Steve Dufour (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) was previously blocked by User:Johntex, for "Violation of WP:POINT". Certainly the recent nomination of a Featured Article for deletion qualifies as such a disruption. The result was Speedy Keep, clearly there must be some sort of process to take with regards to this user's inappropriate actions?? Thank you for your time. Smee 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

User:Steve Dufour has been a member since May 2006, and has over 4,500 edits. This was clearly not a good faith AFD nomination, but an out and out disruption of the project to make a point. Smee 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As well, the notability of the article (specifically the primary criterion) was pointed out to him before he added the AFD. AndroidCat 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article I nominated for deletion was Xenu. Xenu is a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard but not featured in any of his stories published for the general public. He is a mythological figure for Scientologists, a very small group of people numbering perhaps 100,000 world-wide. Not all Scientologists, even, believe in his existence since he is only revealed after they reach a higher level of training. As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all. Xenu, unlike other supernatural figures, seems to have had no influence on human culture. To me this does not add up to WP type notability. Having said that, the article itself is well written and well sourced and represents a lot of hard work by the editors. However, the information about him is already featured in other WP articles including Space opera (Scientology). I think that the article specifically about Xenu as an individual should be deleted, while the ones on Scientology beliefs which mention him should be kept. Another article on Xenu as a pop culture fad (South Park and stuff like that) might also be a possibility. I brought up all these points in the discussions before and during the deletion process. Steve Dufour 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your definition of notability is remarkably different from that of Wikipedia. The threshold of notability on Wikipedia is whether it can be sourced via reliable sources as prescribed by WP:RS, not whether the general public knows of this character's existence. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A character in an unpublished story is not notable. But maybe you are right and I don't understand WP at all. Steve Dufour 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't buy that, particularly considering the number of edits you have. I suggest you lay off the trolling; it's not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did expect the discussion to be left open for more than four hours. Steve Dufour 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You see, it was closed due to the numerous "Speedy keep" votes, a sure sign that editors believed it, as a featured article, and also as an important one that meets the first and other criteria of WP:N, those being that if it can be sourced by reliable sources, it is of value to Wikipedia. The role of editors on Wikipedia is to contribute to a comprehensive resource of human knowledge. Actions taken in potential bad faith, such as nominating a well-sourced (You yourself have admitted on many occasions I could link to that it is well sourced AND well written) article for deletion unilaterally, rather than discussing potential issues with other editors, hamper the whole process.

To quote from the previous link:

I think that the article is well sourced and mostly well written, and represents a lot of hard work. It just does not establish the notability of the subject. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two contentions contradict one another. If it is a lot of hard work, well sourced (Implying an abundance of sources, which are also reliable), and mostly well written (something you could improve by contributing writing instead of AFDs intended to make a point...), then how can notability not be established, being aware of the bolded portion of WP:N listed below?

Xenu IS notable. Your definition of notability seems to differentiate from WP:N. I am willing to cede that some things just are not notable, but contend that Xenu definitely is. I am not going to claim I have a closed mind, though. If you can show me how the Xenu article, as it is, does NOT stand up to the first condition of Notability as stated in WP:N, you will have brought me around to your way of thinking.

The criteria I am thinking of is as follows: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject"

Your view of notability is not the one shared by Wikipedia as a whole, and this editor and others who have expressed their opinion here, in particular. I support consideration of your actions as a violation of WP:POINT, and as a watcher on the sidelines, would like to add that someone with so many edits really ought to know the notability and reliable source criteria, and understand that the vision of Wikipedia as a repository of extensive human knowledge would be harmed by the removal of any substantive subject matter, not helped. There is a difference between meaningless bombast and well-written information on a subject of interest, with myriad web sites referring to it. Xenu is notable, I humbly request you take the outcry over even -considering- deleting it, to be in the vein of deleting any other article about a notable subject:

That vein being abject disbelief that anyone could consider removing something people are bound to desire extensive knowledge about, and which is well-sourced. I posit also: If the article WERE to be deleted, where would we put all of the well-written, well sourced (and therefore also notable and reliable by Wikipedia's standards) information? Delete it and remove it from this repository of knowledge? That seems counter-intuitive to the whole project goal here.

Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The information on the non-notable person Xenu could be put in the article on the notable subject of which he is a part: Space opera (Scientology). ("Xenu" could be redirected there.) Xenu as a pop culture fad, which is how he is known to the world, could have its own article. If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And again, after having it explained to him several times, by several different people, that Xenu does not in any way match Wikipedia's description of "non-notable", Steve does not even acknowledge that anyone has even questioned his assertion of non-notability but instead states it as if it were fact (gratuitously, I might add.) Is such behavior CIVIL or evidence of trolling? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can kick me off of Wikipedia if you like, but that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable. Steve Dufour 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Woah, let's calm down here people. Was this a bad faith nom? Yes, absolutely. Was this a WP:POINT violation? I'm nto exactly sure what point he was trying to make in this case. I've seen him around, and he's generally a good user from what I've seen. Warn him, let it go, and don't provoke him into violating anything. Oh, and Steve, there's plenty of imaginary things on Wikipedia, leave it be. Of course there's not going to be a sentence that says "this is notable because..."--Wizardman 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Wizardman. If they want to have an article on Xenu I will not object any more. Steve Dufour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ChrisO stated above:

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• I second this recommendation, it would be a fair approach, in light of this user's recent disruptive actions. Smee 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
  • More disruption, violation of WP:POINT: DIFF 1, DIFF 2, AndroidCat thankfully removes, with edit summary: "rv Steve, please stop mucking about with WP:POINT". It may take a bit more than discussion here, for the disruption to cease... Smee 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

My 2cents: Steve is a border case - he has always been very polite and nice and has avoided edit wars. However, many of his edits result in a waste of time for the other editors involved. My argument is somewhat weak, since he isn't disruptive enough for me to keep evidence records. I suggest a symbolic, short block for his AFD of a featured article, whose name has over a million hits on google. I wish Steve would concentrate on topics he knows about, instead of trying to "please" groups or people whom he thinks would appreciate it. --Tilman 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• More disruption, after being warned about WP:POINT by User:AndroidCat - DIFF 1. More disruption DIFF 2. This one is also Asking the other parent, after not getting a satisfactory result from multiple editors at Talk page for Scientology article. Thanks for your time. Smee 16:08, 27 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I would like to point out that "polite" and "nice" are not at all the same thing as behaving with actual civility. An important part of WP:CIVIL is "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", yet this is exactly what Steve has done repeatedly. It is pointed out to him that notability of a concept is not measured solely in terms of those who believe in that concept, and a counter-example is provided,[1] yet his response simply asserts once again that if "almost no one believes" it then it is "rather unnotable".[2] He even continues to advance arguments dependent on this already debunked 'only consensus reality is notable' principle on this page: "As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all."[3] "If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article."[4] "... that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable."[5] Trying to shove through a deletion based on premises that other editors have already pointed out is false is not polite, even if the language used is polite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antaeus Feldspar makes some excellent points above. Here is more evidence of what some would term a veiled personal attack at users who work hard finding sourced citations for this project - DIFF. Smee 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Steve Dufour I do not mean to pile on here, but this gives me second thoughts about whether I should WP:AGF toward you. I had assumed that the WP:COI issues were based on your friendship with Barbara Schwarz and nothing more, but when I see you nominated Xenu for deletion it put our dealings on Barbara Schwarz in question. I haven't followed the Xenu story closely, but I notice that Scientologists tend to downplay it's importance rather than deny it outright.

What you've done could be interpreted as either an indirect attack on Scientology, or as a favor to them because the CoS wants to keep Xenu and their higher levels secret. Saying that someone's spiritual beliefs simply don't exist could be accurate, but seems like a double standard if what you believe in is just as unprovable. Ask yourself, if someone made the same argument about the ideas of Sun Myung Moon being fictional and nominating they be deleted you'd probably feel somewhat slighted.

The other option is that you are helping to keep secret information which should not be. People ought to know what they are getting into upfront in any religion, wouldn't you agree?

