This situation was not accepted at WP:AIV because it's too complex, so I'm posting it here: 138.23.89.187 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Also uses 138.23.77.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 138.23.77.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Probable socks of Pericles626 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Slow motion vandalism of Garrison Keillor, A Prairie Home Companion (film), and related articles for at least six months. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

If these are suspected socks, then I would place the requisite template (sockpuppeteer) on the IP's user page to identify that you have expressed concerned that these reflect the activity of a single user. Also, there is no restriction to opening up a sockpuppetry case that deal with anon IPs in order to have admins take a look at it. However, most of the time the outcome comes back to WP:AIV. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 22:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I got a 3RR warning [2] on Wikipedia:Reliable sources from User:Francis_Schonken, that I consider highly unjust and intimidating, as well as highly disruptive to a constructive solution.

1. I am here publicly accused of editwarring by the same user that is involved in this dispute on extremist sources (he thinks there should not be any impediment to the abuse of reliable sources in highlighting extremist sources).
2. I made three different proposals to make myself clear and all edits were accompanied by TALK: [3].
3. Since I was seriously discussing a very serious proposal per TALK already, this hardly counts as sterile edit warring, the spirit of the rule.
4. This user did not respond properly to the rejection of his arguments and recurred to reverting instead, thus provoking a 3RR situation.
5. Reverts without TALK or per proven misunderstanding of the edit using TALK should be allowed to be undone per TALK or edit summary.
6. Evaluating the Schonken answers, rephrasing was no luxury since he is obviously playing dumb to my anwers (for instance here: Re. "it is not paraphrasing I refer to". Exactly. We shouldn't need to be worrying about it being paraphrasing or exact quote).
7. I esteem this action creating strife, rather than encouraging to engage in TALK to resolve the issue.
8. If indeed User:Francis_Schonken is an administrator (?), his involvement should be addressed on this level as well.

As such, I experience this undue 3RR warning as an attempt to impose another point of view by force, avoiding TALK. Rokus01 (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You were warned that you were about to break 3RR...when you were, in fact, about to break 3RR. It is common for an engaged editor to issue the warning. I also notice Francis edited the talk page concurrently with his reverts of your edits. Further, the fact that you happen to be discussing a matter does not excuse you from edit warring, especially on a guideline page. Just take the warning for what it is, and stick to discussion for the time being, and follow dispute resolution as necessary. There's no need to get worked up over it. Someguy1221 (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi all, rather than being paranoid, I was wondering if an admin could cast their eye's over this comment [4] and possibly ask the editor in question to cease making such statements. Thanks Shot info (talk) 03:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. — Rlevse • Talk • 03:47, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

NP, although I think his parting edit sum [5], gives his/her regard for your efforts. Thanks anyway and hopefully it will make a difference. Shot info (talk) 03:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving long thread over 50k to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford Round Table. Cheers, D.M.N. (talk) 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Would somebody make sure this thread gets archived properly? Somehow I don't think shunting it off onto it's own subpage is going to allow that to happen. Pairadox (talk) 04:43, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the thread has died now anyway. That tends to happen when these sort of threads get moved to a subpage. The thread was also naturally coming to an end, so maybe it would have archived automatically after a day, but we will never know now. I know Betacommand has been manually archiving some noticeboards. Maybe he could deal with this subpage? Carcharoth (talk) 08:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And it still sits there, abandoned and forlorn... Pairadox (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 05:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the thread as it is over 50k. People who have slower browsers find that this page especially loads up very slow, because of the big threads. D.M.N. (talk) 09:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was about to do a cut-and-paste archive of the ORT subpage, but I'm not sure which archive to put it into--should it go into the latest archive, or should I try to put it with other stuff that was discussed on Feb 11-12? --Akhilleus (talk) 20:28, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, I've added the thread to the end of Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366 and redirected Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Oxford_Round_Table to the archive. I hope I didn't screw anything up... --Akhilleus (talk) 20:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Hempbilly (talk · contribs) has violated WP:3RR attempting six times to add poorly sourced derogatory information about accusations of pedophilia ([6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]) to an article about a noted person whose work opposed America's conservative agenda, in violation of WP:BLP. There is a report above concerning his warring in a similar way yesterday to the same ends on a different article ([12] [13] [14]). He is actively continuing this behavior at the moment (the last such edit was within the past few minutes), and indicated that he intends to continue. I believe we should run a checkuser on this editor inasmuch as he is clearly more experienced than his small edit count would suggest, has shown no interest in discussing or otherwise participating, has refused to answer directly whether he is a sockpuppet, and exists for the single purpose of adding controversial material about liberals and removing such material from articles about conservatives. Wikidemo (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

