per se, but if it is added to many articles that are only partially relevant, it is considered spamming. // PTO 22:43, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Esp. when the edit commentary is blank, it's happening rapidly and there's no dialogue with anyone else - Alison^☺ 22:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the Foundation needs to know as much as ComCom does. You might want to send them an e-mail as well. // PTO 22:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. I've already informed ComCom and they're okay. My reply came from David Gerard as a result of that message - Alison^☺ 23:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Foundation rep. has replied to my email stating that the block has been extended to 24 hours for "linkspamming after many warnings" - Alison^☺ 22:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds good, I won't check in 3 hours then :) —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • David Gerard has stepped in and taken ownership for this block, thank goodness. He's decided to leave it at three hours. We're off the hook :) - Alison^☺ 23:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about we say this much is obvious: an internal link to Congressional Black Caucus from a mention inside the person's article would be much better than a 'bare' external link? (me say duh) Avoids 'spam' issue? Further external links would then be 'unnecessary' and instantly revertable. Shenme 22:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the links in Dime go to some random website. Like Fasces. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.149.157.2 (talk • contribs) 22:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unrelated....hagermanbot not working? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 22:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean the FA article? Which links? - Denny ^(talk) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dime (United States coin) isn't "unrelated" to Fasces. On the dimes issued from 1916 to 1945, with Liberty's head on the obverse (the "heads" side), look at the reverse ("the "tails" side) and you will see the symbolic fasces. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On Talk:Every Breath You Take, the user User talk:Raphaelaarchon has constantly insulted me, and in the last post, claimed I threatened him with a message on his discussion page (I simply asked him to stop and said I would forgive him, the opposite of threatening), and then claimed I slandered him, after I had asked him to stop both on that talk page and on his talk page. --THollan 22:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You called his edit's vandalism. Not exactly the way to calm things down. You are both angry. This can easily be solved by taking a temporary vacation for the article until you cool. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 23:11, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny I was just listening to that song. — MichaelLinnear 02:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Hybrid is going through every single edit I have made and reverting it. Could somebody please do something about it. I have given comprehensive edit summaries for all of my edits and per the discussion at WP:AN it has been agreed upon that wrestling articles must not violate WP:BLP. These are people's personal lives we are talking about, after all. 23:27, 10 April 2007 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Green342243 (talk • contribs)

Some links to occurrences of this happening would be great. EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it has been straightened out. Kevin Green342243 00:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

After numerous vandalisms despite being warned, and after reverting the Tattoo Assassins article, that IP should be blocked. Duo02 *dilly-dally shilly-shally** 23:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You want to report it to WP:AIV. - Denny ^(talk) 01:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Already blocked by CSCWEM. – Luna Santin (talk) 01:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked User:Hotshots2006 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a vandalism spree (blanking user pages, name calling, etc.) He's uploaded a bunch of images ([59]) and tagged them all as "public domain"; I strongly suspect they're copyvios. What does anyone think? Blowtorch them all right away? They're currently listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10 thanks to the diligence of a couple other editors. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hotshots2006 hardly sounds like a scrupulous editor; I'd delete the whole lot. -- Hoary 03:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just returned as Lucycl0ver (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log), which I just blocked (without checkuser, I'm going on the usually reliable duck test for this one). Antandrus (talk) 03:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, and here I thought I could get in on the ground floor of this exciting opportunity...--Isotope23 13:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone delete these images as db-vandalism? I'm fairly sure it applies; there's no need to allow our servers to get clogged up with almost certainly non-free pornographic images uploaded by a troll in order to disrupt. WP:SNOW, guys. 64.178.96.168 13:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I got rid of them. I left some images he uploaded last year of places in Goa; those photos didn't look particularly suspicious. Antandrus (talk) 01:22, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

I'm about 99% sure this is just a joke, but for completeness, and because it's funny, I figured I'd add it here. This quote below came to us on the Unblock-en mailing list.

Dear sirs, I am a deposed prince from the West African nation of Niger. I use my wikipedia account to help me find foreigners who may help me get my numerous and millions of funds out of country before the government controlled mob in my country can get me. My wikipedia account was unblocked as spamful. If any of you may unblock and help me, I will transfer 200 thousand of american dollars to your bank account, after the completion of a small, 200 dollar account transfer from you to me to prove the account exists. I thank you rapidly for your attention in this manner, Mr. Wikipedia. -Mgumbe