• To anyone else reading this, Steve Dufour has been informed that some of his past WP:AfD requests and actions are against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Here is a link to a WP:COIN archive of his actions on Barbara Schwarz. He has nominated the article for deletion twice, the logs can be found at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Anynobody 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something believed in by only Unification Church members probably should not have its own WP article. Come to think of it the Prodigal son as a person separate from the story in which he is a character probably should also not have his own article. (But then Jesus didn't give the characters in his stories as much interesting background material as Hubbard did.) Steve Dufour 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I would like to point out that the story of Xenu is not "unpublished". It has been published. The mere fact that the COS hasn't itself published it, is not relevant. Other people like Operation Clambake have. Whether or not that in itself is a violation of copyright is not relevant to the question of whether it's been published. Wjhonson 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took the side of Barbara against the people who were attacking her. I take the side of Scientologists when they are treated unfairly here. And I take the side of Freezoners when they are attacked by the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some would say that you take the side of Scientologists even when they are the ones acting unfairly. In fact that seems to be how you earned your previous block for violating WP:POINT.[6],[7] -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, since I apparently missed all the fun, let me make just a quick comment. For an editor that is not too familiar with Scientology or the criticism of Scientology, the amount of prominence given to Xenu here on wikipedia must seem very odd indeed. Now, if I personally had put Xenu up for AfD then I would deserve a strong warning as I know the "importance" that Xenu plays in holding Scientology up to scorn and since holding Scientology up to scorn is near and dear to the hearts of a number of editors and admins here and, in general, has a broader degree of agreement among 'netizens, of which the larger population of wikipedians is a subset; knowing that it would be disingenous of me to AfD something such as Xenu. Steve, however, is pretty much a neutral 3rd party who comes along and says, "This is odd". Very odd, indeed. But not in the way Steve thought. I can AGF that he truly wondered why such an article existed on Wikipedia. Myself, I know exactly why. --Justanother 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi JA. I would have told you about the nomination but I was afraid you would have to vote against it since as a Scientologist you probably believe Xenu is real and deserves his own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. No, I would not have voted anything. I would have simply made the same comment I make above. --Justanother 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We couldn't possible have the article because of the multitude of sources that mention it. Right? He's not a new user, and he was told about this before it was nominated. I'd prefer to assume non-studity: he knew what he was doing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Xenu is small potatoes (actually one small potato). The only "prominence" of Xenu is a manufactured prominence. It is a total red herring promoted by critics of Scientology to divert attention from the real purposes of Scientology; increased ability for the individual to be at cause over his own life. Xenu may or may not be a character that shows up to be addressed in an auditing session (or a number of sessions) on OT III. Big deal. Worth a mention in the main article or in an article on confidential upper levels. I can give you an analogy of misplaced prominence for the purpose of holding Scientology up to scorn. Fort Harrison Hotel. Here is a very nice 15-page piece on the history of this hotel. The hotel is important to the history of Clearwater. Look here at our article before I pruned it a bit and added a bit of balance. The article is predominently not about the hotel. It is about Lisa McPherson and about unrelated deaths of Scientologists in the Clearwater area sourced from one article. and the POV-pushers did not even get that right but I fixed it for them. I will leave it to another to make the call on the appropriateness of that inclusion at all but I try not to remove sourced material unless clearly inappropriate to the article. Removal of the names of non-notable people that died in a hotel from an article on that hotel is best done by a neutral party even if the inclusion was perhaps POV motivated. One small example of what I see when I survey the wikipedia landscape as it relates to Scientology. But that is OK. I am very much an eventualist and I think that neutral editors can be trusted to remove the worst of the WP:NOT a soapbox violations in the course of time and that knowledgable Scientologists like myself can improve the presentation of Scientology from its now somewhat unrealistic and disconnected presentation --Justanother 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but we don't care about how or why the notability was generated. Only that it's there. WP:Attribution is more important than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Putting a notable, featured article up for deletion is not the same as cleaning up an article on a hotel. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My point being that I see it much more as simple error by an editor unfamiliar with the rules of Scientology criticism on wikipedia than as some sort of WP:POINT exercise. Had I not been on wikibreak, I would have warned him of the outcome. --Justanother 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have listened to you if you had. :-) Steve Dufour 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you're making this out to be some sort of anti-Scientology thing. He is not a new editor, and there was discussion about this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. It is not only an anti-Scientology thing. The wider community has been bamboozled into buying into the whole internet misrepresentation of Scientology. Understandable given the current materialistic society, the rise of the anti-religious "New Atheists" on the 'net, and the failure of Scientology to repair the misrepresentation as of yet. Sorry again to get on my soapbox a bit. What it really is to me is just an AGF issue. Steve has proven, IMO, that he is worthy of AGF. It looks like he floated the idea of the AfD and got input from a number of the "usual suspects" (the anti-Scientologists) and a couple others and that Steve felt that perhaps the input he received was not representative of the community as a whole so he did the Afd. I just AGF that he believed that the wider community might side with him. No harm done. --Justanother 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The vote was closed after 4 hours and 7 votes. Steve Dufour 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I was looking for something else on the AN/I forum, and read through this and found myself rather surprised. In the interest of a calm, outside voice, I thought I might interject my opinion. It seems both sides are getting rather heated here, but I'm not sure that's warranted: was it a bad nomination? certainly; was it a bad faith nom? I'm not so sure. It appears to me from reading the nomination it was supported by reasoning from wikipedia policy, and though I might disagree with the reasoning of the nomination I must respect the user's right to his opinion. The fact a user holds an opinion shouldn't be counted against him. I admit I'm not familiar with the other editing conflict mentioned above, but the issue here seems to be the afd nomination. I do not think this was an instance of attempting to prove a point, and acting as if it were such in the abscence of clear evidence is being borderline uncivil. The AFD was speedily closed, per due process, the nominator said his peace and it turned out that consensus was against him. It was a one-time nomination, not, for instance, a batch of Scientology nominations in a flood; which is the usual pattern of a POV-pushing or otherwise bad-faith nominator (EG the mass-floods we get every now and again, like the sex slang one a while back, or others). It was perhaps a lapse of judgement, but consensus spoke and the user is now acting rationally and calmly. I fail to see the need here for tension... Wintermut3 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pattern of behaviour on this user's part isn't so much one of POV-pushing as concern trolling - it's not surprising that people find this vexing, as it's been going on for some time. To assume good faith on the matter of the Xenu nomination, we have to assume that (a) the user was unaware that it was a featured article, which is improbable; and that (b) he was unaware of the thousands of reliable sources supporting the article's notability, which is extremely improbable given that many of them are cited in the article. If you're going to argue for the deletion of an article on the grounds of notability, shouldn't you at least make sure beforehand that your arguments hold water? Add to that this user's contention at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Scientology overcovered? that there are too many articles on Scientology on the grounds that "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them." The basis for this argument is dubious to say the least (it's already dealt with at WP:NOT#PAPER), but it seems to be the reason for the Xenu deletion nomination. -- ChrisO 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Kzq9599 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• WPBio (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• NeilinOz1 (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)
• BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)
  

Per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kzq9599:

• Jpgordon blocked Kzq9599 as a BryanFromPalatine sock
• I blocked WPBio for following in the footsteps, edit warring at WP:BLP, tendentious editing, and because it is inconceivable that this editing pattern and this choice of articles would come from a genuinely new user
• I blocked NeilinOz1 because he is editing using proxies, editing disruptively and again following in the footsteps.

Please review. Guy (Help!) 16:36, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I endorse. The checkuser case makes a compelling argument and the three users' focus and prose style are near-identical. Even if they aren't meatpuppets, it's clear that they're here to push a POV with wikilawyering. Good blocks, Guy. A Train^{take the} 16:48, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse all of the above blocks. WP:DUCK. MastCell ^Talk 17:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser confirmed that WPBio was not a sockpuppet. Why was the checkuser case used as evidence to block him? Why are his user and talk pages protected so that he can't even appeal the block? He already stated on his talk page that he isn't a new user. He's edited in the past. Also, he has not edit warred at WP:BLP. Frise 23:53, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Because his editing pattern is identicval to that of a banned user with a history of ban evasion. Editing from a separae IP is not that hard. Guy (Help!) 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Uh, Guy, BryanFromPalatine isn't on WP:BANNED, he's just indef-blocked. If you could point me toward a reference to verify his banning, I'll add him to the page. Thanks! -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 22:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of people aren't listed on WP:BU because the edit sometimes falls through the cracks. In this case see here. Thatcher131 13:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good faith user, who was blocked indefinitely for violating 3rr once. I've gone through his contribs, and I can see that he was indeed acting in good faith. So what does he get? An indefinite block on his accounts, and a three month block on his static IP which he has already specified is shared. Granted that his 'for Brian Peppers' edit summaries did not help, but he was just trying to carry out a Jimbonian decision. I'm posting this on his behalf after extensive discussion on IRC. I believe he should be unblocked after a week's cooldown on his main account, his socks should stay blocked,and the IP should be unblocked. He's certainly not a 'YTMND troll' as referred to by David Gerard in the IP's block summary. (That violated WP:NPA even.) Discuss below. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course...he has used a load of sockpuppets which doesn't help his case. IrishGuy ^talk 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is because Klinkerhoffen feels the first block was unwarranted, which I agree. He simply violated 3rr once, which on such a new account should be treated as just giving a warning. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the indef block may have been a bit severe, he was an edit warrior. It also doesn't give him the right to create 14 new accounts and continue the same behavior. I am not the blocking admin on this one so you should probably ask Ryulong his reasoning for the block. IrishGuy ^talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also spoken to the blocked user on IRC; my suggestion to just to wait until his 3 Month block expires and monitor from there. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Me too, right now infact. So far I've found him... unconvincing. There are several holes in what he's saying and he's dodging around positive suggestions about what to do about his problem. --Deskana (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gave him some other suggestions, but he still claims that the "sockpuppet" accounts were used to get around a block that he considered unfair. Some of the things Ryulong said below (and to me in private) were confirmed by Klinkerhoffen himself, so I feel Ryulong's block was a good one in the context of the situation. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have said this several times and on each and every one of his talk pages. He was censoring specific articles because of the sexually explicit images used on articles that describe aspects of human sexuality. I was not going to block him at first, but then I saw the two "For Brian Peppers" edit summaries. And this was on the day that we received a shitton of vandalism related to that damn YTMND meme. Since then, he has returned under a dozen sockpuppets, and when he confronted me via IRC, and I asked him why he had done the two edit summaries, he told me (paraphrasing) "that he could not help himself, as Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." Gen von. Klinkerhoffen under any name is not here to contribute to the project constructively, as is evident from his wikilawyering and other forms of rules lawyering to try and get himself unblocked. It was originally just his edit warring, but now it's because he has not let go of this fact. Klinkerhoffen is not necessary for the improvement of this encyclopedia, and he has most certainly become a troll.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have trouble advocating for this individual, and come here because this was pointed out to me. I discussed the issue at hand with Ryulong and Klinkerhoffen in #wikipedia, and felt there may have been a case in his defense. The problem I have after the discussion is that Klinkerhoffen represented the following statements: that he intended to continue removing what he deemed pornography from the website, and that because there was no concensus for the images in question, they should not be placed (contrary, they were placed and given no concensus for removal or replacement). To his defense, "wikilawyering" is about all any blocked user really has to help themselves, and he does seem to have put forth a sincere effort at trying to get back on the right way, post sock-puppeting of course.