As for Wikidemo allegations, they are groundless. He accuses me of adding "poorly sourced derogatory information" although he fails to explain how its poorly sourced. Its sourced to the National Review, and last I checked, the NR certainly meets all the criteria for inclusion based on WP:RS. It also adds a check to Ritters utterly ridiculous claims that he was "set up" into meeting an underage girl in the bathroom of a BK.

The example Wikideom goves for the Bernie Ward page is similarly baseless. The material was cited and sourced to a WP:RS, and last I checked thats the requirement ... not some strawman about whether the material is too salacious or descriptive.

Another similarly poor argument of Wikidemo’s is that I only trash talk some kinds of people, and strip information from articles about other kind of people. Reading minds is not advised, especially considering that its not possible to do so. And while there may be some truth in the articles I have been editing … so what … iof that was grounds to ban or block me, there would be thousands of other editors who would fall under this wide net. (Don’t see you complaining about the others Mr. Wikidemo)

As for the checkuser request, sounds like someone is a bit to eager to go fishing .... but go for it, this IS' my only account, although I have edited under IP's before.

Hempbilly (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place to assess the merits of content, but rather behavior problems that require administrator intervention (i.e. blocking Helpbilly to prevent ongoing disruptive editing). A quick review of Hempbilly's talk page and contribution history reveals an escalating campaign of inappropriate edits, and more recently, cursing in edit summaries, personal attacks, etc). He is now up to 6RR on one article with no indication of stopping, after being reverted by four different editors who agree the material is inappropriate. My conduct is not at issue here. This is a reading of Wikipedia edits, not minds.Wikidemo (talk) 22:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Last time I tried editing on this ID, I was chased off by individuals so hell bent on owning an article that I decided to go anon for a while, looks like thats where I will have to go agian. Congratulations everyone, you won! Now you can relish that victory cookie even more.

And calling my edits "poorly sourced" and "derogatory" would seem to qualify as discusing the merrits of the content. There goes that standard for some and a standard for others that you seem so keen on upholding. Hempbilly (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I was actually surprised that this is here -- I had just filed an AIV report. WP:BLP/N#Bernie Ward has information of Hempbilly's POV-pushing/BLP-vios. at Bernie Ward. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 22:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that was a good first step. I brought it here because the problem has continued and expanded since you brought it there. It's an immediate behavioral issue concerning more than one article now, and BLP/N is simply not set up to quickly handle people who become disruptive editors overall. Note the admission, and threat, to continue these inappropriate editors anonymously. Would a checkuser show these anonymous IP accounts? Can we do an IP block here? Wikidemo (talk) 22:46, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Update - this now-blocked[[15] editor has blanked his talk page[16] and user page,[17], claiming as he does here that he is abandoning this account to continue the disruptive edits under anonymous IP accounts to avoid detection. This is a vow of and admission to abusive sock-puppeting. Accordingly I've filed a checkuser request[18] to figure out what anonymous IP accounts he refers to sockpuppeting under so we can check for possible WP:BLP violations in those edits, and also to prevent ongoing disruption under the anonymous accounts. On his way out he tried three times to insert the BLP violations into talk talk pages as a protest against their getting removed from article space.[19] [20] [21] I suggest that a longer-term block and/or IP block is called for under the circumstances.Wikidemo (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've got the two pages in question (from Hempbilly) watchlisted to monitor for any abusive changes. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 02:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not just semi-protect the pages in question for a couple of days? Problem solved. One has literally no random edits and the other one that is has said random edits reverted almost as fast as they're made. HalfShadow (talk) 02:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There is little justification now that Hempbilly has been blocked for 3RR and for BLP vios. In the case of Bernie Ward, which has seen increased activity in light of recent news, the BLP vios. were reverted within minutes -- although that didn't stop from chit-chat from occurring on the talk page. If it escalates with various socks of Hempbilly or more random IP edits, then one can request RPP. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 03:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