Anyway, just thought I'd mention it here in case it pops up somewhere on site. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put it on BJAODN; I know that that page is pretty bad, but this is one of those times where a significant amount of people will probably actually find it funny. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 02:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Geez, that BJAODN is really getting a lot of crap piled on it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shame that good stuff like this gets lost in the shuffle too.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 02:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forward the email to the government-controlled mob. Or should it be the mob-controlled goverment? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 02:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is Mr. Wikipedia the winner of a male beauty contest? x42bn6 Talk 03:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the creator of the message emailed me privately, and told me it was a test to see if there are spam filters on Unblock-en-l, and that there is no on-wiki scam. It's a good joke though.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 04:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know a guy from FreeRepublic who would be happy to reply to this deposed prince, and lead him on the wild goose chase of his life. - Crockspot 20:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick! Make me an admin! I need the money. --Otheus 21:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN3, the 3RR noticeboard, is backlogged. Almost 20 unresolved cases. Most of these can be relatively quickly resolved, and it's not like CSD that fills up as fast as you can delete it. Can we get a few more eyes over there to sort this through? (And yes, I'm slightly biased in asking here because I have a pending 3RR complaint that is the newest one on the noticeboard, and god knows how long it will take to get to with 17 cases ahead of it at the current rate). Seriously with just 2 or 3 people, we could clear this out in less than 30 minutes. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Note: Some of the unresolved cases are as old as April 8th. That's unacceptable for that sort of noticeboard, considering it deals with ongoing edit wars. I've tagged the page adminbacklog, and I've started working on a couple of them, but I only have so much time. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 03:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SuperExpress (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) keeps posting comments in Chinese or Japanese on my talk page at User talk:Jesse Viviano and at CalebNoble's talk page at User talk:CalebNoble. I am unsure about whether these are genuine attempts to communicate with me or if they are vandalism, as both CalebNoble and I have left vandalism warnings on SuperExpress's talk page. I suspect vandalism, but am unwilling to make the accusation unless I know for sure that those messages are vandalism or complete nonsense to even a Chinese or Japanese speaker. Jesse Viviano 03:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...that stuff is basically gibberish. It looks similar in format to the gibberish posted by another account to a few other pages (see this). I think it can be safely ignored. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This edit looks like the edit of an anglophone teen or preteen who's trying to "look Chinese" and to this end has hit on the bright notion of stringing placenames together. (While I know nothing of Thai or Thai script, I could do the same for Thai placenames.) -- Hoary 08:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has been stirring up trouble on Wikipedia. I'm really suspicious since this user keeps on appearing in incidents and has no contrib. to Wikipedia in a positive way. A feeling of sockpuppetry here... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 03:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He admitted it on my talk page: "I'm not breaking any rules, guidelines or policies on the sockpuppet thing - an obvious sockpuppet account can have obvious, and valid, reasons for existing." [60] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i didn't mean it the way you seem to have read it - you first stated that i was an obvious sockpuppet, and i think the whole issue should be moot - that's all... Purples 07:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its not the sockpuppetry I am worried about, more of a feeling of trouble. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 04:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Purples is somebody's "bad cop." Unfortunately, there is not much you can do unless it does something overtly blockable, except maybe file an RFC that he will probably laugh at. Or you could support UninvitedCompany's drive to change WP:SOCK to outlaw all sockpuppets no matter what purpose they are used for. Thatcher131 05:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He/She is acting in a civil and polite manner and isn't causing any trouble that I can see, other than having to fend off numerous people questioning his/her motives. Frise 05:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's being pseudo polite in an exaggerated way, but is in fact being a bit of a nuisance. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 05:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's obviously someone from Wikipedia Review. Whoever it is, the trolling is not what WP:SOCK was designed to protect. WP:SOCK#Avoiding scrutiny from other editors forbids this kind of thing. It's one thing if you use a sock to edit articles on a topic that would lead to your real life identity being exposed if you used your main account - nobody would disagree with that ... but this is silly. --BigDT 05:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What trolling? Frise 05:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DE might be worth a look for future reference.--MONGO 05:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is a long stretch, but is it possible for him to be a known Wikipedia hater, like this guy? As I said before, I've probably gone overboard and drowned... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 05:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Strong fascination with the Essjay affair and now the attack essay...anything is possible.--MONGO 06:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's going the opposite direction by stating that he never said he was a sockpuppet, when in fact he admitted it here [61]. It seems the duck has continued his quacking.... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't suppose it's that bad to be called a duck - one of the stranger accusations here - but just to clarify (as above) - Slim said i was an obvious sockpuppet, and I have consistently tried to make the issue moot - that's all folks (or was that a bunny?) - Purples 07:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all - I must say it's a little disconcerting to find such a thread (and to put down the 'pseudo politeness' for a moment, i think some of you guys are pretty rude). Please just have a look at my contributions - there's really nothing terribly amazing there. I feel pretty bullied to be honest, and if it really needs stating;

• I am not Daniel Brandt.
• I have nothing to do with any forums.
• I object to being called a troll.
• I am trying to raise issues i think are important calmly.
• I am not an 'admitted sockpuppet'.
• I would prefer to be spoken to, not about, and preferably about the issues i've raised.

Anyone is welcome to move this whole discussion to my talk page, where it's probably more appropriate. And thanks all for taking a look from my perspective....

best - Purples 07:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look through Purples contributions, and haven't seen anything that suggests we should be discussing him here. "stirring up trouble" is a reasonably strong accusation, can it be backed with diffs please? Regards, Ben Aveling 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look again...if this isn't trolling worthy of a block?[62]--MONGO 07:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [63] - seems to be an sarcastic attack.

Well, not really - was definitely trying to make a genuine point in a slightly light hearted way - sorry for any offence?! - Purples 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] - Canvassing people on their thoughts on Essjay

This is true - i was genuinely concerned that essjay's behaviour was inappropriate, and these posts were before he had either apologised, or resigned. - Purples 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• [69] [70][71] - Reluctance of letting the "Essjay issue" go. Persistent post on talk.

Again - I didn't think the issue would go away, so was reluctant to allow it to be swept under a rug - Purples 08:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's probably all the evidence I got at the moment and its a matter of interpretation. I do not think they were made in AGF but that's just my opinion. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:51, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I point out that all (or almost all) of those essjay posts were made before essjay either apologised, or resigned.