In the end, though I'm leery, I don't doubt that he will be watched upon reinstatement, and it is the newest users that tend to make the hardest mistakes. The motivation to sign up and contribute is one that I believe gives users a personal feeling to what they do, and hence the number of 3RR issues, odd entries, etc. we see from new users (and the number of contested speedy deletes, etc.). In my time of wikivigilantiasm, i've seen a lot more concerning users last through more. He's been blocked for some time, knows that when we block, we back it up, and, hey WP:AGF until he proves otherwise. Be nice to the newbies. PS, Steak and a Blowjob day only comes once in a year :) --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, based on a conversation that I missed through IRC, it appears that Klinkerhoffen is not here to contribute to the project, but remove what he deems pornographic in nature. He claims he wishes to voice his opinions on what problems Wikipedia has, but it is clear that he is only here to voice what problems he has with the project, which includes photographs (or images) of sexually explicit acts which he feels are pornography, despite the context. I stand firmly in my belief that this user will continue to act as such once the 3 month block on his IP is lifted and he is allowed to edit, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why not find out sooner and let him demonstrate intent by action? Though I don't like his statement, the context makes it seem like something that was kneejerk. Just hand him a polite notice saying "you may wish to avoid this topic entirely for a while." If it weren't for the Brian Peppers comment, I presume the block would have been much shorter to begin with, and we'd actually know by means of escalating blocks instead of spending all this time debating the issue. To some extent, now we're just wikilawyering. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it were not for the Brian Peppers comments, I would not have performed any block. I would have simply directed him to WP:NOT#CENSOR. But his use of those were a glaring "I'm not here to be productive" sign.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From my admittedly limited interactions with this person, it seems they are intent on imposing their views regarding "pornographic" content in articles and are unwilling to abide by consensus when it does not suit their views. While you could make a case that the original block was overly harsh, I have seen nothing to indicate they will refrain from disruptive behavior. —dgies^t_c 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, this person is likely the most prolific sockpuppeteer since PoolGuy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I do not believe Wikipedia would be better off with him - it seems that he is treating Wikipedia as a "political platform" of some sorts, and IMO no amount of policy citation will make him change his ways. I recomment applying WP:RBI to him should he resurface. TML 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[de-indent] Posting here to avoid archival. IRC query log with Gen. von K. here. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User:Scottfisher appears to have another sock puppet User:71.80.39.237; possibly a second: User:216.193.137.98 (based on contributions). Andy Mabbett 09:15, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nudge Andy Mabbett 12:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The article Asahi Shimbun, which was canvassed on comment in a popular Japanese blog [8], has since that comment, which suggested that to let people know of the "Asahi problem" (which in turn supposedly would help the situation on the Comfort women article, which was canvassed in the actual blog post), this article too should be edited. I have not removed the poorly written English, because I know Asahi Shimbun actually have been involved in some controversies, but when I tag the article as "disputed neutrality" and the controversies section as "not properly referenced" and "totally disputed", my edits get reverted by the same user every time, User:DDRG. He is a single purpose account who has only edited any article beside Asahi Shimbun (or its talkapge) once - and that was to participate in a revert war (Japan-Korea relations). I would like to see this user warned, his behaviour is not acceptable. Mackan 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are doing personal attack with false reason. Those were written at least in last year in Japanese wikipedia. Stop parsonal attacking. You are faffing my translation tasks. It's a holding action for Wikipedia community. Please warn Mackan for his parsonal attacking. DDRG 11:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read Japanese, so can't check the sources myself, but the section of the article does seem to be disputed. I'll restore the tag at least until there is some genuine effort to reach consensus or compromise. By the way, please focus on the content of the article, not whether the other party is "behaving childishly" or performing "criminal act"s. The language issue is probably adding to the confusion here, so if you think the other person is writing something that attacks you personally, please assume that it's a language problem, and don't respond in kind. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. Although I think Mackan is a rather combative and rude as they said here[[9]]. I have completed all citations though they were in Japanese. But there isn't any published translation of the newspaper. So I do best efforts. And if you can use translator, please read here [[10]]. What I did is only making a translation of some paragraphes of Japanse wiki. Those facts are very famous in Japan, and I think Mackan also knows them because he opposed only about citations manner. But those manner is same as The New York Times. What I can do next? And he did again the revert in antagonism to Administrators' arbitration. I think he has reached the end of our tether. DDRG 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AnonEMouse asked me for some help since I'm slightly proficient in Japanese, but I'm not exactly sure what the dispute is about and what sources need to be checked. Then again, my Japanese is not what it used to be (10 years ago, I was nearly fluent), so I'm not sure how much I can help. howcheng {chat} 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be appreciated if you just posted on the talk page. BTW, AnonEmouse, I am fluent in Japanese. Mackan 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mad kemist, a banned sockpuppet of Curious Gregor has replaced his talk page with a copy of my userpage, complete with commented-out blocks of biographical material [11]. This is not as flattering as Tim.Boyle & Curious Gregor's copying the commented-out material (e.g. the "ceci n'est pas un userbox" joke) from my page onto theirs (Tim.Boyle 16:07, 25 March 2007, Curious Gregor 18:16, 27 March 2007, Mad kemist is clearly just harassment. Note: I do not claim that the User:Curious Gregor/User:Tim.Boyle code copying is in anyway inappropriate. Tim.Boyle has explained that his userpage was created with code contributed by Mad kemist, a student that had been impersonating him on Wikipedia 12:25, 26 March 2007. I'd be more than angry if a grad student was banned from Wikipedia while impersonating me, Tim.Boyle makes friendly userbox change edits to Mad kemist's userpage 10:21, 26 March 2007. Pete.Hurd 15:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pete I found I liked your layout and realising you knew how to write wikicode I used your page as a basis of mine. I had not realised there were editted out bits, but as they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS does anyone else find this Curious Gregor userbox to be unnecessarily inflammatory? [12]:

This user despises people who use American spellings.

Pete.Hurd 15:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of fact, I am from England and the corruption of our language by America is a massive bugbear of mine that induces great fury. - Curious Gregor - Synthesis for all 12:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes should not be used to promote hate, or dispising. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off main subject But can they be used for humour without everyone getting upset?

NO!	This user is proud NOT to be an American...They'll kill us all!

as seen on my user pagePedro |  Talk  15:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YES!	This user is proud to be an American...We'll kill you all! Muuuuaaaaaahahahaha!

WAS 4.250 15:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the last one could be funny, depending on who uses it, but all three are divisive and inflammatory. An MfD would probably be best. --Deskana (talk) 17:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You see, I find the recreation of that box by WAS 4.250 to be very funny. I think we spend too long looking at what may offend certain groups and not enough time building an encyclopedia. If you find any of the above divisive and inflammatory I might sugest Wikipedia isn't the place for you (not a personal comment to Deskana - a general one). There's far more mud and rocks slung around this place in edit wars that really is inflamatory. I seem to remember a lovely war between User:Jeffpw and User:Zoe (now retired) when she (as an admin!) removed content from his user page. Anyhow, I guess one persons humour is another ones insult and this is off subject. Just shoving in my 2 cents (or pence!!!)

I have scanned every fair use images and found all of them that are being displayed on a user page. There are 2843 fair use images on 4247 user pages. The full list of such images and the userpages they are on can be found here: User:HighInBC/FU_in_userspace. It is complete as of today. Images in Category:Fair use images used with permission have been filtered out already. So if you are bored, that is something to do. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get cracking on those. Is there any way that we could get a public service message in the Signpost reminding editors that fair use images are a no go for userspace? Failing that, HIB, do you want to post a reminder at the Village Pump about this? A Train^talk 16:39, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the beef with this? Can we just go removing the pictures from userpages, or do we ask the user first? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think we can remove the images immediately - after all, it's copyright law we are dealing with. Of course, I think we should tell the user when we remove the images why we did so. x42bn6 Talk 16:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was overwhelming consensus at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Durin and fair use image removals last year. But prepared to be flamed regardless. --Iamunknown 19:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a template, Template:FUUser to leave on talk pages of users who have images removed. Any input and improvements are welcomed. A Train^talk 16:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think userspace should be in there somewhere, because the images might be on subpages which technically aren't their user page. But I think this could be confusing because not all newcomers know about namespaces. x42bn6 Talk 16:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good thought. A Train^talk 17:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also: If you're going through HiBC's list, don't forget to remove images and users from the list once you've purged the images. A Train^talk 17:19, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• See also Wikipedia:Bots/Requests_for_approval/BJBot 3. Picaroon 17:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we get a list of all fair use images in all namespaces except the main (minus the exceptions)? --Iamunknown 19:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The query.php interface lets you specify a single namespace or all of them. I can alter my script later to list all namespaces other than the main space, but there will be many more false positives. I thought I would start with the user space as that is where most of them seem to be. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 19:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User HighInBC put this not on his report page "Important note: some templates such as {{Money}} put an image in the fair use category even if it may be appropriately licensed or in the public domain. I will be attempting to screen out these categories as best I can but please check to be sure an image is only fair use before removing them from a page." And yet when I logged in someone removed a PD image tagged with the money template from my userspace (I uploaded, which is why it is in my gallery.) If people are going to take this task on as busy-work, don't do it as a bot, ok? SchmuckyTheCat 19:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• A minor idea, not from an administrator: rather than removing the image, how about replacing it with an image which has a big picture saying "Sorry" and smaller "click for info why your picture was removed". The linked picture, would explain about the rules in an apologetic sort of way. Might reduce the rage from editors many of whom acted in good faith. Notinasnaid 14:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting confirmation/discussion from my fellow administrators regarding my actions in relation with user:Asucena. The user keeps on editing in what appears to be violations of WP:COI, WP:POV, and WP:POINT. Most recently, the user re-added POV edits to the article Move America Forward four times in 24 hours. The user is well aware of 3RR. Further, the user is returning AfD tags on an article closed as keep. Please note the edit summary. Lastly, I think I am trying my best to be respectful and cordial, and the user decides to remove explanations of policies that they are actually well aware of, calling it censorship. The last is not much of an issue, for there is a record of them having seen it.

I have placed a 48 hour block for the combination of violations.

With the user a self-professed employee of the PNA, I am bringing this up here for a more thorough discussion. Thank you. -- Avi 18:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The block looks like a good call. I'm concerned about the surrounding dynamics. Has anyone checked the bona fides on this editor? Note the links from this Signpost tipline:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#Wikipedia:_target_for_jihadists.2C_source_for_U.S._Government_intelligence Also, Grace Note's persistent and aggressive refusal to WP:AGF has been fanning the flames. I've already asked that editor to tone things down with no success. More eyes and more opinions would be helpful here. Durova^Charge! 21:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted on your talkpage, Avi, an admin blocking a user they are involved in a content dispute with is not a good idea. You don't seem to accept that, which is a worry. I believe the block was entirely justified, although 24 hours would have been sufficient, but I think you should have noted the problem here and allowed someone else to make the block. Allowing yourself to be painted as abusive is not a good idea when dealing with a troll.

Durova, I have left you a note on your talkpage. Your comment is entirely unacceptable. People have to be permitted to disagree with each other without then finding that the people they disagreed with mischaracterise them and attack them in other places. Grace Note 05:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to Grace Note at my user talk page and have no apologies for the comment above, which I believe is merited by that user's actions. Durova^Charge! 13:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if this is really against some policy, but I somehow feel this is surely against the project spirit.

user Jeffpw has settup an (IMHO) offensive message on his user page[13] (using an equally offensive edit summary), where he equates "well meaning wikipedians'" to an anus.

I have edited his page to something else, and left him a message explaining that the previous version of the page was not a good thing.

He removed my comment, and some others, classifying them as "useless garbage" in the edit summary[14]. and reverted his user page to the (IMHO) offensive version[15].

I proffered to ask for some intervention here instead of edit-warring over this user's own userpage. As I said, I don't know for sure if some policy was violated, but his page simply doesn't seem ok.

