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

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

The ticket number is [Ticket#2007033110014917].

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you in advance for your time.

Jean-Christophe Helary (Jc_helary)

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

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

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

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

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

Evidence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It takes two to tango

• Your complaint is not clear.

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

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

Suicide

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Comments from User:Alison

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

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

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

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

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

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

Email sent to school

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

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

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

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

-<name redacted>

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

edit: it was sent to

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You:

A) Ask him not to.

B) Say nothing.

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

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

Comment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archive, please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PatPeter returns

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BassxForte (talk · contribs) has been very uncivil in almost all encounters in talk pages. Completely unwilling to accept consensus, even though it's currently 7 vs 1 on Talk:Organization XIII. Has edit-warred multiple times, especially on this article, over the past month. If you want diffs, try the page history and his contributions page.

I have been extremely tolerant on this user in this duration, as his user page states that he is a reformed vandal. A recent edit[8] on his talk page has changed the following text:

"I am very stubborn, both in real life and all other situations, if you get into a argument with me in a talk page, you can be assured the conversation won't end until you give up or an admin decides the discussion closed, heh. Arguing with me is a lost cause, almost everyone I know in real life knows this, *evil laugh*."

Administrator input is definitely required. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, after giving Organization XIII a once-over, that almost the entire article is original research and does not have one single reference to a reliable source (because all of its references are to the subject of the article itself, not a published secondary source). The best thing to do is cut the article down to a stub and moot the argument with BassxForte. A Train^talk 16:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've tried mooting the argument a number of times already. He simply does not agree with us. Also, the concern I'm bringing up is not the article, but rather BassxForte's conduct. Despite multiple people directing him to pages with common policy(WP:CIVIL, WP:COOL, especially WP:3RR, etc), he continues to ignore it. He also makes many comments which I consider to be personal attacks. Also: discussion, another discussion, [9].

Diffs: [10], [11], [12] [13] - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:33, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Go to Zero (Mega Man) and many other talk pages i've put my points in, you will see that not only am I ready to admit flaws in my argument, I have an honest desire to improve wikipedia. BassxForte 20:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the quote which you claim came form my page was never on my page to my knowledge. BassxForte 20:56, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing text out does not change the fact that you added it, and that it was on your userpage for a month (Note the dates), along with other inflammatory remarks that are still there, including "Although I try my best to be civil with other users, I admit that almost all of them are a bit... off." (Diff here.) Nique talk 22:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This remark is very worrisome. "Motto Never Give Up. (This motto has... regretabbly gotten me into some edit wars since I refuse to have parts of articles I like taken out, although in all said wars the other person was just being unreasonable.)" He put that in in January. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:37, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the time they are acting unreasonable, the only time I have ever gotten angry about the way another user was treating the page was on the talk page for Metal Sonic. BassxForte 01:20, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by "off" I meant that most are kinda weird by my standards. (and keep in mind my standards are very eccentric) BassxForte 01:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't change the fact that you've been aware of your habit of getting into edit wars for at least 4 months, and to appear to have not changed in any way since then. Calling people you've been in edit wars with "unreasonable" does not appear to be very polite, or have any assumption of good faith at all. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and he's also threatened to continue an edit war previously (I see that as a threat of vandalism). [14] Recently, in direct response to this ANI posting, he has stated that he will respond in a way that "won't be pretty" if an admin intervenes. [15] - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block upon warring, then block longer, then block yet again. He's welcome to disagree until he turns blue as long as he doesn't get into a war over an article's actual contents... at which, we WP:BLOCK. --Auto^{(talk / contribs)} 02:28, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your taking this way to far, the notion that I have done something extreme, that I have acted harshly/rudly/incivily seem to be all incorrect notions, might I suggest looking at the good stuff i've done, rather then just the bad? Considering that they outnumber the bad things i've done by a 10 to 1 margin. BassxForte 13:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying that I'm taking this too far, show something that counters my claims. Provide diffs. - Zero1328 _Talk? 13:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also like to note that that doesn't change the the fact that you have been doing some negative things as well, as recent as just yesterday, and you have shown to be aware of these negative actions for at least four months. - Zero1328 _Talk? 14:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that on Talk:Metal Sonic I admit the flaws in my argument, and let the guy I was arguing with take the win, also, check out the talk page for Onaga and Brotherhood of Shadow. BassxForte 18:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because you do good, too, doesn't change the fact that you have been doing, and have been aware of doing, and have been continuing to do bad as well for quite some time. Nique talk 19:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

However the good far outnumber the bad, you gotta think positive, especially since all those "bad" things are done with the intent of improving wikipedia. BassxForte 19:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Letting someone "take the win" is not how we do things here. This is not a competition on whether you win an argument or not. Doing positive things is not an excuse to contribute negative things to the project, to "balance it out," especially if you are contributing negatively right now. Even if you want us to ignore it, it doen't change the fact you're doing it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of all that, as for "take the win", thats just the way I phrased it, the main thing i've been arguing here is that you act like i've not done a single good thing for wikipedia, and went as far as to claim I acted uncivil in all talk pages I have been on. BassxForte 03:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble at all about what good things you're doing, which is why I haven't mentioned it. I am concerned about what bad things you are doing. I suppose I should bring up the fact that you appear to be trying to use your good edits as a way to dodge this subject. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:04, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also bothered by this fact - you have expressed awareness of your bad contributions for a fairly long time, (and if you haven't, we have mentioned it to you multiple times, even just here.) and you have never explained why you haven't changed your editing habits. Please clearly explain why you have not made an attempt. If you had tried and failed, why have you decided to continue contributing this way? - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a few examples of "bad" edits I have made, and we'll go from there, furthermore these "bad" edits you speak of seem isolated entirely toward the Org XIII page. BassxForte 16:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter where you're doing it, it's what you're doing in the first place. And you haven't answered my question. - Zero1328 _Talk? 22:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia doesn't tally scores with the good things you do and the bad things you do, as far as I can tell. Making 100 good edits does not give you the right to vandalize 1 page, and trying to take advantage of the fact that you have made good edits in the past shows that you refuse to take resposibility for the edit war on the Org XIII page. Your comments on the talk page of the Org XIII article also show me (and I'm sure others) that you will not accept your own mistake, no matter how many times and to what degree your mistake is invalidated. Which is why I don't get the feeling that you will stop doing things like this. You can't always be right on Wikipedia. I haven't been here very long, but I do know that. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 18:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand what i'm saying, im saying that you can't call me a bad user over just a few isolated incidents and some edits that may or may have not been in violation of one of wikipedia's rules. BassxForte 23:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying. I understand that you haven't gone into every single article like a hellbird and totally demolished it. I understand that you have tried to be civil in most situations, accept some degree of criticism and fallacy, and help the project in a respectable way. But it seems that this is a specific issue about specific violations, and no amount of good Samaritanism could possibly undo a breaking of the rules. Think of it the way you would at school: If you have a perfect attendance throughout your entire school career, and then you decide to skip an entire week of school, unexcused, should the school waiver all of their truancy punishments because you had a perfect attendance before you started skipping school? I'm not sure what exactly the administrators want you to say, but I'm more curious about why you believe that your logic defeated the logic of seven other people, and you felt your conclusions had more weight than theirs. I understand that the majority is not always correct (I'm an atheist, so I happen to have a thing for prefering logical evaluation over what the general population believes), but in something that is so black and white as what goes into an article, I would think that it would be easy to see where seven logical, thinking people would have more weight of word than one logical, thinking person. However, because that is not really the point of this thread, I suppose I will try to leave the rest of the discussion up to the moderators and hope that my arguement has somehow clarified what the moderators have been trying to explain to you. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 00:36, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do firmly believe that I am right involving the thing about Roxas, although I feel i'm acting too similar to ogre. BassxForte 01:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, like I said, it's not necessarily the actual topic (which was really rather menial and neither helped nor detracted from the article itself), but simply the fact that you 3RR'd the page several times and used what some people considered to be personal attacks in your arguments. Poster by: GDR of the Moon 02:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I once had on my talk page the fact that argueing with me is futile due to my persistence and stubborness, that was a referance to how I act in real life, not how I act on wikipedia, as for the mentin of other people I get into edit wars with being unreasonable, thats a referance to before I became a user, and was just an aynonomus IP address, incidentially, where did I say I was aware that what I was doing was a "bad" action? If you're wondering what I meant by ogre, i'm refering to a user on WoWwiki named angry ogre. BassxForte 15:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peter dobbie (talk · contribs) was determined to be the real Peter Dobbie, a BBC news anchor. Unfortunately, after being informed that it was inappropriate for him to edit and add content to the page about him here on the Wikipedia, he continued to use his account solely for this purpose. I have blocked him for continued violations of WP:COI. I will also let the foundation know about my actions due to this user's status in the media world. --Yamla 17:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell ComCom, too. //PTO 17:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just fired off a message to them. In fact, rather than the foundation. If you believe I should still inform the foundation as a whole, let me know. I think the communications committee (and this noticeboard) is probably sufficient. --Yamla 18:01, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