What i really want is just to contribute my thoughts on the issues at hand - and i really don't think there's any call to threaten me with a block - who is being harassed and who is harassing here? - please do take a good look at all contributions, those of an inquisitive mind.... best - Purples 08:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

With due respect, Mongo and KZ, if Purples helped to expose Essjays' fraud, the he did Wikipedia - and more importantly, the public - a service. Remember, Wikipedia isn't here to make us feel good, but to serve the public by informing the public. Essjay deceived the public in the pages of The New Yorker. It is just basic that Wikipedia must not be a font of misinformation. I have as of yet arrived at no firm opinion on the other issues raised in this thread, but I was quite disturbed to see some very prominent (big fish, small pond) members of our community who seemed oblivious to the fact that there is a real world out there in which our rationalizations mean basically nothing, and in which whistleblowers will be rightly seen as heros. Again, there seem to be other concerns here, which I mean neither to address nor to prejudice, but only to observe that branding editors as anti-fraud is hardly an indictment.Proabivouac 08:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know all that, but the simple fact was that Purple's edits were, in my opinion, canvassing, and that, no matter how it is done or how good or bad the effect was, it is still a Wikipedian guideline that should be followed. It was never about the Essjay controversy, but about the breaking of that policy. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 08:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For whatever the reason, some of you on this thread are simmply looking for a reason to find fault with Purples. I have seen so much worse behavior on Wikipedia largely ignored by admins here that I fail to understand why this user is creating such a controversy on ANI. The only reason I can think of is that s/he is potentially an "enemy of Wikipedia" and so should be quashed just in case s/he might potentially cause trouble in the future. I see a lot of WikiXenophobia on display here, and it ain't pretty. Jeffpw 09:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would hate to think that Purples is unpopular because they are critical of us. But I suspect it may be the case. People, critics are our friends. They allow us to examine ourselves for possible faults. It's not enjoyable, but it's good for us. Even when critics are wrong (which appears not to be the case here, IMHO) we do ourselves a favour by gritting our teeth and listening. Regards, Ben Aveling 09:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, I thought this user was extremely aggressive towards Essjay with questions that had already been answered. I just thought he was brash, but maybe his edits warrant further scrutiny. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 09:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, when editors leave comments such as this one, that definitely looks like anything other than a polite way to be going about things. I can read and I don't see anything other than a veiled threat in the diff.--MONGO 09:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the one hand Slim says I'm 'pseudo polite in an exaggerated way', so i try and lighten the mood a little, and Mongo feels i've come across as threatening - that just doesn't seem right to me... Purples 13:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mongo,

There is no reason for Purples to have resorted to foul language, and I hope he refrains from this in the future.

However, his question "are there any similarities between the charge of sockpuppet, and associated discussion of my possible identity on AN/I and the stuff that goes on on Wikipedia Review?" seems to me prima facie topical and reasonable. Apologies if, in my ignorance of the situation, I am missing cues which might be obvious to others, but I honestly can see no veiled threat here at all; only indignance at how Wikipedia review is demonized for outing editors' real-world identities while, according to Purples, the exact same thing happens here on WP:ANI.Proabivouac 09:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suppose you are right Jeff, as I did seem to assume bad faith on him. Sorry guys for all the trouble, and thanks for your comments. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 09:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This thread just shows me everything that's wrong with Wikipedia. A guy who's clearly on a mission to be a pest, and all everyone can do is sit around and lawyer about the whole situation. Apparently, no one has the guts to be bold and block him. WP:AGF doesn't apply to trolls, guys. 64.178.96.168 13:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't really find much of what this user has contributed that looks like trolling. Being overly polite isn't really trolling behavior. Anyway, when it comes to suspected sockpuppets, my saying is always "put your money where your mouth is." Checkuser and get it over with. If you can't file a checkuser request because the person's not breaking policy (and thus the request wouldn't be approved), then quit hassling the guy. It's that simple. .V. _[Talk|Email] 17:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yesterday I discovered and tagged {{db-copyvio}} several photos uploaded by User:Migssant. All were tagged {{PD-self}}, but many contain copyright banners from airliners.net or jetphotos.net, with several different authors. Photos on both of these sites are copyright protected and require author permission for reuse, which 1. the uploader didn't claim to have and 2. would be inappropriate for PD-self anyway. Today I discovered that some of the exact same images had been uploaded again, so I've just tagged them for deletion again. I suspect that the other uploads from this user are copyvios as well, but I haven't been able to track down a source for them. -- Hawaiian717 05:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are certainly a lot. Just make sure not to totally spam the user's talk page. One template, plus a note that "This template applies to X Y and Z images as well" is probably sufficient. --Iamunknown 05:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remember that for the future. -- Hawaiian717 05:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you or someone else beats me to it, I'll end up looking at the images tomorrow. --Iamunknown 06:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user made his/her first edit at 17:17, 7 April 2007, and has been immediately nominating many articles at AfD, and commenting vocally on RfA (always opposing based on self-nom). Very unusual behavior for a new editor. See Special:Contributions/Rackabello. This fits the editing pattern described at Wikipedia:Sock_puppetry#Characteristics of sock puppets. Please check into this user as soon as possible.

Note that I have had no dealings with this user, but just noticed his/her strange oppose votes on 4 separate RfAs today, and then decided to investigate. --Seattle Skier (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

70.51.8.244 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is spamming user talk pages to get input on a deletion discussion. --NE2 06:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Iamunknown, for reverting. --NE2 06:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. I added an addendum to your note that RfD is consensual, so asking for opinions from editors of a known background is discouraged. (Well, I kinda said it like that.) --Iamunknown 06:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the issue of what forms of canvassing are acceptable, see also [[72]] which was a newsletter created and sent out on March 10, 2007 to a long list of about 190 editors including NE2 just as soon as two such articles were put up for deletion, including the dire warning:

Notability of state highways is challenged

By Rschen7754 & Vishwin60 Three AFD nominations this week have become crucial towards the welfare of the over 5400+ U.S. road articles. With the accidental destruction of a long-standing precedent at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Precedents regarding the notability of state highways, some have decided to challenge the existence of the 5400+ U.S. road articles.