(User:Jeffpw's last edit summaries seems to show that he's not in a good mood lately. )

--Abu badali ^(talk) 20:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, while you were probably typing this, Jeff changed his userpage as a compromise. Your description is no longer accurate nor is his userpage now offensive. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 20:31, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He just moved the attack elsewhere, now directly targeting me.

I no longer have the guts to deal with this kink of behavior. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) 3 hour block. Follow up if problems resume. Durova^Charge! 20:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followup. See this edit summary. Corvus cornix 21:17, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm he seems very agitated. I've reverted and protected for the duration of the block. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:21, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you both. Durova^Charge! 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The message at the top of his talk page doesn't give me the confidence he'll make any attempts at cooperative editing. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check for yourself and assume good faith. Jeffpw 12:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need is some hope. --218.186.8.10 12:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is probably the most astute observation made yet in this fiasco. Thank you, anon IP. And my apologies to the community for being offensive. I have shared with a few people what is going on with me, and wil try not to take my own problems out on anyone else again. This is my last comment on the subject. Jeffpw 12:52, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you never took Spanish. Now, if you excuse me, I have to investigate a cookie problem. --218.186.8.10 12:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Last comment by me mysteriously has disapeared and been salted???? Hmmm...WP:CABAL.. User:Jeffpw is a very solid editor, and although the block was justified (IMHO), the current state of his user page is way calmer than a lot of user pages round here. Isn't this debate now flogging the deceased equine? Pedro |  Talk  13:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this thread, Daniel Brandt is again posting to Talk:Daniel Brandt; some editors have tried to remove his comments while others have reverted them [16] [17] [18] [19] [20]. Once and for all, does "banned" mean banned (in which case several editors need a trout slap), or does "banned" mean banned (unless you are Daniel Brandt). Thatcher131 21:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really think that banned users shouldn't be allowed to edit , at all, for any reason. If he has something to say he can email the office. Allowing banned users to enter into discussions sends entirely the wrong message. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Venus Envoi and user:Kangaroo Courtier are SPAs, probably Brandt. Don't know about User:Weena Eloi ... Corvus cornix 21:23, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've semiprotected the talk page for two weeks and posted a request that Mr. Brandt submit WP:BIO issues via the Foundation. Any living person who is the subject of a Wikipedia biography article has a legitimate right to raise that type of issue. The proper venue for a banned editor is via the Wikimedia Foundation. Let's choose our words carefully and avoid making a bad situation even more confrontational. Durova^Charge! 21:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Theresa and Durova completely. Brandt does not become an exception to the rules just because he makes more of a fuss than anyone else- posts by banned users should be reverted on sight. He is free to email his concerns... WjBscribe 21:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned means banned. If he wants to correct factual inaccuracies he should use back channels. Guy (Help!) 21:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Due to the bad blood that already circulates here let's express that diplomatically. The article talk thread about this started on a sour note. Mr. Brandt has as much right as anyone to express his BLP concerns. Let's point him in the appropriate direction for his circumstances. Durova^Charge! 21:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He knows already. This has been ongoing for ever! Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

I don't see what the big deal is, if he's only editing the talk page of his own article, and only doing so to correct inaccuracy or point out unreliable sources. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 22:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. He should be allowed to point out problems with his article on the talk page, banned or not. The letter of policy doesn't matter; we aren't robots, we are able to think and adapt as the situation requires. If we are going to insist on having an article against his wishes, we should at least have the common courtesy of allowing him to edit the talk page. There is no reason to remove his comments just to be vindictive, while claiming "Oh, it's policy, I have no choice." You do have a choice. Just let it go. Frise 23:26, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned == not allowed to edit the encyclopedia. Should he have concerns, there are e-mail addresses he can contact. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree fully with Thatcher, Theresa, JzG, and Deskana, and I'm finding it hard to understand why people keep restoring his posts instead of just accepting that as a banned user he can e-mail his concerns to any admin and/or to the Foundation. It's not as if upholding the rule against letting banned users edit has to lead to inaccuracies in the article. There's a certain procedure he can follow if he wants to report a problem. Let him follow it. ElinorD (talk) 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's very simple: If it is so absolutely imperative that he be allowed to edit, then figure out some way to get him officially unbanned by arbcom/the foundation, either from just his talk page or from Wikipedia as a whole. Until then, stop violating policy and common sense by letting the banned troll post. --tjstrf talk 01:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reality is he only needs to post and then to a large extent whether or not his posts are removed is irrelevant because as long as they remain in the history anyone can look at them and decide whether his BLP concerns are worth investigating and/or acting upon. If the wikimedia office are willing to present his BLP concerns to the editors on the talk page (removing legal threats, personal attacks on third parties etc) that would be great but if not then I would rather see his edits on the talk page though I dont support the restoring of these edits iof another user removes them, SqueakBox 01:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) I am aware that Mr. Brandt has already been informed of the site's banning policy and I see no need to either carve out an exception for him or to wring our hands about it. There is nothing special going on here; people get sitebanned all the time and people who are the subject of Wikipedia biographies contact the Foundation all the time. A calm and evenhanded approach is best here. Respectfully, Durova^Charge! 02:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Banned means someone isn't allowed to edit Wikipedia. This doesn't affect their ability to report BLP or accuracy issues which can still be sent in through email. He's still able to share his concerns if he's banned without posting to the wiki, so I don't see a reason to compromise the ban to allow for something he can already do while banned. - Mgm|^(talk) 11:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing an article talk page is not the same as editing an article. AFAIK, the talk page of his article is the only place he edits. How far are you people willing to go to continue to persecute this individual. Killa Kitty 11:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please refactor the word persecute. I have had no involvement in this issue other than to semiprotect the talk page. That certainly doesn't count as persecution. Durova^Charge! 13:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brandt policy

User:Veesicle has made a proposal on this talk page suggesting that the banning policy should be amended to allow people to comment on articles about themselves. Just a heads-up. >Radiant< 12:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has reverted/deleted/re-worded TechCrunch#Criticism 17 times. In fact, that is his entire contribution to Wikipedia. His reverts are in direct violation of the agreed terms of this Mediation cabal, which he declined to participate in. The purpose of the mediation cabal was to determine the wording of TechCrunch#Criticism, largely for his benefit.

The user has been repeatedly warned on his talkpage, and every effort has been made to engage him in reasoned discussion. I submit this account only exists to vandalize TechCrunch#Criticism and suggest that it be deleted.

Any response is appreciated, we have been trying to deal with this since January 23, and we are exhausted. Thank you, Jonathan Stokes 23:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notified him about it, hope he takes it to heart. BuickCenturyDriver (Honk, contribs, odometer) 03:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This user does not seem to respond to any sort of response. He/she appears to only edit the article and its talk page. x42bn6 Talk 17:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, may I point out that his editor is not a vandal, but a tendentious editor. Although it may appear that I am splitting hairs (because we do not want editors from either category), down the road it will be important. If this editor does not change his ways & is indefinitely blocked, we'd look foolish if when he complains that we labelled his edits as vandalism & argued that we didn't respect his POV. (All of the worst pains-in-the-behind do this.) If we say that this is a single-purpose account & that he has refused to engage you in conversation, so we had no option except to block him, then he looks foolish. ("I was blocked on Wikipedia. They're all jerks!" -- "Did you try to discuss your opinions with anyone?" -- "Well, er...") -- llywrch 20:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Llywrch, x42bn6, and BuickCenturyDriver. So far, the user has stopped editing, so with any luck, this will become a non-issue... Fingers crossed, Jonathan Stokes 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Invalid request to block. Wikipedia:Blocking policy is not for this purpose.

Frise (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) used her first edit in nearly a month (of an already sporadic editing history) on an admin's talk page regarding a new editor's block.[21] As a non-regular contributor and a person who is also interested in changing BLP (as the others sock puppets related to that block) it is strange for a non-interested person to make his first edit in a while back on an admin's page citing that checkuser. Her first ever edit was removing material citing BLP, which is pretty good for a new account to know for their first edit.[22] Her second ever edit was the redirect of his talk.[23] User was asked if he had any other accounts, but declined to reply.[24] A check user did not show any connection IP to the other sock puppets.

I find this user's editing interest in a blocked sock puppet, advancing editing skills, and refusal to reply if she has another account to be troublesome. WP:SOCK is not forbidden, but for the sake of transparency it would be nice if a temporary block on the account would force some accountability (meaning telling what her other wiki account is). Arbustoo 04:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, let me get this straight: You have already had me checkusered, but it turned up nothing. So now what you want to do is have someone block me until I cough up some username that doesn't exist, so you will know if I'm doing something that's not forbidden. And all of this is because I have advanced editing skills and defended a guy who I feel was improperly blocked. That's... something. Frise 05:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Frise, a check user means the IP doesn't show a connection. That's all it means. Feel free to explain why your first edit in a long time concerned the banned account and why you cited policy in your first ever edit. Arbustoo 06:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with Frise here. The argument seems to be "He is doing something acceptable, and a checkuser result confirmed that it wasn't abusive, but we should force him to stop doing it anyway". That is very strange. -Amarkov moo! 05:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the spirit of openess, when inquiring about a sock puppet block you should admit your other accounts. WP:SOCK allows role accounts in certain instances. While it is not explicitly forbidden, in this case the edits/socks are tied to User:BryanFromPalatine, a perm. banned/disruptive sock puppet, and Frise is arguing to unblock another BryanFromPalatine tied account, which admitted to having, but did not give the name of the previous accounts.[25]. Arbustoo 06:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find this extremely strange... If the user doesn't want to admit his previous account, (if he has one), and has all legitimate edits on the current one, I don't see any reason why you are bothering him. Im pretty sure it is covered under Right to vanish. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 08:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, and please feel free to disregard it, but... am I the only one who thinks a poll on 4/1/7 is just BEGGING for problems? It seems to me that doing anything on April Fools Day gives ammunition to whichever "group" doesn't prevail on it... <whine> "But it was done on April Fool's Day! It can't be any good!" </whine> Philippe 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, for Smee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), tendentious editing crossed a clear line into harassment just before I went on a wikibreak last week. Before I left I reported the escalation of the harassment to wikistalking to an admin, User:Jersey Devil (JD), that had previously warned Smee about this selfsame activity. Smee disregarded that warning (below) and continued to follow me around to a degree that eventually reached the level of stalking:

Do not come to my talk page to continue your fight with Justanother. Do not follow the user around wikipedia to begin fights, it is disruption and your fights have already taken up large amounts of space on AN/I. I suggest you avoid the user because if you follow him around to start fights as you did on my talk page I will enforce policy. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