COI situations are best avoided, but there is no outright prohibition of an article subject's adding accurate, notable biographical information about himself or herself. Was there any particular problem with the editing beyond the identity of the editor? Newyorkbrad 18:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is a problem if he's adding unpublished information where before all the information was at least available from the BBC website. There is a problem when he's adding an enthusiastic narrative that reads like it was written by himself or the BBC. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I unblocked and I'm going to follow up with User:Peter dobbie by email. I've read the correspondence that he has already received and will make sure he understands our policies related to content. Patient editors are invited to help me edit the article and discuss problems with content on the talk page. :-) FloNight 20:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it turns out the prior text added by an anon 21 January 2006 is copied directly from the BBC website, so the whole page is a copyvio back to that date. —Centrx→talk • 21:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly wish you luck. The last thing I want to do is to tick off a BBC news anchor, but Mr. Dobbie has seemed unwilling to listen to my and other people's efforts to inform him about Wikipedia policies. The best solution obviously would be to have him unblocked and abiding by our policies but I completely failed in these attempts. Note that I attempted to point out our policies on image copyright and fair use, our policies on conflict-of-interest and verification, and our policies on article ownership. I provided both a link to the policies and a hand-written brief interpretation of these policies. The only response was that there was no problem and I should make sure nobody else changes the text of the article once Mr. Dobbie had incorporated what he wanted. --Yamla 22:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user has now issued a legal threat via email, in response to my message about his violation of WP:COI:

OK then what say I take Wikipedia to court for publishing information

about me to which you have no right, copyright or access. It seems to me that you are totally missing the point which is (1) the article is about me (2) if it's inaccurate you're now saying that I don't have the right to change it because (3) you decide and (4) who the hell are you to take

that decision anyway.

Mr. Dobbie appears absolutely unwilling to abide by WP:COI and there are substantial problems with the images he has been uploading. I would like someone else to review this and consider blocking him indefinitely under WP:NLT. --Yamla 18:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NLT says it's a straight reason for indef block, and I don't see him turning around any time soon. Indef blocked for legal threat. Luigi30 (Taλk) 12:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably useless at this point, but I don't see any real problem with the edits he was trying to make this month. He provided several photographs when we didn't have any (asserting a plausible copyright claim in light of his identity), made a few minor changes to the article format, and edited his job title. All of those are permissible under WP:AUTO#If_Wikipedia_already_has_an_article_about_you, no? -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:17, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of the photographs he uploaded was a screen capture from BBC World News. The copyright for that would be owned by the BBC, not by him. Additionally, his edits were greater than a few minor changes, see [16]. Now, this could be debateably permitted under WP:AUTO, though not Mr. Dobbie's refusal to let anyone else edit the article once he's got it how he wants it. Anyway, his threat to sue has lead to a block. --Yamla 14:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it certainly looks like a screen capture, but given his level of access to the set, couldn't it also plausibly be a picture taken by a friend/colleague for his own use? As for the edit you highlighted, I agree that the addition of info about the other show (and the link) are not minor changes, but if you re-check my statement you'll note that I said "this month", while the edit you highlighted was in March. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 12:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That diff also looks a lot more extensive than it really is, due to longstanding bugs in the diff tool. --Random832 13:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User:Hahahihihoho is evading (again) his block. He edits as User:Alkalada. For one of his many sock-puppets, refer to User:Thunderman. --PaxEquilibrium 22:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We need more admins... we need more admins desperately... --PaxEquilibrium 23:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason nobody has responded is likely because you haven't told us anything (other than "user x is a sockpuppet") or given us anything to go on. Can you provide evidence (contrib patterns, checkuser, etc) that links the two accounts? – Steel 23:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, because that is globally-known (at leas to the administrators who have been tracking him, i.e. User:Duja, User:Fred Bauer and User:Bishonen). If you have any doubts that's him, just ask him, he won't deny it. :)))

He was banned for being a sock-puppet, but he appealed to the ArbCom and Fred, and they all (Fred, Bishonen and Duja) agreed to give him a second chance, but strictly on parole. Alkalada (i.e. Hahahihihoho) has made severe violations and disruption (including continuous strictly banned acts, like reported here by User:Edin Sijercic) and has oh-so-much used his shot out. --PaxEquilibrium 17:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before commenting, please read the brief explanations of the process below.

However well intentioned, it seems Naconkantari is going on a bit of a rampage at Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages. Naconkantari has deleted thousands of pages in just a few hours time, including pages that were inactive for less than a week, and in one case, less than 9 hours. The has also included alphachimp's monobook.js and User talk:Dakilang Isagani which shouldn't have been in the category. I pointed this out to Nackokantari and the only response I got was that there is no way to check each page. Clearly, Naconkantari isn't checking any pages and is frequently deleting at a rate of 45 pages per minute. As the deletions have continued, I'm bringing this here for review. - AuburnPilot 23:03, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A few on the list are not suppose to be deleted, however well intentional it is. Deletion of a monobook.js? Can you tell him to stop, wait for us to check the list then delete? --Kzrulzuall 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the problem with User talk:Dakilang Isagani was that he was blocked because of a previous bad username, and the Username Blocked template put the page in the category, and then when the user account was moved, so it was fine and no longer blocked. Pages like that need to be removed from the category. I don't understand how User:Alphachimp/monobook.js was and still is in the category. Anyway, most of the usernames are blatantly deletable, just have to be more careful. —Centrx→talk • 23:11, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages simply should not be mass deleted. There are pages in there that are sockpuppet pages and need to be retagged, there are pages that are 9 hours old and should be in there for at least, I would think, a week, etc. I appreciate all the work Naconkantari did, but I feel most of it should be reversed. --Iamunknown 23:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to remove all the socks from the category, although most of the users were indef blocked. --Kzrulzuall 23:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sockpuppet issue is what originally pulled me into this problem. The talk page for User:Benjiwolf (a disruptive puppeteer) was deleted, leaving a red-link on pages I've been watching. I restored the page, pointed it out to Naconkantari, and yet s/he has deleted it again. - AuburnPilot 23:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For old accounts, what does it matter if the page is still tagged? Most of them aren't tagged in the first place. —Centrx→talk • 23:37, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally don't care if it's tagged, but the talk page of a a current/active puppeteer should not be deleted. - AuburnPilot 23:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's it matter? The block log should contain any pertinent information (see WP:DENY). John Reaves (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The comment, If you want to go through and review them, that's fine with me. I'm not going to do so as the pages are supposed to be temporary. There's just no feasible way to check every single page in that category, on Naconkantari's talk page is a bit perturbing. Since when do administrators run through backlogs blindly? --Iamunknown 23:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When the backlogs have months of crap in them and haven't been cleaned since the category was started. There is no reason to keep 99% of the pages in this category. The other 1% of pages should not be in the category if they are in any way important. The editors have been indefblocked and their pages should be removed. If there is an issue with a sockpuppeter, then don't place the page in the temporary category. Use a different template or something. This huge mass of pages does not need to be kept and should be cleaned out as soon as possible. Naconkantari 23:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note of the notice at the top of the category: "Please do not delete pages tagged as sockpuppets. They should not be in this category in the first place (...) but if they are, please leave them (....) a number of administrators expressed their concern that many were being removed, making things difficult for them, and have requested that this not happen in future." The notice freely admits that these pages are miscategorized, asks that they not be deleted, gives a reason why, and yet you continue to delete them? --Iamunknown 23:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do the sockpuppet pages need to be kept? —Centrx→talk • 00:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence. In case they create a new sock. --Kzrulzuall 00:09, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precisely. Not everyone is an admin, and some of the most helpful users at WP:SSP are not, or were not until recently, able to view deleted pages. Deleting these pages leaves a mass of red links all over the place, leaving non-admins incapable of helping. - AuburnPilot 00:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information does the userpage provide that the blocklog or a subpage on SSP could not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Naconkantari (talk • contribs) 00:15, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