The debates began when County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York) and Minnesota State Highway 127 were nominated for deletion. The precedent of the notability of highway articles was mentioned, but some refused it, challenging the justice of this precedent. Furthermore, some questioned the legitimacy of having all of the state highway articles on Wikipedia.

After Pennsylvania Route 999 was mentioned in a debate, a user nominated it for deletion, possibly to serve as a WP:POINT. At this stage, the same user stated an intention to delete all 5400+ road articles. When California State Route 37 was mentioned, it was nominated for deletion by this same user, ignoring the fact that the article is a good article. This last nomination was quickly closed as a speedy keep.

Currently, the AFDs are showing a consensus to keep. However, dangerous precedents could be set here that could result in drastic catastrophe for the U.S. Roads articles. Your voice is needed to ensure that our highway articles are not deleted and can be maintained for the benefit of all.

Sources: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Roads, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/California State Route 37, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Minnesota State Highway 127, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/County Route 66 (Dutchess County, New York)

NE2 is a member of the USRD project and received said newsletter on March 10, 2007, without objecting to the vote canvassing. If people can canvass 190 editors to keep 2 articles they like, then how is it permissible to go to 12 editors talk pages and delete similar vote canvassing or "friendly notice" to those editors known to have an interest in a given type of AFD by someone else with a different view? Edison 14:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel to revert blatant canvassing on sight whenever you like. --Iamunknown 19:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Felt a need to remove this (my) comment from Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[73]. On my talkpage she posted:

"WP:BLP: This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[74][reply]

Not sure why she feels I am not allowed to insult historical figures. KazakhPol 06:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were out of order because you violated NPOV and created defamation to an article. Note that Wikipedia is not the place to put your personal views of a specific person. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 06:55, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I violated NPOV on the talkpage? I created "defamation"? Are you familiar with Wikipedia's prohibition on making legal threats? Can someone else comment here? KazakhPol 07:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any legal threat. --Ezeu 07:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where, exactly, has anyone made a legal threat? No one has said anyone's going to sue anyone. – Chacor 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see any legal threat either. --Aminz 07:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. I see this is pointless. The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment. KazakhPol 07:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're going to make a legal threat based upon my comment? When I said defamation, it was based upon the basic term not about suing you for anything, in case I misunderstood you. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 07:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to block KazakhPol for disruption. When an admin tells you not to violate BLP, just don't do it. El_C 10:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into merits of this case, I'd just like to point at "when an admin tells you" and laugh loudly. Admins are not police, and trying to give the impression that we are just makes us look ridiculous. Zocky | picture popups 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that was interesting. El_C 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, KazakhPol and SV have a kind of history here. Although, it is quite apparent that SV did the right thing by removing the defamatory statement as it might have been taken as inflammatory by other users. Technically, a deceased person cannot be defamed by the means of libel or slander. There is no basis for an immediate block here. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 11:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nick, the libel is not against the boy, but against his mother, who is alive and is named in the article. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When an admin removes your edit, telling you you violated BLP, it's best not to restore that edit. Don't you think, Zocky? Or are you suddenly at a loss for words? El_C 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, it doesn't matter if the user who tells you not to violate BLP is an admin or not. Users are expected to follow policy, not to obey admins. Zocky | picture popups 11:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin is sanctioned to enforce policy, what are you talking about? Obviously. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey you guys. Don't want this discussion to be too heated... That comment was asking for trouble EL_C... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What comment would that be? That I am inclined to block for disruption? Because I am. El_C 11:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "loss for words" part you said to Zocky. If you didn't mean it, disregard it. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seemed to have been the lolz case. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... (Another reason why I will never be a lawyer)... The legal threat is what worries me... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only potential BLP issue I see here in the boy's mother, is she still alive? The question of whether or not Al-Durrah himself is alive is very seriously covered in this article. (→Netscott) 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the person did say that "The legal threat was obviously regarding Kzrulzuall's comment." which either means that she's going to sue me or the other way around... Seeing my idiocy of the law, its very doubtful i'm going to sue... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why wouldn't she be alive. It makes sense that she is. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with Zocky on the 'point and laugh' response to the 'admins are always right' theory being advanced... and making a "BLP violation" out of a comment on the talk page of a presumably dead person takes a bit of a stretch... it would require we assume the kid isn't dead... in which case the comment about his death being faked would paradoxically be accurate. That said... there are other terms which could be used to describe mocking the mother of a slain child (switching back to the assumption he is dead), but I'm afraid all of them violate our civility policy.

Kzrulzuall, let me put it this way. You are deliberately inflaming an emotional and divisive issue. This is extremely disruptive and I would advise you to stop. Add relevant sources to the article. Discuss the merits of various wordings. Do not go about provocatively stating your opinion as fact - it invites argument from those who disagree and can only serve to disrupt and damage our efforts here. BLP violation? Maybe not. Blockable chicanery? You betcha. --CBD 11:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one said admins are always right, but that it's best to be catious, and also theoretically noninfalamtory and unassumtpive, CBD. El_C 11:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I realised I've been acting childlishly. I'll refrain from adding those comments. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone who is up in arms at the notion of "obeying an admin" looked at the comment that was removed? Good grief ... it obviously needed to be removed whether the people involved are alive, dead, or cryogenically frozen. --BigDT 13:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, they probably needed to be removed. No, the reason wasn't that an admin said so. Everytime we use that as an argument, we fail to make the real argument that needs to be made. Zocky | picture popups 13:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was restored, is the point. Sysops actually have the ability to censur users over blp violations and this even supercedes editorial involvement), that is what was meant. Not everything is a wiki-cabal-etc. political proclamation. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BLP applies to all pages, main, talk, even here, does it not? - Denny ^(talk) 13:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does:

Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just highly questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles[2], talk pages, user pages, and project space. (from WP:BLP intro)

So of course the notion that it should be removed because an admin said so is patently absurd. It should be removed because it violates policy. IvoShandor 13:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is why I removed it. El_C 13:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I wasn't meaning to direct anything at you, just saying that in general. IvoShandor 14:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick links: Zeq (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Zero0000 (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This is a notice as requested by WP:Probation. I am blocking Zeq for 48 hours for openly defying an article ban imposed in accordance with his Arbitration ruling. More details at that page (at the end). --Zero^talk 07:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse. If he wishes to challenge an article ban, obviously editing the article is not effective as an appeal. And that log keeps growing... El_C 10:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no knowledge whatsoever of this dispute (that arbcom case is before I even joined Wikipedia), but arbcom found that you were edit warring in a dispute with Zeq (finding of fact #4). Is it appropriate for you to ban him from an article and block him for violating the same? Shouldn't an uninvolved admin make that determination? (And just to clarify, unless there is something pressing that I am missing, I don't endorse the block nor the ban and believe that you should remove both and allow an uninvolved administrator to deal with both issues.)--BigDT 13:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that I didn't notice. There's your challenge, then: find an uninvolved admin which has knowledge of the dispute. I, arguably, am one. El_C 13:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I took a look at the article history [75]. It seems that Zero0000 is in a content dispute with Isarig and Zeq. No effort whatsoever has been made to discuss the issue on the talk page. My suggestion is that (1) the block and article ban both be lifted, but Zeq be cautioned to discuss changes on the talk page rather than revert war, (2) Zero0000 be cautioned not to block or ban people with whom he is in a dispute, and (3) if desired, the article can be protected to facilitate discussion on the talk page. Any thoughts? --BigDT 14:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq has been here long enough; the quality of edits such as this is too low. El_C 14:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Been here long enough? Are we talking about an article ban+2 day block or are we talking about an indefinite ban from the project? I think we're talking about the former. At any rate, regardless of anything else, no admin can block/ban a user with whom they are in a content dispute. Administrative privileges cannot be used in that fashion. Unless someone wants to make the case that Zero0000 is not an involved admin, the article ban is invalid and thus, so is any block arising from it. Any uninvolved admin is free to ban Zeq from that article if they have a good faith reason to, however, I would suggest that an attempt to resolve the issue should come before such an action. --BigDT 15:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the former. But I felt we've already passed the point where the latter could be applied months ago. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Zero0000 here, "the Arbitration ruling can be enforced by "any" administrator." Which, I gather, includes Zero0000. Regards, Huldra 15:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't imagine that they intended for that to include someone actively involved in a dispute over the article. You can't ban someone you are currently in a dispute with from the article you are in a dispute over. That's just silly. --BigDT 15:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While endorsing the block, it really needs to be someone other then Zero. When someone involved in a content dispute lays down the block, its a MeatBall:PowerAnswer that just breeds resentment. El_C, why dont you lay the block on him? -M^ask? 16:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except that the block would be enforcing an invalid ban and is thus inappropriate. The user should be immediately unblocked with any administrator free to impose the article ban. HOWEVER, given that no attempt has actually been made to resolve the content dispute, I think an article ban is premature. --BigDT 17:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's pretend that I unblocked, and reblocked. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not therapy nor is it an English course, and if Zeq's continues to introduce & edit war over edits which are consistently of too low a quality, then imposing the arbitration remedies will continue. Sure, hopefuly not by someone cited in the RfAr, so next time, Zero should drop myself a line. For my part, I have long suggested that perhaps he tries the simple Wikipedia for a while. It is unfair of him to expect others to so extensively reconstrct his edits, which he continues to revert. El_C 19:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot comment on the general quality of Zeq's edits (sorry, I'm too lazy to study hundreds of contributions), but there is no policy basis for a block for low-quality editing. If the opposite were the case, most Wikipedians would suffer regular blocks for poor editing. Beit Or 20:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a tendencious pattern of revert warring over low-quality additions, it should not be others' responsibility to reconstruct these. His exhuasting carelessness on that front has long reached the stage of disruptiveness. El_C 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(unindenting) On what basis would you reblock? Zero's ban is invalid because Zero was in a revert war with Zeq at the time he issued the ban. To allow such a thing is silly. If the ban is invalid, then there is no cause for anyone to block based on that ban. --BigDT 19:52, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've already answered that question above and am not inclined to repeat myself. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The original ban at 1929 Hebron massacre should have been announced here, logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Zeq#Log_of_blocks_and_bans, and posted on Talk:1929 Hebron massacre. While the arbitration case says He may be banned by any administrator for good cause from any article which he disrupts by tendentious editing., good practice would require that the ban at least be reviewed here, or even better requested at WP:AE much like admins should request protection at RFPP when they have edited the article. I suggest that the correct course would be to unblock and then request an article ban at WP:AE. Thatcher131 20:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's being reviewed. No point in unblocking if he'll just go back to inserting that poorly-written bit. El_C 20:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a generally accepted principle that any administrative action, including a ban, must be made only by an uninvolved admin; thus, the original ban was absolutely inappropriate and the subsequent block only compounded the breach of WP:ADMIN. Furthermore, I believe the probation has expired by now. Usually users are placed on probation for one year; at least, this seems to have been the understanding of the original ArbCom ruling when Zeq was banned from Allegations of Israeli apartheid: the ban was set to expire on March 5, 2006, one year after the arbitration decision.[76] If the original intent of the arbitrators regarding the length of Zeq's probation is unclear, let's make a request for clarification. Beit Or 20:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The probation has not expired, nor is there evidence that Zeq's editing practices improved. El_C 20:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, however, that in light of objections, neither this block nor the article ban (per AC clarification a few months ago) should not count toward the 5-block-one-year-ban but any additional blocks should count it. Simply, Wikipedia is not therapy. El_C 20:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The usual procedure is that in such a situation a block must be overturned. A block by an involved admin must be overturned on sight. Beit Or 21:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I can unblock and reblock for the sakes of procedure. El_C 21:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe that a block enforcing an existing arbitration ruling (article edit ban) has to be done by an "uninvolved admin". - Crockspot 20:48, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably better, nonetheless. El_C 20:56, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block may or may not be valid; but I think it's extremely poor form for an admin involved in a content dispute to resort to his/her admin tools. The term "any" surely does not mean that the editor in question is an outlaw. --Leifern 21:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn't enforcing an article ban imposed by the arbitration committee. If he were, this wouldn't be an issue. Rather, he was enforcing an article ban that HE HIMSELF imposed during a revert war over that very same article. I'm going to be bold here. I have a meeting coming up right now. It will be over in an hour or an hour and a half or so (so around 22:00-22:30). If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by then, I intend to unblock Zeq. The article ban was imposed by an admin in a content dispute and the block was made enforcing that improper article ban. If no completely uninvolved admin has objected by the time I get out of my meeting, I intend to undo the block as it is patently improper. I consider myself neutral and uninvolved. I have never edited articles in this topic area nor, that I can recall off hand, interacted with Zeq, Zero0000, nor El C. As such, I consider myself uninvolved in the dispute and have seen no justification for the article ban and ensuing block. If any uninvolved admin objects, I will, of course, defer to their judgment. --BigDT 21:09, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I object. El_C 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Overturn the block if you want but there should also be an independent review of the article ban, which should be reimposed if it is justified. Then if Zeq violates the article ban imposed by a neutral admin, he gets blocked again. I will do this myself after I get back from an errand. Thatcher131 21:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, disregard that; don't overturn it. I object. El_C 21:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I may chime in for a moment, does the fact that Zeq is alleging that Zero's motives are racially motivated (see this section ("most likley based on discrimination") of the talk page, as well as his revert of my comment on the matter) have any bearing here? Seems like a rather serious accusation to level at someone, esp an admin. Tarc 22:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To echo the section above, it is a serious accusation, regardless of the accused in an admin or not. But I'm not seeing it. Can you quote? El_C 22:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I will raise it with Zeq. El_C 22:33, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note that Thatcher131 ignored my objection and unblocked. It looks like a questionable unblock (certainly as much as the preceding block). El_C 22:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It dosen't look like he read Tarc's comment above, so I'll strike that bit out. El_C 22:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Crossposted from my talk page) :I don't believe this is a matter for consensus. In this case I did what I felt was the right thing to do. Zero's article ban of Zeq was invalid as he was an involved admin and did not post it to the noticeboard for review. Therefore the block was invalid as there was no valid ban to violate. As an independent admin I have reviewed the article and re-applied the ban for one month. If Zeq violates the ban he may be blocked again. I realize that this may seem overly procedural, but I believe that in order for admins to have credibility we should follow procedures wherever practical, especially when it involves editors with whom we are involved in content disputes. Zero really shouldn't have been the one to apply either the article ban or the block, and reversing the ban and re-applying the block as a non-involved admin is, in my opinion, the best way to move forward. Thatcher131 23:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I disagree, but it is within your discetion. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Tarc's comment, I did see it briefly, but comments are flying all over the place faster than I can keep up. I view the original block as improper as stated above. If, in responding to the block, Zeq made inappropriate comments or allegations that deserve a block for civility or something, then do so. As I said above, this may strike some as overly procedural, but I believe it is the best way to proceed. Thatcher131 23:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It dosen't look like there's been five blocks, so I would not be blocking for a year as noting on Zeq's talk page. I'll still give him one last chance to respond (so far it dosen't look promising). If there is a block, it will count toward the one year ban, however. El_C 23:11, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