I returned yesterday and saw that JD had asked me to take this complaint here so here it is. My desired outcome is that User:Smee respect me as an editor and respect my edits. I have in the past allowed myself to take an inappropriate tone with tendentious and harassing editors when their offensive activity was directed at me. That is a fault that I: 1) took a 24-hour block for from JD (while User:Smee saw no censure of her disruptive editing) and 2) prior to that had vowed to address. I specifically addressed the issue with User:Smee immediately prior to her wiki-stalking me so that shows me that simple discussion of the issue is to avail. I suggest an appropriate block to ensure that User:Smee "gets it". Thank you. Below are the particulars (mostly copied from User talk:Jersey Devil):

18 March - Smee is warned by JD to not follow me "around wikipedia to begin fights".

20 March - Smee votes to delete a category I just created that I had put up for suggestions on a rename: Diff

21 March - Smee warns me of WP:BITE for my replying in a pretty friendly sarcasm to a sarcastic remark by someone that, despite being a little new, is clearly a mature editor. Diff

• Interjecting here. I was not being sarcastic in my first comment ever to an active Wikipedia discussion, and appreciated Smee's support. Maturity, however, is not something I am usually accused of, so I must express my thanks, Justanother :) ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps sardonic then is the better word? Or you tell me please. Point being that I simply responded in kind and there was no intention to bite. Did I scare you? --Justanother 15:43, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Re-affirming without re-engaging Justanother that I was not being sarcastic nor sardonic in my Strong Keep for the Tilman Hausherr article. It was legitimate enthusiasm. I truly appreciated Smee's WP:BITE comment. ClaudeReigns 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ah. Then I enthusiastically replied. --Justanother 21:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Justanother's enthusiasm was why I felt Smee's WP:BITE comment was warranted. ClaudeReigns 21:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, CR, I won't press you on that any further. Though I repeat that your history and style show you be a much more robust editor (add that to "mature") than might need such protection as one would provide a "weak sister". Would you not agree? The main point is that Smee should have not been the one to warn me if warning was warranted, IMO, given his history with me and the recent warning for him to back off. And it got worse from there and clearly shows a pattern of WP:HARASS. --Justanother 22:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two above did not really set off my radar that Smee had no intention of following JD's advice but it got worse.

21 March - I respond to the BITE "warning" and then I remember that Smee has been warned against picking fights and I mention that. Smee deletes that bit of news, claiming "personal attack". Diff

21 March - Smee follows me to User:Sm1969's talk page to try to sow discord between us, IMO while outrightly accusing us if conspiring. Talk about picking fights!. Diff

23 March - I will just copy my posts from JD's page.

It gets worse - WP:STALK

Please see the edit history of these two articles [26] and [27] starting with my edits today March 23 and my comment below as posted in article talk which sums up my problem. And it is a problem. Now I cannot even go to a completely uninvolved article and make good edits without instant reversion and subsequent edit-warring by Smee. And this is just after I thought that Smee and I had come to some sort of agreement with Smee promising to reform. Just more of the usual smoke and mirrors on her part, I guess.

Ms. Smee. I am obviously angry that you followed me over to these articles to edit-war and fight with me. I think that it would have shown good grace and good faith on your part had you simply let my edits stand. You should have just waited; not raced over here because I made an edit. That is abusive. I do not care how many articles you have on your watchlist. The point is that these two are not articles that you have any real history in; I made an edits; you raced over to revert them. This is about you, Ms. Smee, not me and I think I have done an admirable job of controlling my anger and simply stating the offenses in the edit summaries for ease of locating them later. --Justanother 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

--Justanother 18:24, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please help. Thanks. --Justanother 14:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure to what extent I'm supposed to further comment on this ANI, being mentioned and all, but should my perspective on conflicts between these two editors be desired, please contact by email. ClaudeReigns 14:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another perspective

I've noticed that Justanother is accusing Smee of stalking him based somewhat on his interpretation of Jersey Devil's comments. When I look at the comments to both editors from him, the impression I get is that Jersey Devil doesn't want to be involved in this kind of dispute. He told Smee not to post about it on his talk page anymore, he didn't say to stop posting about it period. He asked Justanother to post his concerns here rather than on his talk page too.

Moreover Justanother's accusations of stalking and harassment are not exactly accurate. He may feel harassed but that is because Smee has been trying to hold him accountable for some of Justanother's nad nehavior, which Justanother does not want to do.

Actually if anyone is being stalked and harassed, it's Smee by Justanother. I self nominated for admin on WP:RFA where Smee voted. Justanother added his vote too, which is fair enough since all are welcome to do so. He however chose to harass Smee as well by leaving a questionable comment under her vote: Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship#Anynobody.

For a person who says he's tired of arguing with Smee, he does strange things, Anynobody 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that Handicap on wheels, who also happened to be at my house yesterday :( , had a username similar to Willy on Wheels, and his block was completely justified. [28] But aren't we supposed to be assuming good faith with all editors? This user picked the name "Handicap on wheels" because--well...he's handicapped and on a wheelchair! Is it possible to change the blocking policy to say that an admin can't block on sight until a suspected vandal edits? --Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I declined the unblock because this still implies a vandalism account, and will distract people from the encyclopedia, any On wheels, post or pre fix will do the same Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But any user with an *oW suffix should be given the same benefit of the doubt as with any other user. That is the principles established in WP:AGF--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not when we've had so many issues in the past with it, and not when it's clearly written in policy that any name which implies a past vandal is blocked on sight. However hard people try to assume good faith with this name, many will still see it as a Willy on wheels vandal Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 15:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Usernames referring to illnesses or disabilities are not allow either per WP:U#Illness. The admin should have done a soft block for a username, I have changed it so a new account can be made. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 15:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another example of how people block with ACB on. I'm also finding a lot of reports on WP:AIV for usernames that are not blatant violations of the username policy, but are perhaps not even violations at all. --Deskana (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same may be true for WP:RFCN, it sometimes seems as if there is an insular group of well-intentioned but quick-triggered folks who are blocking (or advocating the block of) usernames that are not reasonably offensive. The "someone might find it offensive" argument seems to be very popular, and I urge wider watchlisting of the page to help make sure that good noobs aren't being chased off. It's often very helpful to have outside insight in these discussions from people who aren't part of the daily WP:RFCN grind, one reason I've begun participating lately, but I'm just zis guy, you know? And the longer I stay there, the more I risk falling into a rut too. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently. I deleted the page Michael S. Greco that was a blatant copyright infringement off their website, although it was clearly a notable person. It was created by the account User:ABAORG (Username vio?) Anyway, then I get this email from them:

Dear Swatjester:

My name is Jonathan Nichols, I am a current member of the American Bar Association's media board and practicing attorney. Among other sites, the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page on immediate past president Michael S. Greco, whose page was suddenly and inexplicably deleted in its entirety by you or someone using your member name. The reasoning given for this deletion was that the page consituted copyright infringement. As head of the ABA's media and publicity group, and an expert on copyright infringement as a practicing attorney, I would like an explanation behidn this lien of reasoning. Each of the three images utilized for the article on President Greco: the portrait, the Renaissance of Idealism cover, and the C-Span screen capture, were either owned by the American Bar Association (in the first two instances) or public domain (in the case of the the C-Span image). The article was written by myself and several other members of President Greco's administration and current staffers at the American Bar Association. Nothing on the page was an infringement of copyrighted laws, rules or regulations.

I am writing to formally request that this page be reinstated immediately. Law students and attorneys all over the country have written to the ABA and referenced this wikipedia page, among others, in asking more about President Greco and his activities as president and in his practice in Boston, Massachusetts and Washington, D.C., as well as his blue ribbon commission activities investigating the Bush administration and utilizing the talents of esteemed figures on both sides of the political isle. If this was in any way a politically motivated deletion, I would hope that the educational priorities of this wikipedia endeavor would trump any personal ideals. Otherwise, there is no reason for the deletion of the page, which again is directly maintained by the American Bar Association.

Please reinstate this page as soon as possible. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely, J. Nichols.