A link within Special:Whatlinkshere to whatever page the sock is found. What makes you think users are going to bother adding pages to a subpage? Block logs aren't searchable, either. Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 07:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can use Special:Whatlinkshere on a deleted page, search sockpuppet names, or see a list of sockpuppets by puppeteer. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:44:17, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you understood something different to what I meant. How are those categories going to be populated, if the pages including sockpuppet tags are deleted? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 22:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The pages including sockpuppet tags are not deleted. The sockpuppet deletions in this discussion are caused by a script problem, not common practice. —{admin} Pathoschild 00:44:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh look, another example of an admin unilaterally using a bot or bot-like functionality to address backlogs with little regard for whether things get done correctly. If we had a reasonable adminbot approval process, maybe someone could write a proper deletion bot that would only clear out pages that are from accounts that are over a month old and not marked as sockpuppets (or whatever other criteria the community feels is important). I don't condone what Naconkantari has been doing, but I think the recurrences of issues like this is symptomatic of a larger problem. Dragons flight 00:10, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The only "reasonable adminbot approval process" is a stamp with the word "NO" on it. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:24, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If keeping sockpuppet pages around is so important, then why does the template automatically categorize to temporary pages? John Reaves (talk) 00:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The sock temps. don't categorize to temporary pages. It's the indef. block ones that do. --Kzrulzuall 00:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't. Many editors will add a {{indefblockeduser}} because the {{sockpuppet}} does not mention an indefinite block in the same way that {{SockpuppetProven}} does. -- zzuuzz^(talk) 00:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. I think we need to make a new block temp. saying that their indef. blocked but are socks... --Kzrulzuall 00:28, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Doesn't Template:SockpuppetProven say that? --Iamunknown 00:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I forgot about that temp.... --Kzrulzuall 00:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, {{sockblock}} for the puppets. - AuburnPilot 01:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can we agree the user pages need to be reviewed? Or will it take DRV to get over the inertia? Can we suspend all deletions from Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages until we fix the sockpuppet issue? --Iamunknown 00:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with that, although it will take a huge amount of time, given the 8000 or so users listed. I've only reviewed around 200...--Kzrulzuall 01:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no reason for them to exist. John Reaves (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would think an analysis could easily be done by a bot. —Bbatsell 01:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A bot could just check for sock tags, however admin bots aren't allowed. I suppose it could just make a big list, that admins could click through. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the date they were added to the category (via whatever template). Yeah, I meant just prepare a report, not to actually do the deletions. —Bbatsell 02:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a very minor thing and I'm surprised it was brought to this page where it has really produced nothing but drama. If some pages were wrongly deleted, they can be undeleted at the press of a button. If this is because they're being wrongly placed in the category Category:Temporary Wikipedian userpages (which it shouldn't anyone to discover, is solely for pages that do not need to be retained), they should no longer be placed in the category. --Tony Sidaway 06:47, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd disagree that it has produced nothing but drama. If a new process including a bot that can actually analyze these pages and make the deletions easier has come out of it, then it was very much worth while. We've also discovered what is causing the problem: people tagging the user as indef in addition to the sock tags. AuburnPilot 07:03, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, let's not forget about geniuses like me tagging their monobooks as indefinitely blocked users :) alphachimp 07:07, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That too. Although if you figure that one out, let me know. I tried to test a few tools from your monobook a week or so ago and it kept telling me I'd been {{schoolblock}}ed. Confused the hell out of me. AuburnPilot 07:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion of old user pages has been discussed repeatedly, with the previous discussion at "User pages deleted by User:Pathoschild" on deletion review. The practice is well-established, with the reasoning laid out by Wikipedia:Deny recognition (which just explains the reasoning, and has no other meaning or enforceability). User pages belonging to sockpuppets, banned users, users blocked following arbitration cases, and sockpuppeteers should not be deleted, as these arguably serve a useful purpose; Pathosbot occasionally corrects the templates on those pages.

For all users tagging sockpuppets, you can help keep them out of the category by using the sockpuppet block templates. In particular:

• Confirmed puppets: {{blockedsock|username}}
• Suspected puppets: {{sockpuppet|username|blocked}}
• Sockpuppet masters: {{sockpuppeteer|blocked}}
• Checkuser: {{sockpuppetCheckuser|username|checkuser request page}}

The problem here is not the practice itself, which is well-established, but Naconkantari's deletion tool. We appreciate the help, but some basic safeguards (such as not deleting anything in a sockpuppet or banned-user category) are needed. Ideally, this can be integrated into his tool and everyone will live happily ever after.