El C, with all due respect, I don't believe that you should be the one to impose a block of Zeq other than for obvious situations. From your comments on his talk page, you seem to have significant history there. I just got out of my meeting. Had Thatcher131 not already unblocked him, I would have. Please understand that it is important to stay well away from the appearance of a conflict of interest. If you or Zero have an issue with something Zeq does, the best response is to bring the issue here and allow it to be reviewed by a completely uninvolved admin. I am well aware that purely taking an administrative action doesn't make you involved, but even if you in good faith consider yourself uninvolved, it doesn't look that way from the outside. --BigDT 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have asked the AC about this last time and they deemed me uninvolved, administrative history notwithstanding. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an accusation of discrimination —unless retracted— goes beyond mere civility. El_C 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I say what if the accusations are true? IF somebody makes an accusation that is then substantiated but was originally had up for making the accusation isn't that allowing the problem through blind cover?--Lucy-marie 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq was invited to substantiate the accusation. El_C 00:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion to offer on the rightness or wrongness of Zeq's edits, but I'm disappointed that the conversation seems to have veered away from an administrator blocking an editor he was in a revert war with (in order, perhaps, to cut down on the number of editors on the page he had to revert). This is precisely what admins are not supposed to do with their powers. Was the block of Zeq justified? Let's say, for argument's sake, it was. It's a simple matter to come to this board and ask if any admins out there agree. If the case is so obvious, the block would be in place within minutes. That Zero failed to do this is extraordinarily troubling. More troubling still is that there are so few admins in his thread troubled by it. IronDuke 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to everyone for these comments and observations. I entirely agree that it would have been preferable for someone completely uninvolved, rather than me, to have taken action against Zeq. My feeling about it, right or wrong, is that it is not a "content dispute" as usually defined but rather a serious behavior problem on the part of Zeq. Nor is it, really, just a matter concerning this one article. The fact is, as anyone can verify with a few clicks, that a very large fraction of Zeq's edits are tendentious, disruptive, or otherwise inappropriate. Moreover, he has been here a long time and knows perfectly well what is allowed and what isn't. He knows that it is not permitted to insert the claim of one side of a historical dispute into the second sentence of an article without qualification as if it is an accepted fact. He knows it, yet he did it repeatedly. That is how he usually behaves and it has to stop. Concerning this particular article: I just now reconnected to WP to see all this discussion and am confused about who is banned or not or blocked or not, but if other admins are willing to take over the resolution of this problem that would make me happy indeed. Undoing the block and reimposing the article ban, as Thatcher131 suggested (already did?) is fine with me. The only thing that would not be fine is for Zeq's disruption to continue. --Zero^talk 01:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I banned him for one month. I watch WP:AE and am certainly prepared to reblock if needed, or reimpose the ban if he resumes disruption after the month is up. As I told somone else regarding Ombudsman, with a user already found to be disruptive, you don't have to wait for the situation to become intolerable before requesting an article ban. There are still 1.5 million plus articles he can edit. Thatcher131 01:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeq banned from 1929 Hebron massacre for one month