So, what to do? I replied and told them that the page was deleted because it was GFDL incompatable due to lack of attribution. I did not mention the Username issue nor the conflict of interest issue, I'll leave that to someone else. Thanks. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 15:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No matter what happens, the ABA should not be editing their own articles. Tell them that they need to release their website into the GFDL as well. Oh, and be careful with the ABA. They might take legal actions.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 15:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They don't "need to release their Web site into the GFDL." All they have to do is post a statement on the talk page licencing that particular biographical text under the GFDL. Of course, that means that the text can then be edited, rewritten and modified as a Wikipedia entry. FCYTravis 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• They've be maintaining a page about Mr. Greco and want it restored because it is essentially used as an advertisement for the American Bar Association and his "blue ribbon commission activities"? Sounds like an extreme corporate conflict of interest. You may wish to explain to them that we are attempting to develop and neutral encyclopedia (maybe don't give them that link, it's a bit much) to give away free to everyone. To do that, we try to develop our own articles and discourage editors who may have a conflict of interest from editing articles related to that interest. --Iamunknown 16:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed a couple instances now where User:ABAORG claims that the ABA maintains this article, as if it is some sort of ownership.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a real lawyer would know his request has no authority behind it. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, C-SPAN caps are NOT in the public domain. It is not government-owned, it is owned by a consortium of cable companies and was created to placate the FCC. Common misconception, but the fact that it holds copyright over all its broadcasts was clearly revealed in the fallout of the 2006 White House Correspondents' Association Dinner. I will say that the quality of the writing and argument is pretty far from anything I've ever seen out of any lawyer in the firm that I work for... —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 16:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Obviously, Swatjester and HighInBC type faster than me. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you sure that the e-mail is legitimately from Jonathan Nichols and that he is who he says he is? The spelling, grammar and occasional poor diction do not suggest that this is a practicing lawyer on the board of the ABA. It could be a hoax. What domain did the e-mail come from? Moreover, it is not your place to represent Wikipedia to the ABA. Big deal, you're an admin on Wikipedia. That and $1.35 will get you a cheap cup of coffee. You might give him a courtesy reply and explain relevant Wikipedia policies but you should also redirect his query to the Wikimedia Foundation. If he really is a "legal eagle", let him duke it out with our legal eagles. --Richard 16:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out this web page. Do you see a "Jonathan Nichols" listed? I don't. Why not forward the e-mail you received to [mail:abanews@abanet.org them] and ask if it's a legit request? And then, if they say it is, redirect them to the Wikimedia Foundation. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd forward that e-mail to the Foundation and request advisement. Durova^Charge! 16:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be okay with you all if I rewrote the article? I'm not an admin, so I'm less vulnerable to the ABA's claims of unilateral action. However, you admins might be more open to attack.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how being an admin or not being an admin has anything to do with it. It should be acceptable for you to rewrite the article. Go for it. --Richard 16:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's up on eletion review at the moment now. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Durova, what's the foundation's email? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I deleted the offending images too, two of which contained explicit copyright notices in the image and no licensing information or FU rationale, and one of which was a C-span screen capture tagged as "public domain". I'd think a lawyer would understand the concept of that. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the simplest way.[29] Note your username in the heading and what this is about, possibly send it attention Cary Bass. Durova^Charge! 16:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we can hook this guy and the Hamas chick up, and they can edit each other's articles? - Crockspot 16:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, looks like it's a hoax too, because when I forwarded it, it showed the email for ABAORG as ahannigan123 at yahoo dot com .Doesn't seem like a J nichols or the ABA to me. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Email the ABA anyway...they might have some interest with the article.--Ed ^{¿Cómo estás?} 16:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this email came from the person in claimed to, the key point would be "the ABA has maintained a wikipedia page" -- under WP:OWN no one person or entity "maintains" any wikipedia page, it must be released under the GFDL so that it is free for anyone to edit, If this is a Hoax, as seems not unlikely from the above, it can simply be ignored. Contacted that ABA to tell them that someone apparently copied their web pages and someone else claimed that this was authorized, but wikipeda has deleted the copied content seems like a reasonable idea. DES ^(talk) 17:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I indefblocked Cockerstar (talk · contribs) on the basis of inappropriate username. I then got an email from this user saying that his name has something to do with a paintball gun called an "autococker". I am aware that "to cock" can be a completely non-sexual and non-offensive verb, but is the username "Cockerstar" appropriate? Thank you for your input. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure myself, but you could post the name at WP:RFCN for input from others. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 16:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a legit thing: http://www.google.com/search?&q=Cockerstar+paintball - Denny 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless I'm mistaken, Cockerstar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s one and only edit was vandalism, shouldn't that supersede any discussion about their username?--VectorPotential^Talk 16:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. Look at his one contribution: [30]. Either the Aztec scholars have a big surprise coming to them, or we should keep him indefinitely blocked per the Wikipedia:Username#Blocking section on borderline inappropriate usernames coupled with vandalism. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC) (Er ... what VP said. Darn slow 'net connection. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I was thinking that one edit could have been a test. Maybe I'm taking WP:AGF too far.. --Fang Aili ^talk 16:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, didn't see the contrib. Nevermind then. Who knew the Mayans worshipped a guy from the United States that apparently is a paintball star? - Denny 16:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay guys, the username is not offensive. If you want to indefinitely block someone over a single case of vandalism, then I can't stop you (even though it's grossly inconsistent with typical practices), but autocockers (or cockers) are extremely well-known in paintball. I can see the logic in asking about it. Blocking based on it was incredibly premature and inappropriate. And using it in any capacity to decide whether or not to unblock is just plain wrong. If you think that indefinite blocks based on a single act of vandalism are very typical and normal, then so be it. But, if not, then you really need to lift the block. Bladestorm 16:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the comments here and at WP:RFCN, I'm unblocking this user. There seems to be a rough consensus that the username is ok, but the vandal edit was not (obviously), but since there was only one edit, I am unblocking. Cheers all, Fang Aili ^talk 16:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nifty! Thanks. :D Bladestorm 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• This is more of a point of clarification, but aren't usernames using two-way words in questionable ways also verboten? I mean there are lots of words for everything from cats to sports equipment that also are euphamisms... Wintermut3 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some editors are continually trying to remove a source since the inception of the article. One of the current one removing the source was even banned for violating the 3RR rule. They are trying to remove the following peer reviewed article.

“Mark, Whittaker (2006-08-31). "Tamilnet.com: Some Reflections on Popular Anthropology, Nationalism, and the Internet". Anthropological Quarterly’’.archive of article

Anthropological quarterly is peer reviewed journal not a self published magazine. The author Mark Whitaker. Associate Professor Department of Anthropology University of South Carolina. Can an Admin get involved to resolve this dispute as it looks pretty much like WP:Vand and using Wikipedia as a Battleground because of personal opinion. Thanks RaveenS 17:33, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm not sure how to give out a proper set of warnings to this character: User_talk:87.167.233.5, 87.167.215.187, User talk:87.167.220.117, 87.167.230.46, and User talk:87.167.239.105 among others. The vandalism/spam can be found [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], and [45]. He continues to argue his point about the genre of the article [46], [47], and also at the album article [48], [49], [50], and [51]. Which is why I haven't reported him or her as a vandal. He or She has received five warnings total on different IP addresses, they are listed above. I've tried to rationalise/compromise with him or her, however, he or she has not understood that changing the genre over and over again will only make more work and load for the wikipedia people and servers. Should I put future warnings on every IP address talk page? That seems quite daunting. I await your advice on this matter. Thank you for your time.--JUDE ^talk 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Figuring semi-protection is the way to go -- hopefully forces discussion. I saw a few other anon editors, but they also seemed to be participating in this revert war, so not sure how much of a concern locking the page down is. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Is it time to nuke the unreferenced Power Pop article? Guy (Help!) 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problematic user who seems hellbent on changing every instance of "Korea and Japan" to "Japan and Korea". He is also an active member of a 2channel thread called "Let's make resistance to the Koreans filling Wikipedia with false information" (approximate translation), whose entire purpose is to give birth to new meatpuppets and single account users, just as this one. [52] here he identifies as this user and writes: >>237にまっかちゃんが光臨してるよ。

Korea and JapanをJapan and Koreaにしただけで、SocksPapetっていう理由でRVしてる 典型的なコリアンを、彼は中立なんて擁護してて笑える。

スウェーデン云々も、ザパニーズ代わりに使ってると思われ。 本当に分かりやすい朝鮮人だよな。マッカちゃんは。 Translation (approximate) "237 (another user), you're being fooled by Mackan. All I did was changing "Korea and Japan" around to "Japan and Korea", but he reverted me with no other reason than "SocksPapet" (sic). He's a typical Korean and that somebody could call him "neutral" makes me wanna laugh. He's just pretending to be Swedish, and nobody will be fooled by that act". Obvious single purpose account/meatpuppet. Mackan 18:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may just be a simple joke, or it may be something more sinister, but this user has just commented on JuJube's Rfa and Cla68's Rfa with some fairly trollish remarks. All looks well on the surface, but it's those hidden comments which concern me. Looking over the user's contribs, there doesn't seam to be much constructive editing. Any idea's? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now he's nominated someone for adminship and attempted to "bribe" Ryan. It's a kid, I'll bet, but he's pretty disruptive. I'll have a talk with him. A Train^talk 23:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I seem to have a problem with J intela harassing me. I suspect that J intela, Aaab123, Envireprortector, User:69.113.0.225 and User:69.74.164.10 are sockpuppets. I say this because the latter two users are brand new and have only contributed to an article that J intela is editing without discussion and my user talk page and one of the IPs is a shared school IP.

An attempt to circumvent WP:3RR, I feel, is supported by J intela's edit, 69.74.164.10's edit, and Envireprortector's edit.

In addition, J intela's contribs (note the 15 consecutive posts to my talk page), Aaab123 contribs, and 69.113.0.225's contribs show not only similarities between these accounts but what I think is a concerted effort to harass me. Thank you for your time. --Chuck Sirloin 19:56, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anon user IP 68.42.110.138 reported on March 19, 2007, that Ed Walker had died. This is false, as I have personally verified by phone call today to radio station WAMU-FM, where Mr. Walker still is very much living and does a weekly radio show.

I have completely re-written the article in question, which was woefully in need of improvement anyway, and added a BLP tag (which it lacked before).

Just thought you should know, given the recent unfavorable publicity Wikipedia has had over similar instances. (WAMU-FM was unaware of the false info. about their radio personality in Wikipedia until I called to verify this) JGHowes ^talk - 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dealt with a similar incident on RC patrol - a report that Jason Priestly committed suicide (diff). I hope it doesn't become an elephant-sized plague. YechielMan 03:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It happened again with Mistah F.A.B. (diff). YechielMan 05:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

James Hetfield (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see James Hetfield), formerly Wesborland (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (see Wes Borland). This is a good faith editor, but he's using the name of a famous person in contravention of WP:USERNAME. The user was warned of this issue a month ago but hasn't acted.

I will block the old account immediately, and propose blocking the current account James Hetfield (talk · contribs) subject to approval here. --kingboyk 20:21, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd support it, but wouldn't WP:RFCN be a better place to discuss it? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not really, that seems to be a debating shop. There's no doubt that this name isn't allowable; I simply want to be sure that it's proper to block as opposed to some other softer measure. --kingboyk 20:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ny only concern with it is, the {{UsernameConcern}} template says that if the user doesn't agree with it, it should be taken to other forms of dispute resolution first before blocking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has this person just been asked politely to choose a new username and make a request at WP:CHU? That seems the 'softest' option. WjBscribe 20:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, he was advised of that in February. However, I've left another message advising him that he'll need to think of a new username. --kingboyk 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going for that option then, I'd say leave the account open for a few days and Username block if there's still no response, it can always be unblocked later Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 20:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe just wait till he does his next edits after the notice is given? If he goes idle a week or three and gets blocked in four days for not replying it sort of defeats the purpose of asking. :) - Denny 20:46, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a transcript of the attempted blocking of this user:

• 24.218.135.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)-Keeps tampering with his talk page and removed a comment from mine when I undid his reversion.--JEF 20:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• 3 months between edits? I'm inclined to believe that their ISP really did re assign them an IP with pre existing edits to wikipedia, it's happened to me in the past--VectorPotential^Talk 20:17, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

• Why would he come after me then? Also, he has posted taunting on his talk page before. He put a deltion template on his own talk page so he would not be blocked and take it off later most likely.--JEF 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Editors are given great latitude on their own Talk page. Why would this be considered vandalism? --ElKevbo 20:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He removed comments made against him to keep from being blocked last time and this time he is trying a new strategy.--JEF 20:26, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

He's almost certianly a new user, on the same IP. Why would he contribute constructively for 5 months before resorting to vandalism? To throw us off the track? The edit made to his page in October 2006 was clearly made by a different user--VectorPotential^Talk 20:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems this person is trying to cover up his actions by replacing his talk page and now attempting to delete it. Tracing the IP gave me Berkeley, California so if this doesn't change in a while well know.--JEF 20:48, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking into it, it is probably a coincidence that a comment was removed from my page the day after I reverted his talk page, and it seems to be a shared address dynamic IP.--JEF 22:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It doesn't really look like a sharedip, are you quite sure? To me, it just looks like an ordinary dynamic IP that changes owners every few months. Either way, there hasn't been a single act of vandalism from this user for several dozen weeks--VectorPotential^Talk 22:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except the removal of a comment from my page.--JEF 23:03, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can somebody have a look at Deucalionite (talk · contribs) and take action if deemed necessary? Deucalionite seems to conceive of his activities on Wikipedia as some kind of breaching experiment, as stated now on his userpage: "any questionable/dubious statements or actions on my part are solely for social experimentation purposes (i.e. studying various user-to-user behavior dynamics, facets of the inhibition effect, HCI dynamics, etc.)" ([53]). He has made similar claims before: [54], [55]. Exactly what kinds of disruptive behaviour he is envisaging is not clear at this point - he's in fact been relatively well-behaved recently. Back when he made those earlier rants it was when he had been caught red-handed at plagiarism and copyright violations. And in fact, among his latest few contributions there are again two dubious pieces. I'm not sure if it's intentional, but they are both very close paraphrases of their respective sources, so close that I would qualify them as plagiarism: Battle of Steppes from [56], and Battle of Mergentheim from [57].