...except the vandals, of course. —{admin} Pathoschild 07:12:19, 09 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. I just deleted a chunk of userpages older than 15 days or so which were purely the indef block template. There were a couple that needed fixing, though: [17] [18] [19] This seems to be the source of the issue; all it takes is a little bit of care to check if there's two tags, not one, on the userpage. You could even write a script which discriminates between this, and it'd solve the problem of "bad" deletions. Cheers, Daniel Bryant 09:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess all I can say to you admins is, "Hop to it!" I'd help out if I could, but I can't. :-( --Iamunknown 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If this is ongoing, he needs to be blocked for using a malfunctioning automated tool. However, this backlog certainly does need to be looked at. Maybe if we had more admins... --Random832 18:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The tool is not malfunctioning. It is working exactly as it is intended. The editors that place the incorrect tags are the ones that should be at fault. If editors can not place the correct tags on a supposedly important page, they should leave the tagging to someone who can properly tag pages. Naconkantari 20:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tool that gives ordinary users the ability to have anyone's page deleted by putting a category on it is broken by design. It's the same reason we don't have cascading semi-protection. This is why you need to _check_ pages before deleting them. Even if it weren't broken, it's a violation WP:BOT, and while the community turns a blind eye to that when everything's working properly, consensus is that this is not proper behavior. --Random832 12:58, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blocked this user for a week for edit warring on Nazi skinhead and Skinheads Against Racial Prejudice after using an IP. Is this someone we've blocked before? He seems to know what he's doing. Grandmasterka 02:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's the same editor that was username blocked as User:ProudAryan, which tells you pretty much everything you need to know. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 02:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time for a community ban? Ben Aveling 07:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bit early for that, although I can see that being a likely end result. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see it as too early, if the user is truly this disruptive. Take it to WP:CSN? ~Crazytales 13:14, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Based on this edit from his latest sockpuppet with an edit summary of "Rendered the first paragraph of history more accurate with referenced material. Internet reference takes precedent over a book reference. Erasing it would be pure vandalism", you may well be right. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I originally provided the references/see also section of a contentious AfD-deleted-on-DRV article to userspace at User:Fowler&fowler/HP References, per a request on my talk page. However, since then, another administrator (Dbachmann (t · c · b · p · d · m · r)) has copy-pasted the whole article's text into that page. Can an uninvolved administrator (ie. not me [who deleted the article], and not Dbachmann [who is extremely involved and has even threatened to go to RfAr over the close]) please review whether this copy-paste move is GFDL-compliant, and whether it should be deleted; I'm suspecting it isn't (and as such, the latter revision should be deleted), but I think I'm "involved". Cheers, Daniel Bryant 10:27, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All I can say is that Dbachmann's comments on your talk page weren't particularly civil or assuming good faith. As for the licensing, you'll need someone more experienced in the area. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted. Ask him to move ArbCom if he presses. There have been gross civility problems with him in the past, where he resorted to racist comments. Nothing a good long block wouldn't solve. Good day. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 12:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel.Bryant closed a 16 keep to 14 delete AfD as "delete". Is it surprising that I object? Daniel's concern whether my c&p was "GFDL-compliant" betrays a similarly poor awareness of GFDL as of his grasp of AfD procedure. As for my complaing to Daniel, seeing it contains "I know you acted in good faith", I find it difficult to follow Kzrulzuall's judgement that I somehow wasn't "particularly assuming good faith". If I read Sir Nicholas' comment correctly, he seems to be advocating giving be a "good long block" over my objecting to an AfD closure as if I was some troll account that arrived on Wikipedia last week. That's plain bullying, and I begin to get the impression I am being set up as the next Giano: Giano was mobbed out of Wikipedia because he dared objecting to an RFA promotion in spite of no arguable consensus. I am protesting a deletion in the face of no arguable consensus. Whatever happened to following the rules? I am aware of WP:IAR, but you cannot ignore the rules, and then clamp down on your critics based on technicalities, sorry. dab (𒁳) 14:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

People admitted that they made a mistake with Giano, and he is currently editing, even though he most certainly did not get in trouble just because he disagreed with a promotion. You can't invoke a supposed martyr who isn't even gone to defend your actions. Also, saying "I know you acted in good faith" does not mean you truly believe that, and you had just finished complaining that he's stupid and deleted it because of religious crusades. -Amarkov moo! 15:25, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is interesting to note one edit account visiting the pages of some involved parties [20]. --Bhadani (talk) 15:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(outdent) For GFDL compliance, if that was the only issue, it might be sufficient to put a link on the talk page to the page from which content was copied, with a note that the page history there provides the authorship info on a particular section. This is routinely done in merges, and is generally noncontroversial. However, there is obviously more going on here than a simple question of how to comply with the GFDL. After all, any text posted to wikipedia is normally under the GFDL, and therefore available to be sued elsewhere, including elsewhere on wikipedia, with proper attribution etc. DES ^(talk) 15:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GFDL was never the issue, and it is best known to Sir Nicholas himnself why he would choose to invoke "GFDL" as a reason for using his delete-button against my copy of the material under discussion in user-space. I ask people to look at the deleted material and judge for themselves if there can be any debate about its encyclopedicity (as opposed to its being precisely balanced, which would be a matter of debate, not AfD). AfD is not the place to complain about articles that are allegedly biased or that allegedly contain OR. This deletion is completely out of process and is a sign of the "trolls taking over": A bunch of single-topic accounts co-ordinated by a yahoo mailing list successfully getting material deleted from Wikipedia simply because it runs counter to their ideology. This is serious, people, and I would like to get a sober review of all this. I hope we can sort this out without going the painful route of RfC/RfAr: this is what we have AN/I for. I have spent three years on Wikipedia, people, and I can tell the difference between just not getting my way, and a flawed admin action, and I would not make a fuss here if I did not think the latter applies here. The only arguable outcomes Daniel could have chosen from under the circumstances were either merge/rename/redirect (taking a plunge), or no consensus (being non-committal). dab (𒁳) 17:46, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion review is here and I would suggest that a consensus appears to be forming. Addhoc 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And now I'm getting a lesson in AfD closing, as well as being told like a schoolchild what I can and cannot do with my talk page. I am unfamiliar with Dbachmann's history, but if it's anything like what Nick hints at, then I can see why Dbachmann doesn't want to send it to RfAr...he just has to look at the Billy Ego-Sandstein case for a replica. Daniel Bryant 22:21, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before, he doesn't demonstrate civility with his edits. Dbachman, I find it hard to believe that you consider giving people "lessons" about this. It implies a huge amount of disdain on your part. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 22:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been asked to have a quick look (being impartial) and I know Dbachmann has suffered some trolling on ANI by a single purpose account [21], but I'm at a loss as to how the content that was undeleted and pasted into userspace can possibly be considered GFDL compliant - was it left there through finding the information that one particular user added into the article or just by copying and pasting the desired contents ? I'm also gravely concerned by the lack of civility and collegialism shown here by dab, calling other admins trolls really is not helpful and conducive to a friendly and harmonious editing environment. -- Nick ^t 12:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Moved from WP:CN Navou ^banter 15:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Preamble note: This post relates to an article which had an edit war 2 weeks ago - that had consequences discussed on this page. An administrator imposed an (apparently indefinite) soft ban on myself and two other editors. The majority of opinion on this page expressed the view that the soft ban was imposed far too prematurely - without exploration of conflict resolution. Even though I think the soft ban was a mistake - and should be lifted - that is NOT the reason for this post. I mention this merely in full disclosure. The editor I am asking for advice about today was NOT one of those banned.)

A new Wikipedia account started appearing on Wikipedia on December 30, 2006. After a few minor edits on other articles - the editor settled as a single-issue editor on the Pete Townshend article.

The editor gave him/her-self the name Wiki-is-truth.

The calm that had prevailed for 12 months on the article was over. An edit war erupted. Eventually it was resolved with a compromise and a straw poll set up by an administrator. The editor Wiki-is-truth signed off on the compromise:

Support the version above Wiki-is-truth 22:33, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After that - the editor disappeared and did not make a single appearance on Wikipedia till today (April 9, 2007). And then just to involve him/her-self in the same Pete Townshend matter. So far - just on the Talk Page.

On the surface there is absolutely nothing wrong with any of that. If a person chooses to be a single-issue editor - contributing to only one article or Talk Page - that is totally ok. If a person wishes to take a break from Wikipedia for a few weeks - that is totally ok.

The issue is this. Several editors believe (and have stated on the Pete Townshend Talk Page) that this person is present on Wikipedia for one primary purpose. To pursue a vendetta against Pete Townshend.

The evidence for this is in the multiple posts by the person on the Talk Page for the article on Pete Townshend. And in the history of his/her edits on the article.

Here is just the latest example fron the Talk Page - posted today:

"as a quick aside, I would rather call Townshend a promoter of child porn than a "blaggard" - Wiki-is-truth 14:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As editors - we are supposed to "Assume Good Faith".

How are we supposed to do so in the face of someone who asserts that Pete Townshend (who the UK police thoroughly investigated for four months and then decided NOT to charge with any criminal offense) is "a promoter of child porn"? Davidpatrick 15:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith is assuming an editor means well until there is clear evidence to the contrary - which has been reached and passed in this case. There is no need to walk in on someone stabbing a dying body and screaming "die! die!" and try to assume they are innocent. There is no reason to assume good faith when inaccurate, harmful content is added to an article repeatedly after explaining BIO, and V or ATT. So the answer is, dont AGF in this case, it is counter to any comensense approach and would require you freeze the logic centers of your brain solid, which I do not recommend. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Adding, if the editor has not yet edited the article and is not arguing for including unsourced defamitory content on the talk page, why worry? Upon more careful examination of the situation, I'm completely unclear on why you're here. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His user page, by the way, is an essay on why Wikipedia is evil since we don't say Townsend's a pedo. Luigi30 (Taλk) 16:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:PelleSmith instantiated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Religious conversion and terrorism.