After reviewing recent edits at 1929 Hebron massacre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as an uninvolved admin I have come to the conclusion that Zeq has edited the article disruptively as specified by his probation; I have banned him from editing the article for one month. He is not banned from the talk page, please try to work out your disputes there rather than edit warring. Thatcher131 23:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mathieugp redirected Québécois to Quebec and blanked the referenced material in the article despite the fact that the dispute to delete the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Québécois) has been settled. In response to the '"keep"' decision, and despite invitations from myself and others to contribute positively to the article, User:Mathieugp and User:Laval blanked several referenced items in the article, have indulged in increasingly personal comments on the talk pages(Talk:Québécois#Soul_scanner_wasting_peoples_time), started another "discussion" on redirecting the article, (Talk:Québécois#Vote_on_a_redirect) and redirected it before anyone could express an opinion(see "History"). I have restored the article to its consensus form, but I don't think it will last long. I don't have time for edit wars. I'm requesting that the page be protected from moves and redirects, and that User:Mathieugp and User:Laval be reminded of Wiki protocols regarding Vandalism(Blanking) and ignoring consensus. --Soulscanner 07:45, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a misrepresentation of the events and actions. First of all, the Articles for deletion/Québécois shows that no consensus was reach on the proposed deletion. It does not say that a consensus was reached on keeping the article as it was. To state A or B, not A therefore B would be a logical fallacy. That is, no consensus was reached for deletion, but there clearly was no consensus either on keeping the article intact. Far from it.

A group of users (User:Laval, User:Recury, User:142.58.101.27, User:iridescenti, User:RaveenS, User:metaspheres + myself) and now User:Joeldl did/do not favour deletion. We favoured redirection. We accepted and still accept that there was no consensus on deletion. That is not the issue. The issue, as we can see from the talk page, is that a single user, User:Soulscanner, (who sometimes uses another account named User:Soul scanner), wants to treat the article from the viewpoint of a certain politically active faction who claim to speak for the majority of Canadians (who speak English) all the while denying the perception which the majority of Quebecers (who speak French) have of themselves. Oh, and he refuses to acknowledge the factual errors and errors in reasoning which I patiently (OK, not always patiently because I don't have time for this foolish game) point out in the talk pages. The Quebecois (or French-speaking Quebecers) article is no more the place for debates on identity politics than the article on Anglo-Americans. I have suggested Quebec identity (as there is a Canadian identity) or Quebec nationalism as more sensible.

Should we go with arbitration at this point? What would you recommend we do to resolved this conflict? -- Mathieugp 22:39, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct me if I am wrong. This appears to be an editorial dispute and attempts at negotiation have thus far failed. Have editors involved in the article requested third opinions at Wikipedia:Request for comments (RfC) or Wikipedia:Third opinion (3O)? --Iamunknown 22:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I should add that I think that either RfC or 3O would be an appropriate step. The Arbitration Committee would almost certainly reject a case if other steps of dispute resolution had not been tried first. --Iamunknown 00:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tampering? - Kittybrewster (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not tampering to the original images themselves - someone uploading "funny" versions of the pictures and then swopping them for what was on the page. Images now deleted.--Alf ^melmac 08:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Briantist persists in reverting edits to Arqiva and National Grid Wireless despite objections from other contributors. He does not seem prepared to discuss the matter in an intelligent manner. See also Category talk:UK transmitter sites. From User talk:Briantist it appears he has a track record of causing more than his fair share of trouble. Harumphy 09:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not causing touble, I'm including encylopeidic information! I've been doing it for quite a while now too. It seems that Harumphy has his POV and is determined to bully me into accepting it. ••Briantist•• talk 09:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harumphy appears to have violated WP:3RR, but has becoming anonymous at 81.158.24.187 ••Briantist•• talk 09:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has happened on both Arqiva and National Grid Wireless. ••Briantist•• talk 10:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC) I make that TWO violations of 3RR![reply]