I've had rather painful dealings with Deucalionite about similar issues and he's not been on speaking terms with me since then, so I'd rather not be the one to approach him this time if it can be avoided.

Thanks, --Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser has confirmed that Ferreterrera (talk · contribs) and El Rojo (talk · contribs), both participating in the edit war at Spanish language, are the same person. Can an administrator please take care of this? Dmcdevit·t 21:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed User:SteveLamacq43 has the same name as Steve Lamacq who is a famous radio DJ in the UK. Looking at his edits I don't think it can be the same guy, unless he edits Wikipedia when he's on air, and it's an unusual name. 172.159.215.5 22:01, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It could just be his name. A lot of people have the same name. —Centrx→talk • 04:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is an unacceptable personal attack by User:Belbo Casaubon: [58]. Dreadlocke ☥ 22:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked for 31 hours and suggested a cool down, after checking the contribs, there was more than one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 22:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed this user while looking at newly created pages. User page here states: To Wikipedia Staff: Do not ban. This is a new account created by the guy behind Animeguy99. I looked up Animeguy99 (talk · contribs) and found them to be a banned user. Very unusual. --EarthPerson 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reason to believe that Matt57 is Wikistalking. The first occurrence was this:[59], where he edits a page which I had been editing for quite some time, and he does not contribute to improving the article. Instead, he accuses me of trolling and basicly acts like a troll himself because he is distracting from the main point of the talk page, which is to discuss improvements to the article, not my personal views. I left him a message on his talk page telling him not to stalk me [60]. His response? "um, i'm not wikistalking". So I left it alone, but then today (March 29, 2007) I find theses two edits of his as well:

• [61]
• [62]

Again, Matt57 has no history of editing any of these articles[63]. I notified him of these two edits as well, and he responds by telling me to assume good faith and not be paranoid[64]. So I'm putting this all here, so I can see whether other people agree that I'm paranoid or not. Thanks.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth: You started out a bit paranoid, but, yes, it does look like he's stalking you. (Following you from one article to another, criticizing you over what you said in the previous one) Where you're from and your views on the holocaust aren't relevant in an article about child pornography. What you said in CP isn't relevant in Lyndie England. What you said in LE isn't relevant to Pedophilia.

I'll be honest... some of those questions were even slightly disturbing to me... but I wouldn't go following you around citing each one into the next. Bladestorm 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bladestorm and other admins, KirbyTime is requesting pictures of CHILD PORN. I dont see how I could not respond to his request. Kirby, I should have complained to the authorities here when you personally attacked me by telling me to "GTFO" and abused other users as well ([65], [66]). You can be assured I will follow up quickly with any abuse from you from now on. Regarding your allegations of STALK, how can I not be expected to raise alarm for any editor (you) who is requesting pictures of child porn, requesting pictures of Lynnie England having sex with Graner and your most recent request was to add pictures relating to Pedophilia. If someone requests pictures for child porn, what do I, walk past silently and say nothing? If anyone else raises objection to your requests for objectionable pictures on Wikipedia, are they stalking too? How am I then? The fact that I havent contributed to those articles doesnt mean that I cant participate on the Talk page of that article. Have I "stalked" any of your other edits? No I have not. I was simply very alarmed by your request to add pictures of Child Porn to Wikipedia and thus commented on that issue and other similiar requests. I dont see any other alternative way I could have dealt with this matter.--Matt57 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there's any confusion here, but just to make absolutely sure: I'm not an admin. I was merely offering the opinion of a regular editor. And it certainly wouldn't have necessarily been a bad idea to raise concerns about the requests through the appropriate channels.

However, saying that requesting kiddie porn isn't suprising just because he's from iran... or because he questions the holocaust... (I can understand you finding that offensive, but the holocaust and kiddie porn aren't in any way related) well, that's crossing the line. Especially the "This is not a surprise, considering Kirbytime is from Iran" part. That's downright racist and despicable.

And if the requests concerned you so much, you should have dealt with them through proper channels, not followed him from one article to another insulting him. I'm not saying kirby's a saint. I'm just agreeing that your own conduct was wrong; and nothing kirby might have done can change that. Bladestorm 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, well, I suppose if Ahmed Dijenedad came here himself and edited Wikipedia and denied the holocaust and requested pictures of child porn, I could'nt refer to that editing activity as well. What can I say about the freedom of expression here. Fine I will let people like Kirby request more pictures of child porn from now on and let everyone else deal with these requests. I was about to come here and warn Kirbytime for telling to "GTFO", I regret I shouldnt have been so forgiving. I'll agree with some of the points you raised about my comments on Kirby but again, this is someone who has denied the holocuast and requested pictures of Child Porn. Is there no Wikipedia policy to deal with people like that? You can see the talk page of the Child Porn issues where OTHER people have pulled out their hair besides me, telling Kirby that this is not appropriate. Ok, from now on, I will not refer to any past activity of Kirby, except where making abuse complaints. That helps?--Matt57 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I was going to reply to this, but it occurred to me that you never responded to the allegation of equating iranian descent with pedophilia. I really think that's more important than the rest of the issues. Bladestorm 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to it if you had read my response fully. Anyway, others too are finding Kirby's requests for Child Porn pictures disturbing and that is basically what I had done too. I will not continue this discussion further unless an administrators requires me to. --Matt57 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I first saw those articles, I was surprised they didn't have any pictures, given that we have pederasty, lolicon, etc. full of pictures. In any case, it is totally irrelevant. How I personally feel about a subject is wholly irrelevant to my intention of improving the article.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Bladestorm that Matt is stalking. The first diff Kibrytime provided makes this clear for example. Posting this diff [67] on a talk page of an article to which Matt had never edited contributed before can be only stalking. --Aminz 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While it is really disturbing that Kirby requests such pictures, I cannot help but notice that the first diff is incredibly prejudiced. Matt57, you should be ashamed. The Behnam 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, while I did agree with you on your talk page that I found Kirby's requests for pictures disgusting, that diff The Behnam provided is very embarrassing. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Kirby (I do myself), but equating it to the fact that he is Iranian is way out of line. MetsFan76 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My main point was that he had denied the holocaust. I respect many people from Iran, including Ali Sina, Parvin Darabi but I am strongly critical of anyone who denies the holocuast. I apologize if I came across as racist, that was definitely not my belief and intention. --Matt57 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the problem is that I don't reject the Holocaust. That's the whole reason I even care about this issue.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you did request that the article be moved to "Allegations of the Holocaust." Kirbytime may be trying to make a WP:POINT regarding the depictions of Muhammad issue. And Matt's comment about pedophilia and Iran may stem from the fact that Iran's supreme leader declared that all sexual acts but penetration are legal with children of any age, and penetration of children aged nine and up is perfectly legitimate. Arrow740 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't follow the specific edicts of the Supreme Leader so I don't know anything about the accuracy of that, but none of this justifies a racist attack on Iranians. The Behnam 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Depictions of Muhammad? How am I making a WP:POINT? Can you expand on that because I have no idea what you are talking about. And also, my sexual preferences are none of your business. And, I believe you may be referring to the former Supreme Leader, not the current one. Either case, I'm not a Muslim so I don't give a shit what some old guy in a beard says.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kirby, please be civil and do not use language like "I dont give a shit". --Matt57 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that the trolling accusation seems grounded in conspiracy thinking, as far as a 'payback' for Mohammad issues. The Behnam 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that incivil language? Are you offended by it? If you say yes, I will stop.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The decision reached at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Autograph books does not appear to have been enforced. Seems closing admin, IronGargoyle (talk · contribs) (who has since left) indicates that any user with less than 100 articlespace edits should have their autograph pages deleted. Can someone do this? Not a dog 23:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that there is no way I am going to be the one to check users' editcounts, delete the page, and probably have to deal with the user's injured feelings afterwards, and/or someone having their page deleted, then making enough edits to go over the 100 barrier and asking to have it back again (possibly making obviously useless edits purely for that end). In fact in writing this I've worked myself up to the point where I almost think this close should be reviewed, it being horribly against the goals of our project to say that once you've made an arbitrary number of edits to articlespace, you can have a certain type of page which has absolutely nothing to do with the encyclopaedia as a reward. Thing is, I don't really care. Oh, what the hell, I'll go and open it now before anyone goes and creates a shitstorm over these stupid things. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done: Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Autograph_books. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually did look at the first 8 or so and none of them had under 100 edits. Viridae^Talk 00:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked.