While they said, in their nomination, that they would like to be proved wrong, in fact they are currently making extensive edits to the article which give the unfortunate appearance of trying to undermine attempts to improve it, so it will survive {{afd}}.

Among the reasons they originally nominated it were that it was poorly referenced. So, I wonder, is it really appropriate for them to be removing references-, while the {{afd}} is underway? [22] [23]

Cheers! -- Geo Swan 19:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator but articles can be edited while an AfD is underway, as long as the Afd tga is not removed. Tellyaddict 19:08, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Removing legit references in general is bad. Removing un-legit references, refactoring the text, and in general improving articles is good. Removing references during an AfD is not necessarily bad or good but certainly can, whether true or not, give the impression that the nom is trying to influence the votes. Anyone can edit an article at afd, even if they are the nom. Any rules against that would simply be instruction creep. So, are the references legit or not? Is the nom just massacring the text or is he or she appropriately refactoring it? --Iamunknown 19:14, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion the nominators edits, both ante-{{afd}} and intra-{{afd}} give the unfortunate appearance of damaging the article so that their afd will succeed, rather than sincere attempts to improve the article.

We are all supposed to assume good faith. Is it possible that the nominator might think their edits actually improved the article? Well, they are already on record stating that the entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed. I can't, for the life of me, understand how they could think they could improve an irredeemably flawed article. -- Geo Swan 19:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct regarding how I view the very idea of the entry. However, that does not in any way mean that I'm going to sit by while bad references are added to it like cheap makeup. Also see below. Thanks.PelleSmith 19:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I strongly disagree. I don't start an AfD with the "entire idea of the article [as] irredeemably flawed". I start by assuming that (1) the article is not within the scope of an encyclcopedia or (2) the article is on a non-notable subject. If I impatient, started an AfD, and then later find additional information, I will most certainly add it. If anyone assumes anything other than good faith, then it is inappropriate on their part. --Iamunknown 19:49, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please review the debate in question first. If you look at the AfD you will understand why the "entire idea of the article is irredeemably flawed", because the entry name itself is WP:OR. There is no way to save it under its current name. I have for the last month suggested moving it or merging it with another entry so as not to create the illusion that "religious conversion" factors into terrorism. If you looked at the AfD you would understand. There is overwhelming support for delete based upon this exact reason so please don't jump to those kinds of conclusions.PelleSmith 19:53, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As noted, articles may be edited during an AfD. Any edit that weakens any article is inappropriate (absent cause such as a BLP issue) whether or not there is an AfD pending. If there is concern that misguided editing might sway an AfD decision, a user participating in the AfD may wish to link to his or her preferred version of the article, to suggest that the version a prospective AfD !voter might encounter right at the moment is not the optimal or ultimate version. Newyorkbrad 19:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The "edits" that are under dispute are the removal of bad references. Many of the bad references were removed prior to the AfD, and have been removed once again during the AfD. Each time I have provided detailed edit summaries as to why these references are misleading, irrelevant or simply unreliable sources. I stand by each and every one of these edits, since keeping bad references in an article lacking good ones is the worst possible solution since it simply masks one of the problems. It should be noted that the overarching issue with the entry is WP:OR which the very name of the entry elicits.PelleSmith 19:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think NYBrad's solution is the correct one. If you're concerned sabotage might occur, just provide a link in the discussion to an oldid of the "best version." Articles nominated for AfD don't necessarily get deleted, and obviously anyone nominating for AfD has serious concerns about the article, so it's certainly conceivable they might try to fix it in the meantime. (Obviously, if someone's being deliberately disruptive or vandalizing that's not acceptable, but if, for example, an article is nominated for deletion as a POV fork, and the nominator cleans up the POV as best (s)he can in the meantime, nothing wrong with that.) Seraphimblade 19:58, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article content is blatantly inappropriate, then just because the AfD is continuing, it doesn't imply the article should be frozen. Addhoc 20:59, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removing legit references is not good under any circumstances. The fact that it's up for AfD doesn't change what is or isn't acceptable. It's simply a little more unacceptable if an editor is trying to undermine the AfD. Grandmasterka 00:46, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay to edit an article you nominated for deletion. You're allowed to change your mind. Assume good faith. --Tony Sidaway 12:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just blocked DavidYork71 (talk · contribs) indefinitly after a long debate (see his his talk page for more details). -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up ®} 19:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add this diff [24] from my talk page and this section [25] from User:Sarah's talk page. --Aminz 19:57, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support this indefinite block. Per Sarah, DavidYork71 acts as if the community doesn't exist and has no right to demand any modifications to his behavior, where very substantial modifications are sorely needed.Proabivouac 22:39, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has demonstrated time and time again that he is not here to write an encyclopedia. Given his heavy and chronically repetitive anti-Islam POV pushing and editing that corresponds to that and his other disruptive editing (ie: creating an article called "autosodomy" and insisting that it was a "yogic art" and linking that to numerous yoga articles) and now his sockpuppetry, the project is much better off without this editor. (→Netscott) 08:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latest sock of David: User:Anal Servitude; needs to be blocked. --Aminz 08:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not clear that this is DavidYork71 - username trolls have appeared on my user talk lately, such as User:Breien Pfeffers - but a username block is certainly in order. Given the avowed interests of DY71 it is at least conceivable; you might add it to the outstanding checkuser request [[26]]. At least I would ask that users with disreputable usernames such as these not be allowed to post on my user talk, so request semiprotection.Proabivouac 08:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David was interested in Anal sex and homosexuality articles. I'll add it to the list. Thanks anyways. --Aminz 09:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indef blocked for username violation. IrishGuy ^talk 09:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This account was just created today on April 9 and responds to a 48 hour block I made on User:Bosniak back in mid-March. [27] I'm not sure whom this is a sockpuppet account for but I thought I should just bring it to the attention of others here because I am not sure of what to do.--Jersey Devil 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

In response to me removal of his move poll, CyclePat posted a vandal warning template to my page, and wrote this dleightful comment: "You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[28] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from to the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate how desperate the members of WP:ASSIST and to what extent they are truly willing to do go. A further technique is being used by WP:ASSIST which is called bandwagon, inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated (AMA), feared, or held in contempt by the target audience." The conversation and comments regarding AMA and ASSIST (move page/merger), even if it is not a successful conversation as portrayed by some, is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule and on top of that falls within the criteria of vandalism. I suggest the conversation be archived. Again, in short, removing it creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and again, violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 03:52, 10 April 2007 (UTC)"[reply]

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

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

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

And what is with the "gathered up and shot" comment? [29] Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

• Radiant, please do not make false statements. The AMA is more than willing to make changes and is currently undergoing a major revision. WP:ASSIST was created by User:Seraphimblade as a way to pick back up the AMA's function if the AMA were to be shut down, but is now populated by a large number of anti-AMA editors. The animosity between the two groups must stop, as well as the animosity against the AMA. Comments like this fall short of WP:CIVIL, and we're all in the same boat. אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) • Give Back Our Membership! 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Still having trouble

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

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

Revert vandalism

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

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

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

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

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

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

The cause supported is WP:ASSIST and the method is by removing comments from people that clearly object or voice their opinion against the association. Such an exemple includes the RM discussion which was most recently removed by user:Dev920.[30] By removing this information, we are essentially forced back at "square one." similarly, when user:Kim Bruning kept removing that conversation/survey we where un-able to proceed towards a fair discussion regarding the subject.