I haven't broken 3RR, and if 81.158.24.187 is a sock puppet it's not mine. But please substantiate either accusation if you can. Harumphy 11:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't I read be bold somewhere? ••Briantist•• talk 10:02, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You're not adding encyclopedic information, you're adding huge pointless unencyclopedic listcruft to articles, then edit-warring over keeping it in, wikilawyering on talk pages and spuriously quoting policies to bully other editors into accepting your cruft. This is not a way to run a railway. Perhaps you should consider modifiying your edit patterns as they're very confrontational.  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:03, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was following Be Bold!! ••Briantist•• talk 10:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh right, someone else violates 3RR and I get it. ••Briantist•• talk 10:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the most important part of WP:BOLD - don't be a WP:DICK. And can you prove that the WP:3RR was broken by User:Harumphy?  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  10:07, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget about it... I was only trying to include some relevant information. If it's not required then I won't bother. I'll just accept your character assassination and let the page rot. ••Briantist•• talk 10:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean is I can't see the IP address of the user when he edits when logged in. Just very suspicious that no-one else edits the page in days and then IP sock puppet makes an edit...

Could both of you do something about your sigs? They are really distracting. El_C 10:13, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On what grounds? How is  REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  OK and mine not? ••Briantist•• talk 10:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the ground that they are really distracting. They are both not okay, especially in combination. El_C 10:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I was just about to say something myself. Aside from the visual distraction, they take up many lines of text in edit windows.Proabivouac 10:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what Pro and El_C said. Limit your sig to 3 or 4 lines and stop making it so eccentric. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Is there a rule for this? ••Briantist•• talk 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. WP:SIGN. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's better to have a brief and topical list than a lengthy one with semirelated entries. Not only that, Briantist's revision removes or immerses related ones. El_C 10:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)clarify grammar; link[reply]

I've alredy said OK... OK? ••Briantist•• talk 10:50, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did? I guess it was hidden by the sig forest. ;) Okay! El_C 10:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Thank you both for changing your sigs! :) El_C 10:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually EL_C....I changed it for them. Probably still has the old sig in their preferences... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh, that sucks. :/ El_C 11:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm a compliant member of the cabal! :o)   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although, I could point out that my sig might have been distractingly coloured, but it was short... far shorter than the one you're using, Kzrulzuall.   REDVERS ↔ SЯEVDEЯ  11:19, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mine is three lines and isn't distracting. After careful analysis of the guideline, mine is perfectly okay. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:21, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, User:Khoikhoi has blocked User:Weiszman indef as a sock puppet.

19:08, 10 April 2007 Khoikhoi (Talk | contribs) blocked "Weiszman (contribs)" (anon. only, account creation blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ({{SockpuppetCheckuser|AdilBaguirov}})

However, the case cited makes no mention of Weiszman. I've asked Khoikhoi to clarify, but he doesn't seem to be around ATM. Can someone shed some light on this? And consider an unblock, at least until Khoikhoi returns? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:15, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the user is sock-puppet. It is clear from his edits and many diffs. After speaking to admin khoikhoi, he has done checkuser through a higher admin. I am sure khoikhoi can explain better. Admin khoikhoi has been around for a long time and knows Wikipedia well enough. --alidoostzadeh 12:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support checking of this case by a third party administrator. Both User:Ali doostzadeh and User:Khoikhoi have a history of conflict of interest with User:AdilBaguirov. Atabek 16:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I confirmed the checkuser to Khoikhoi by email. Sorry for any confusion. Dmcdevit·t 17:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could an admin block Ernham (talk · contribs · count) per this community discussion that has noting the discussion in the block log. I don't have the ability. Thanks in advance, Navou ^banter 12:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've implemented the ban. I've included a permalink to the closed discussion in the block summary. I also uncommented the listing at the list of banned users and replaced the regular link with a permalink (so that it stays correct when the page gets archived). --bainer (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Continued violation of WP:NPA by user 68.253.206.119 in the edit summaries of various NBA related articles. For example, NBA's Greatest Teams edit summaries on 07:56, 9 April 2007 and 23:07, 10 April 2007 (profanity plus the professed perception that he "owns" the article), article 2006-07 NBA season on 00:18, 8 April 2007, and NBA Records edit summaries on "21:59, 3 April 2007" and "22:03, 3 April 2007", and 2007 NBA Playoffs on 05:11, 11 April 2007. In addition, this user makes frequent errors in unsourced edits, and ignores WP:NOR. All in all, a negative net contributor since other people need to fix his numerous mistakes and deal with his uncivil behavior. Administrator action is requested. Myasuda 12:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, an anon ip left the above invitation for me (to drop dead) at my talk page. See here. This was reverted by an admin, Bubba hotep, and the very mildest vandalism warning template placed on the IP's talk page. I have no idea who the anon is, none of his few contributions match any pages I can recall editing. In any case, I consider the mild warning wholly insufficient but, since it's my page, I may not be objective. Other thoughts would be appreciated. IronDuke 13:32, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now again, from another IP (which I have reported to AIV): [77] IronDuke 13:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to sift through the WP:AN archive, but this looks an awful lot like a series of IP disruption that happened and was primarily directed at Centrx and Irishguy a few days back...--Isotope23 15:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This IP editor, recently blocked for 6 months, continues to replace his talk page with nonsense. Please protect his talk page. Errabee 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sprotected for 1 week - hopefully that will be enough. Natalie 15:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]