An indefinitely banned user, Burkem (possibly a lunatic, but I digress), is admittedly evading his ban, as the user Burkem17, as you can see here. Charles 00:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 00:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although it has been 2 weeks since User Kirbytime attacked me here by telling me to "GTFO" (get the fuck out) and writing a message of "WP:DICK" as a subject and in the message body, telling another user that "You dont fucking own the template", could an administrator please block him for atleast 24 hours or something to show that this abuse is not tolerated on Wikipedia? thanks. This is also the same user who has denied the holocaust and is requesting pictures of Child Porn and other lewd pictures in Wikipedia which I have reported 3 sections above where he has accused me of stalking. Many users ([68], [69]) are finding his behavior disturbing. I'm sorry I had to bother the administrators but seeing his latest reactions I could not help but report this abusive user. --Matt57 01:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know this about Kirby as well, but have you considered WP:DR? The Behnam 03:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had tried to contact the user himself but he denied he had done anything wrong. --Matt57 03:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well maybe one of the more authoritative types of DR than simply contacting. It is important to build a leveled documentation trail, if that makes any sense. The Behnam 03:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought those two instances of abuse I gave above should be enough to warrant a warning by an administrator, if not a block. If he abuses again, I will go through the DR as you mentioned. --Matt57 03:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well perhaps they should, and it is easy to find similar examples of abuse just by going through his contribs and looking at his handling of disagreement with other editors. In fact I recall him leaving a rude post on my own talk page. But I'm just telling you that DR is probably the best way to go. Or you could propose ban at CN. The Behnam 04:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've warned him. He's a troll. If he trolls anymore I'll block him. DR is not useful for trolls. Herostratus 04:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think what is really disturbing here is not just the trolling, but the fact that Kirbytime keeps requesting images that are not appropriate at all. I think this needs to be monitored. MetsFan76 04:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Herostratus, thanks. I'll keep an eye out for any further objectionable activity by Kirbytime. Its very disturbing to see his requests all over Wikipedia for child sex related pictures. He's testing Wikipedia's policies and pushing buttons.--Matt57 04:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been editing Wikipedia for over a year now, and you accuse me of trolling? So tell me, how is that helpful? Look, just because you are afraid of having pictures on an article which are directly related to the article (oh no someone is asking to improve an article by adding relevant pictures in order to make more WP:GA, better accuse him of trolling and threaten to block him). I'm sorry, wasn't there a guideline that specifically addresses this? Oh that's right assume bad faith. I have never asked for anything illegal. I have said, articles must have pictures in order to improve their quality. Please find me a single featured article which contains no pictures. And also, I have NEVER asked for photographs of rape or anything illegal. If I was doing that, it would be justified to call me a troll. But I have never asked for such a thing! I have said pictures depicting the subject, which could be anything that's even vaguely related. My own suggestion on the rape article was a picture of alcohol with a description of it being a popular date rape drug. Matt is once again making a big deal out of nothing, and repeating the same old lies.

אָחֹ֥ות לָ֙נוּ֙ קְטַנָּ֔ה וְשָׁדַ֖יִם אֵ֣ין לָ֑הּ מַֽה־נַּעֲשֶׂה֙ לַאֲחֹתֵ֔נוּ בַּיֹּ֖ום שֶׁיְּדֻבַּר־בָּֽהּ׃

???--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 08:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A reminder of staying cool for you, Kirbytime. Sarcasm will not solve problems but make them worse. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 09:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps, but when a user follows you around to every fucking article you edit and slanders you, and then if you make the tiniest grunt of irritation, threatens to have you blocked, I, as an average human being, cannot help but make rather cynical responses. I'm here to improve Wikipedia. This whole thing is a waste of my time. Instead of writing up all this shit, I could have spell-checked an article, or answered someone's question at a ref desk, or help translate an article at babel. Unlike certain users who have nothing better to do than to follow another editor around (in flagrant violation of WP:HARASS, I want to be left alone. Nobody complained when I first asked for pictures to be added to the Child pornography article, over 4 months ago Talk:Child_pornography#This_article_needs_more_pictures. I had a good discussion with some users regarding the issue; some agreed, some didn't, and each person offered his/her own opinion. But then someone can along and ruined the whole thing, and now I have to waste my time responding to frivolous accusations. And with this, I am no longer responding to this, and I will no longer speak with anyone regarding these issues. Matt, go ahead and notify every user that I have denied the holocaust, requested pictures of rape, gave a blow job to Ahmadinejad, masturbate to pictures of American soldiers dying, or whatever you can think of. I simply don't care anymore.

Der gives Folk, der i den Grad omgaaes letsindigt og skammeligt med Andres Ideer, de snappe op, at de burde tiltales for ulovlig Omgang med Hittegods.--Ķĩřβȳ♥♥♥ŤįɱéØ 09:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some advice is requested for Blueking12. He registered today and all his edits are adding various tags to articles...most of which are nonsense [70] [71] [72]. Some may be due to not knowing what he is doing, others seem like outright disruption. I have him a vandal1 warning and he seems to have stopped since then. Any ideas? Does he look like a past editor who may have been disruptive? IrishGuy ^talk 01:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the tags added in the diffs provided makes me believe this is not a "new" user. That said, there's no reason not to WP:AGF, but I'd think it would be right to leave the appropriate sequence of templates if the user continues to add inappropriate tags. --Onorem 02:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if this edit I made was the proper thing to do. The anon admits to be a previously-banned user who has been making accusations of murder against Anna Nicole Smith's boyfriend, and has now engaged in an anti-Semitic rant. If you feel that my action was improper, please let me know, and I will add it back. Corvus cornix 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were correct. --tjstrf talk 02:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the user history for Benji1996, especially the repeated nonsense related to Jimmy Buffett as being a children's musician. The user clearly has some sort of agenda and has caused several folks to waste a lot of time reverting nonsense. Some sort of block appears to be in order. I did not post this to the AIV page because they usually say to go here instead, so I apologize if I am posting this in the wrong place. 1995hoo 02:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vunvjorhimm (talk · contribs)
With his/her sock puppets they are making a mockery of the AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Entarians. Also the article in question needs to be deleted. It has been tagged as a speedy delete forever.--Bryson 03:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Full list of socks seen so far. User is also adding citations to sources which do not actually say any of the things he claims them to say in violation of WP:ATT.

• Vunvjorhimm (talk · contribs) [73][74]
• Hessosuwonae (talk · contribs) [75]
• 153.90.117.3 (talk · contribs) [76]
• 153.90.125.166 (talk · contribs) This comment [77] on Talk:Koreans almost identical to what Vunvjorhimm said on the Afd
• Flyingdannish (talk · contribs) [78]

Can this be reported to Montana State University as network abuse? cab 04:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could someone have a peek at Boatnick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)?

Given that his very first contribution was to add a template with the edit summary "This Biography is bias and in need of work. Currently a wiki gang of Dem's own this article with lame sockpuppet excuses, effectivly locking out efforts to netrualize the POV pushers.", I have a strong suspicion that this editor is a sock of somebody.

He's gotten involved in an edit war on Peter Roskam. Does anyone recognize this editing pattern as belonging to a specific puppeteer? If there's someone who recognizes this as a definite sock, please jump in and block. I don't have time at the moment to investigate properly. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 04:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, definitely a sock of DeanHinnen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) / BryanFromPalatine (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). On his second edit he removes an edit made by his nemesis, Fairness And Accuracy For All (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), on the basis that he has been banned (which he was, today, though his edit was made several months ago, and removal of edits by banned users is not retroactive). Guy is the expert on this conflict, so he'll be able to confirm, methinks. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 04:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict, agree with above) Given that he went after User:BenBurch and User:Fairness And Accuracy For All ([79], [80]), I'd suspect User:BryanFromPalatine. Regardless, the User:Boatnick account falls pretty close to the category of "Obvious, disruptive sock puppet", which (per WP:RFCU) warrants a block without the need for checkuser or further investigation. MastCell ^Talk 04:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack block—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, this is weird. A while back I got angry at User:Anynobody making an issue of my religion in his every objection or disagreement that we had over editing and wikipedia policy. I blew my stack and let loose with some choice words, diff. I jokingly asked for some personal data on him so I could "return the favor". As in, "You are misapplying WP:V because you are a [fill in the blank]" as he had been doing with me. Obviously I did not expect him to give me any personal info. Anyway, now he has the quote up on his user page with my name redacted to poke fun at my words, here. I edited his page to add my name and a diff so that the context was clear. We had a discussion (see User talk:Justanother#Thought you'd be ashamed...) and the upshot was that he reverted it back to the way it was before, here. Before taking this to AN/I, I asked him nicely to remove the quote from his talk page if he will not provide proper attribution and context, here. He has been online there since but has not replied. I object to my words being used in this fashion without attribution or context but I do not know if I have the proverbial "leg to stand on" here. Any help/advice is appreciated. At best it is a little bit upsetting to me to have my words taken out of context and misrepresented on someone's user page. --Justanother 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't the best place to put this. Consider WP:RFC more suitable, since you and him seem to be having a dispute. No administrative action is necessary. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with KZ ^{Talk • Contrib}. what about you Justanother? Anynobody 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've actually been discussing the possibility with several other editors who have had difficulty with Justanother and have invited them here to comment. Anynobody 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and all due respect to User:Kzrulzuall but a User RfC would be just a tad premature on my part as another editor has not yet stepped up to help me address my issue with User:Anynobody of the use of my words out of context and without attribution. If no other admin has better advice for me then I will just go the normal WP:DR route; no hurry. I would like some further admin input though. Thanks. --Justanother 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to check out the recent activity at the user page of BboyKT (talk · contribs). There seems to be some sort of name-calling war going on between said user and an IP address 24.64.167.239 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). The user in question has only edited their own user page, and such edits seem entirely non-productive and pointless. This may need looking into by an admin. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:52, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to think that Wikipedia is a free web blogging website.... Just give the user a note about WP:NPA or WP:NOT#BLOG and notify an admin if the user continues in having no contributions to Wikipedia. --KZ ^{Talk • Contrib} 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have done just that. I left a welcome template and a friendly personal note about proper use of userpages at Wikipedia. If the situation doesn't improve, I will be back to let y'all know. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would appear that two users Paul venter (talk · contribs) and Berks105 (talk · contribs) are engaged in a sort of edit war over a bunch of articles related to South Africa. Some of the edits and reverts have started to get incivil, and one of the users has resorted to personal attacks. This probably needs further investigation. I make no statements yet over who is in the "right" and who is in the "wrong", but there are some serious issues going on here, especially regarding ownership of articles, excessive reverting, personal attacks and incivility that need to be looked into. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not wish to pass comments on a fellow editor, but my (and others') previous interaction with User:Paul venter mirrored nearly the exact same situation over the position of the infobox image image in Jonty Rhodes. I found Paul Venter at the time very aggressive, abusive, and generally very resistant to accepting others' views.Rueben lys 09:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

Creator of the page has removed the speedy deletion tag five times now. He is also requesting that an admin email him about the article before deleting it. Obviously, third opinion here, and whoever deletes this should grant this request and tell him what's wrong. Hbdragon88 06:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, AuburnPilot. Situation resolved. Hbdragon88 07:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]