Again, as per WP:VAN you can not remove goodfaith attempts at a conversation to build WP:CON. Whatever (within reasonable grounds of not being a plain out attack) someone says should be archived and preserved for future reference on the talk page. This is why I will keep placing the conversation back in it's location. You may be interested to know that propaganda is define as "one-sided information intended either to support or threaten a political or military group."[31] We have advertising attempts to destroy AMA by spreading accusations left and right. We also have, as describe on wikipedia, “Propaganda, in as… a corollary to censorship in which the same purpose is achieved, not by filling people's minds with approved information, but by preventing people from being confronted with opposing points of view.”[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda] In this case, the removal of comments from the talk page of WP:ASSIST demonstrate the desperation of the members of WP:ASSIST. To what extent are they going to go to if this was more than just a discussion? If they are ready to harass a user, what next? Truly there must be some limit to this non-sense? A further technique that is being used by WP:ASSIST which I have observed, is called bandwagon. This consists of inviting everyone to participate, and Reductio ad Hitlerum, by suggesting and trying to "persuade a target audience to disapprove of an action (AMA) or idea (AMA) by suggesting that the idea is popular with groups hated, feared, or held in contempt by the target audience. (wikilawyering, etc...)" Such actions, conversations and comments should not be tolerated here on wikipedia and I urge that it stop now prior to going any further within the disputes resolution. Asside: Regarding AMA and ASSIST proposed move page/merger, no matter what the decission... the conversation is an important process of wikipedia’s “building concensus.” Removing the comments or blanking the page prior to finishing such a conversation is a violation of this fundamental rule. On top of that, it falls within the criteria of vandalism. This conversation, should at least remain archived. (It should have also probably followed a fair time. Unfortunatelly that was not the case.) Again, in short, removing the archive bellow creates an unfair balance for WP:ASSIST and violated WP:VAN. --CyclePat 04:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

User:193.188.12.20 has vandalized articles and has made personal attacks. Please see [32], and [33]. Also, [34], [35], [36], [37] appears to be vandalisim. This is user is at the very least a troll. Agha Nader 04:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Agha Nader[reply]

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

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

Certified.Gangsta (talk · contribs) is again engaged in revert-warring. I don't care enough about this particular article to continue this revert-war, but I strongly suggest close scrutiny of his overall pattern of reverting to his preferred version while pretending to be interested in discussion. --Ideogram 05:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:RFAR#Certified.Gangsta-Ideogram. Daniel Bryant 07:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A similar case has been recently discussed at this board: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive218#AfD: is canvassing allowed?. This time I would like someone impartial to take a look at the developments of the WP:RM proposal, see Talk:Fântâna Albă incident#Canvassing_warning.

The poll was strongly affected by a hectic campaign of canvassing by one side. Here are some entries:

• Se votează
• The vote is on
• A poll is now being conducted
• you may find this poll interesting too.,
• would you like to weigh in here,
• By the way....
• Se votează

And, I especially liked this one:

• As an anti-Communist, you may like to cast a vote.

Additionally, as per this an unknown number of user were "mobilized" by email.

Several users unfolded a rage of incivilities at the talk page against the opposition to the move and were warned by an admin to stop.

I request an impartial look at the matter, the analysis of some user's behavior at the talk page and the conclusion of the poll to be made based on each side's arguments as the raw numbers here are certainly meaningless. --Irpen 06:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The behavior of this individual has been disruptive and ongoing. Today after block expired, has recieved yet another warning [38] for vandalism. Deletion of of good-faith warnings on his talk page to hide the continued abuse seems to be the reason for the deletions. This user also has a history of Modifying other users' comments ([39][40][41][42][43][44][45][46][47][48][49][50] ) in order to substantially change their meaning, and a history of making personalthreats to editors. The previous warnings have been archived appropriatly here User_talk:67.163.193.239/Archive_1. If the archive is deleted a permanant history of the shear magnitude of abuse is avaliable here I regret not blocking for a longer period due to the continuous disruption.--Hu12 20:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

After a new series of diatribes ([51][52], etc., I blocked this account for 1 month. This is the 4th block of the account for personal attacks or incivility. -Will Beback · † · 17:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Repeated reverts to include personal attack [53], [54]; also in edit summary at [55] and refusal to comply with polite request to desist [56], including further PA in edit summary. Follows on from my earlier reversal of that user's attempt to remove my comment from the flow of a conversation [57]. Andy Mabbett 10:39, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please block this user because of its offensive username. This user is probably a sock of a banned user. This is suggested by his contributions (I guess it is User:DavidYork71. --Aminz 10:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recommend indef username block.Proabivouac 10:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

done. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a User:Patchouli sockpuppet, not an Davidyork one, as stated in an above discussion regarding User:Imam Khamenei=Islam --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 10:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm. I see. --Aminz 10:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user, who registered yesterday, is claiming to be actor/director Peter Howitt. While there may be obvious WP:COI issues (I did alter a welcome message to also suggest he take a few minutes to read WP:COI), I see nothing wrong with any of his edits so far. If I remember correctly though, his identity will have to be verified by someone up the wiki food chain, so I thought I'd bring it up here. --Onorem 10:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If he's claiming to be someone famous, I've seen from somewhere that you are suppose to block the account until identification is confirmed to avoid impersonation? Of course, that is more than likely to be wrong, and doesn't seem to be reinforced in any policy... --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, after close inspection of his edits, I don't see much wrong... Maybe a few notability issues but apart from that, he seems to be a genuine good-faith editor. He doesn't seem to be in danger of violating anything with an exception of WP:COI, so if an identification procedure is needed, I wouldn't advise a block until it is over. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 11:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message suggesting Howitt to e-mail Wikipedia proof of his identity under this account and warning him of a possible block due to concerns of impersonation. Not sure about the necessity for a block, but there is probably some sort of precedent that dictates whether it's applicable. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is convention to block until the identity is confirmed. See the incident at User talk:George Carlin. Also, the article he created was a blatant ripoff of [58] so I deleted it. He is editing his own article, but he seems to be pretty neutral about it. John Reaves (talk) 11:45, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The irony here is that this might be a rare instance where the copyright holder uploaded the text determined to be copyvio. I've undeleted the article sans the promotional blurb snatched from the website. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 11:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it still needs to be GFDL. Simply uploading it wouldn't irrevocably release it would it? John Reaves (talk) 12:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All text contributions are automatically licensed under the GFDL unless they contain copyrighted text. If Howitt was aware of this, he could have chosen to release this content under the GFDL via contribution. Of course you can't bank on that stipulation, so it would help if the copyright owner would actually make a note of releasing content under a particular free license. Deleting at least the copyrighted portion was obviously the right thing to do, in any case. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 12:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i'm personally feeling that User:Timeshifter is being seriously disrutive to "the discussion" via these: (1st), (2nd), -my resolve attempt-, (3rd)+"You are approaching a 3RR violation" threat - scroll down to see it - please have someone review the history of the talk page and give an opinion. Jaakobou 21:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you removing big chunks of talk? Archive it instead, leaving a note about what was archived and why, and a link. Ask someone if you don't know how to make an archive sub-page. Then maybe the two of you will be able to stop deleting each others' talk. Dicklyon 03:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dicklyon, obvisoult you did not take a good look at the issue. the talk allready exists on an older image before it was exchanged for the current one - i raised suggestions about the new one and User:Timeshifter copy pasted the info from the older image which is seriously redundant and only disruptive for anyone to contribute to the new discussion. i've tried placeing a link to it but User:Timeshifter insisted that "admins" (who?) wanted the information there. Jaakobou 06:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

to make it more clear, i link to where the material was originally copied from - i.e. here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Israel_and_occupied_territories_map.png . Jaakobou 06:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

for a short while this seemed to get better (after an uncomfortable restructuring i've made^{[59] - scroll down to see editing} ) but issue seems to be repeating itself.^{global locater mess, and 800px wide image} -- Jaakobou 13:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above Sri Lanka specific user seems to be using Wikipedia as battleground and expound anti-minority views that too without WP:RS citations and is adding information in WP:Vand format. For example in the article Islam in Sri Lanka (see here) he/she wrote without any attribution However the Muslim community in Sri Lanka has been severly criticized by the other communities for not practising Family planning; which is an argument used by local communal leaders to suggest that Muslims intend to become the majority in Sri Lanka by the next century. Then on another Sri Lankn minority related article (see diff here) He/she wrote many derogatory terms such as lower caste without attributions. Further on a minority related political party (See diff here) he/she wrote that the party stands for super status for the Tamil minority. Other questionable edits bordering on vandalism are (see diff here),(see diff here), (See diff here) Please look into this to bring some sanity to the situation before all out edit wars begins RaveenS 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note - I just spoke to a journalist about thhe upcoming Scottish elections (May) and vandalism to Scottish political articles on en:wp. He was wondering if it was at the sort of level we'd expect, particularly on Scottish National Party. That article has only suffered minor ravages; the situation probably isn't dire right now - but if people could watchlist Scottish political party, politician, etc. articles and get very WP:BLP on the arses of anything added to said articles, that may be a good idea - David Gerard 13:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto the Welsh, given that the National Assembly for Wales is also having a general election. I don't know why he would think the SNP would get the worst of it though. Sam Blacketer 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Normally, I have a pretty thick skin. But User:JFBurton has already been blocked several times for incivility towards me, personal attacks against me, vandalism of my userpage, and (and this was my last straw) telling me that my much-loved grandfather's death was a good thing if it got me off of Wikipedia for a few days. So I hope you'll pardon me for coming to AN/I today, when he has warned a user who hadn't actually done anything wrong, but who I'd had a recent conversation with on my talk page, and then made another personal attack on my talk page. I think those here who know me know that I usually am very good at ignoring personal attacks, but this user has been making them at regular intervals since November 2006, and I am well and truly sick of him. -FisherQueen (Talk) 14:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My word, some of those diffs are nasty, particularly the last one, and most of them are just plain trolling. Interesting to note that JFBurton is coming off a month-long block for disruptive sockpuppetry: see his block log. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seem to also have a general civility issue, this comment today about this edit. --Fredrick day 15:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion User:JFBurton is nothing more than a vandal. User:!notrub! claimed the name of Village People singer Jeff Olson was actually Tim Burton and changed his country of birth and residence here. User:JFBurton then moved the article to Tim Burton, and also claims the singer is his father here.

User:!notrub! is actually User:JFBurton, as User:!notrub! created the Kelleshulme here, which User:JFBurton claims to have created on his user page. He even confirms the other account belongs to him here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already warned him for posting trash on FisherQueen's talk page, but then I noticed he was under a threat of a indefinite block if he disrupted again. Any takers? (this post should not be interpreted as this editor actually giving a shit again, but rather just one editor sticking up for another who has been kind to him on multiple occasions) Jeffpw 15:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

already beening discussed above - but good catch anyway! --Fredrick day 15:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate threads merged. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JFBurton's latest is an egregious taunting of another editor. I think he is purely here to cause trouble. Sam Blacketer 15:12, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. We really can't have this sort of behaviour. Indef, anyone? Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 15:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've indef blocked for the time being. At the time of his earler 1 month block, Jayjg (talk · contribs) clearly warned him that further disruption would lead to an indef block. Given his contributions at User talk:Grandmasterka, User talk:Bravedave (which I can't figure out... the editor made 1 recent edit and that was a talkpage comment to FisherQueen), and User talk:FisherQueen, I think it is safe to say JFBurton is continuing to disrupt here. If anyone disagrees, we can discuss the block duration.--Isotope23 15:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much. -FisherQueen (Talk) 15:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse this block. This user's overall pattern of conduct and contributions was unacceptable. Newyorkbrad 16:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and if the user starts sockpuppeting to evade this block and continues to disrupt, you could try for a community ban at WP:CN. Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 16:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

moved from WT:INB

I received an interesting SMS from Hutch yesterday. The message read "Wikepedia Search now on your mobile!Find information on anything under the sun by using his free encyclopedia!Log on to Planet Hutch> Info Services >Wikepedia". Looks like great promotion for wikipedia (though they got their spelling wrong). But I am concerned that they may not be totally complying with terms of GFDL. I am also not sure whether they can use "wikipedia" is such promotional messages. Any suggestions on what should be done? - Aksi_great (talk) 09:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I suggest you e-mail someone in the main office and post this news at ANI. Nothing the India Wikiproject can do. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 14:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's probably a wikipedia mirror. Have you tried logging on and checking it out? ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:28, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • When you have, list it appropriately at Wikipedia:Mirrors and forks and Wikipedia:GFDL Compliance. Uncle G 18:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check-user confirms that Telephon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a sock-puppet of banned user Arthur Ellis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone block? Bucketsofg 15:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could we have a link to the checkuser case? Thanks. Newyorkbrad 15:59, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Arthur Ellis. I blocked Telephon (talk · contribs) and requested clarification on TropicNord (talk · contribs). In the future, a link to the request for checkuser would be helpful so we don't have to go fishing thorough WP:RFCU or edit histories to confirm the results...--Isotope23 16:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A quick review of this user's talk page reveals that he is a problem user. He has left abusive and threatening messages on my talk page, as well as adding bad faith CSD to articles after a page he repeatedly created about a band (presumably his own, based on the username) was speedily deleted. --Darksun 15:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just looking into this and Ryanpostlethwaite (talk · contribs) already blocked the editor... which I support by the way. Lots of disruption and silly personal attacks.--Isotope23 16:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I'm trying to start an RfC on Talk:Black Death and User:Peter Isotalo keeps deleting it from the talk page.[60][61]. What should I do? -- Stbalbach 15:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want to report this guy because after I've warned him on what he posts on these articles (Asian Treasures, Super Twins and Lupin (Philippine TV series) are copy-pasted from their respective "about" pages from the iGMA.tv site, he keeps on reverting my edits. -Danngarcia 16:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

• I'm not sure I would call this disruptive. It appears the editor is opining in good faith. Granted, if I were closing these I don't see most of his arguments having much merit to support the opinions he's rendering, but I also don't see evidence he's doing anything other than puting his two cents in. I'll hit his talkpage and suggest he review some policies, etc and try and frame his reasonings along those lines.--Isotope23 16:41, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • As you say, there are limits on what goes into Wikipedia (e.g. WP:ISNOT, failure to provide WP:RS) and also ones on what constitutes acceptable evidence for inclusion (such as WP:NOR). If this user's edits are not based within the framework of such policies and guidelines, it's disruptive to the purpose of creating Wikipedia. Besides, it's a little hard to believe in the good faith of the more facetious reasons. Tearlach 17:08, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • He's trying to illustrate a point that he thinks "hard work shouldn't be deleted." He's made about 45 "Strong Keep" !votes in about an hour; there's no way to read an article and all of the arguments for or against it at that rate. I do think it's disruptive. Leebo ^T/C 17:09, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Personally, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it; realistically no closer is going to be swayed to keep based on the reasoning there. Another admin may see it differently though.--Isotope23 17:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think that there are much more heinous examples than this of "disruptive editing" that we should be focusing our attention on. People are allowed to make meritless arguments. - Crockspot 17:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I've marked all of the AFD discussion contributions by that editor. Several of them were clearly made just for the sake of saying "strong keep" rather than out of any regard for writing an encyclopaedia, such as opining to keep clear hoaxes or unsourced rumours, and some other edits such as this indicate that disruption is the intent here. But this is something that we've dealt with at AFD before. The usual approach is to simply note the editor's actions so that the closing administrator can give xyr rationales an appropriate weight. Closing administrators are not vote-counting robots, and can be relied upon to treat such discussion contributions appropriately, once the pattern is pointed out. Uncle G 17:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I thought my reasons were good, but I guess we all have different opinions, and I'm learning more and more about Wikipedia and how it's users think every day. Anyway, I just wanted to help out others who spend time making articles that might be able to be improved rather than having their work wasted. Have an excellent evening! --Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? 21:06, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like disruption to me...and anyway, his username is an obvious violation of WP:U. --KZ^{Talk• Contribs} 21:13, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 21:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe he's referring to the fact that it's generally discouraged to use "Wikipedia" in one's username. However, I do see some sort of disruption here. I will leave W,H,F? a message on his talk page summarizing these concerns.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 21:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with his username. After extensive discussion, WP:U no longer says not to use "Wikipedia" as a part of your username. The initial concern was that names that used Wikimedia-related terms violated the Foundation's copyright. In any sense, I doubt the rule was intended to ban names that refer to one's participation in/feelings about Wikipedia. If you feel his username is inappropriate, feel free to list him at WP:RFC/NAME. szyslak (t, c) 22:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Having been thoughtfully invited here from the Stoopid Monkey AfD by Uncle G, allow me to comment: I believe this user is acting in good faith in order to keep articles that he feels are valuable. A single instance of 45 similar edits in an hour is hardly indicitative of disruption unless it were clear vandalism; stating an opinion, even what might be a misguided one, in a discussion page doesn't even approach vandalism. And I'm sure if I looked in the AfD archives I could find plenty of examples of editors who have gone around to at least as many AfD pages, in at least as short an amount of time, inserting opinions of "Delete, listcruft" or "Delete, fancruft", and they are not similarly chastised. If the arguments are meritless, the closing admin will see that and take it into consideration. On the other hand, it could certainly be argued that following a user around and commenting on all his AfD opinions in an attempt to discount them based on the user's edit history (rather than addressing the merits or lack thereof of the individual arguments) is disruptive, being possibly an example of both stalking and biting a newbie, and perhaps even a personal attack. DHowell 21:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• While I wish this user would spend more time analyzing these articles and providing clearer rationales for retention, I see nothing disruptive in his actions. The rationales provided are far more informative than many of the usual "Delete - nn" variety, often rattled off at rates far, far higher than the 45 per hour evidenced by the accused. If lack of rationale and time between votes are going to be treated seriously as an issue, and appropriate standards are established to eliminate the problem, there will be far many more delete voters eliminated than speedy keepers. Alansohn 04:25, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Basically, he can go do that all he likes, and if he's not making a clear, policy- and source-based argument, whoever closes the AfD can and should ignore it. If he really wants the articles kept, he would certainly do himself a service to make such arguments, but if he wants to spam WP:ILIKEIT across every AfD we got it won't make a bit of difference anyway. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I think I smell a sock. Will follow up with details soon. Durova^Charge! 05:31, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is one of the site's long term vandals (and an excellent example of why it was a baaad idea to deactivate WP:RFI). The Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? account is a bad hand sockpuppet of User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles whom I blocked for six weeks on November 8, 2006 for attempted vote fixing at WP:AFD and gross violations of WP:POINT.[62] And of course, the new account started its life while that lengthy block was in place.[63] This editor knew he couldn't get away with massive AFD disruption on the old account anymore (I had warned him he was close to an indef) so he returned with his usual florid courtesy on that account and kept the other one to play around as the new persona who supported absolutely every wretched article regardless of site policies. The prose style is inimitable and piqued my curiosity immediately. Two representative examples:

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Congratufuckulations (6 November 2006): Keep! Classic name for an article; actually made me laugh! :) Anywho, Wikipedia has been delete happy as of late and I fear that many contributor's hard work will discourage participants and will detract from our ability to catalog human knowledge, the purpose of an encyclopedia. Cheers,[64]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dimelo! Records (10 April 2007): *Strong Keep, because companies are signigficant and it's useful to learn more about them for consumers.[65]

I soon confirmed that, among other things, both accounts have edited Parma, Ohio and [66] and List of light gun games.[67] Slightly more complicated is obvious unregistered editing at 164.107.223.217, which resolves to Ohio State University.[68][69] I've indef blocked both registered accounts and put a 12 hour block on the IP - it's kind of hard to do longer if it could have a general effect on one of the largest universities in existence - but this person seems to know that unregistered users seldom carry weight at AFD.

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

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

He vandalized many pages : Special:Contributions/82.45.240.79 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForrestVoight (talk • contribs) 17:21, April 10, 2007 (UTC)

• First three edits in months, but blatant vandalism. I've just given him his final warning so if he does anything again, report him to WP:AIV where he will be blocked from editing for a while. Thanks for reporting - Alison^☺ 17:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I left ForrestVoight a note about handling vandalism on his talk page. Leebo ^T/C 17:31, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The user at the IP address 63.192.190.121 (Contributions) is doing nothing but vandalism. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] --Nhlarry 17:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest (a) Warning the user and (b) reporting him or her to WP:AIV for a quicker response. --ElKevbo 17:32, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They had stopped with 5 more members left to do[88], so I think editor did eventually get some message. Question, since all these were indeed members of the Congressional Black Caucus, would it really be inappropriate to add the links? Though I was perplexed to see that at least one page, David Scott, doesn't mention his membership. Shenme 22:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Several of the links in Dime go to some random website. Like Fasces.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh mein Gott, der Tilman ist aufgestanden. You dare to present a knucklehead like Touretzky as a source? You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming. Hey, und noch was, what is the "Misou Text"? Misou 05:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to reconsider the use of language like poison dripping off your teeth now again, [89] knucklehead like Touretzky [90] (he is, after all, a professor with a PhD - and if you had looked further, you would know that the work was not written by him, he is only hosting it), You might want to spill some cold water in your face as you must be dreaming [91] - this is not helpful in an environment where we have to work together. Please read WP:WQ. With "Misou Text" I meant your contribution here. So, when was your edition published? Oops, I see that you wrote I have no books available so I shouldn't have asked. Btw, here is another source for the racist text: [92] --Tilman 16:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tilman, they use the Wikipedia quotes in there. This is Goebbels tactics ("If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it."). Stop that and participate in the discussion if you can, thank you. CSI LA 17:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)I'd mention this to the editors directly, but I myself am editing there too and think any warning on my part might seem partisan.[reply]

Can someone please take a few moments to remind us over there about WP:CIVIL, etc. It's not just the editors I've cited here but the general level of hostility on the page I'm asking someone to address. Anynobody 01:30, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just blocked User:Hotshots2006 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log) for a vandalism spree (blanking user pages, name calling, etc.) He's uploaded a bunch of images ([93]) and tagged them all as "public domain"; I strongly suspect they're copyvios. What does anyone think? Blowtorch them all right away? They're currently listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 April 10 thanks to the diligence of a couple other editors. Antandrus (talk) 01:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He admitted it on my talk page: "I'm not breaking any rules, guidelines or policies on the sockpuppet thing - an obvious sockpuppet account can have obvious, and valid, reasons for existing." [94] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:54, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Felt a need to remove this (my) commentfrom Talk:Muhammad al-Durrah[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AMuhammad_al-Durrah&diff=121879080&oldid=121877632. On my talkpage she posted:

"WP:BLP: This is a BLP violation. If you post anything like it again, I'll request admin action. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)"[95][reply]

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