A checkuser has confirmed at Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/IP_check#Hempbilly that Hempbilly has three other accounts. I haven't even begun to look and see if they have been misused for edit warring, but TDC (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) has quite a history. The checkuser has blocked his IP for 2 weeks, so altering the 24-hour 3RR block I made this afternoon would be largely symbolic, but there is a question of what to do next. The most obvious option is to indef all accounts but the original (User:TDC). But beyond that, can anyone make a really good case not to impose a community ban? That's the direction I'm leaning. --B (talk) 04:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why a community ban cannot be implemented. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 04:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've reviewed the edits from the three other accounts and only found four recent contentious edits worth reverting, all from TDC. Some raised BLP concerns and others were just contentious. I reverted these four for BLP reasons and so as not to reward an abusive sockpuppet with being able to slant article point of views. All four accounts showed history of disruptive editing, disputes, etc., particularly TDC, which has quite a block history. However, other than the four I reverted all of the problem edits were at least a month ago and now buried under many subsequent edits. Rather than try to undo any of it, I figured it's better to leave things up to the discretion of the the people actively involved in the articles. I'm pretty satisfied that the abuse was real but the damage not widespread. Wikidemo (talk) 07:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that Vintagekits (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) recently reposted a deleted article, Gregory Lauder-Frost (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). As far as I can see, the reposted version was the same as the deleted version, which is a violation of GFDL as well as deletion policy. Somebody who does not have a history with this user (i.e. not me) needs, I think, to find out whether this was taken from a site he believed to be GFDL, or whether it was just another in the extensive series of problem edits from this user. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page history shows a restore a few days ago, and Alison protecting the page as a redirect. I also don't see it in Vintagekits' recent contributions. Can you be more specific? The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, while I also have a somewhat adversarial history with this user, he seems to have been unaware of the backstory involved (User talk:Vintagekits#Are you ill? and hasn't attempted to create this. He seems to have edited a few articles extensively worked on by David, but in a constructive fashion, as far as I can tell. I saw the briefly-recreated article on Lauder-Frost, and his edits to it (I think he added a reference or two) seemed temperate and not for the purpose of making a personal attack on the subject. It appears to me to have been a mistake rather than deliberate misbehavior. Choess (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are wrong: [22] is the diff where VK reposts the entire article, from what source is not clear. It's the deleted article in its entirety, without attribution. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I expect the edit was in response to the indef blocking of David Lauder et al, whom he had clashed with on this and related articles previously. Its typical of his style to edit like that to make the point that the editor he is in conflict with can't respond. He got the contents of the deleted article from another wiki, I expect, and didn't consider the GFDL issue. He backed of quickly enough, though, when warned to do so, suggesting it was an error more than anything malicious. Rockpocket 09:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

He did seem unaware of the lengthy and complex history of that particular article, and as soon as I realised what had gone on I tried to make sure the new history was deleted and redirects protected. I'm not sure what more preventative action could be taken at this stage, three days later. He stepped on a landmine, it's all been dealt with, think it's best just to quickly move on? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 09:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I should add that in the course of my research into the history of this situation a couple of weeks ago I discovered at least one off-wiki mirror of the GLF article. Relata refero (talk) 10:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The article The limit of the semantic web is currently the subject of an AfD, and the article's creator, User:Identityandconsulting, has taken it upon himself to move the article three four times in quick succession, leaving a trail of silly redirects and making it difficult for anyone who wants to participate in the AfD to actually look at the article. Could someone straighten this mess out? Deor (talk) 05:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it's being cleaned up, but the copy on his userpage needs to be stripped of all the article categories (I can't figure out what section he has them all in). -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:12, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm cleaning it up. I left the AFD templated tagged page even though its currently only a redirect, because of the need for the content to remain while the deletion debate goes on. Keep an eye on this user, he's being incredibly disruptive, and trying to game the deletion debate. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 06:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I changed the link at the AFD (we have to do something so people can find the thing). I would just call it snowballed, but I already commented and would rather avoid any sort of technicality arguments once he gets to the inevitable deletion review stage. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:18, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For a bit of background, I came across user:CompScientist after a WQA report was filed regarding incivility at Nissan GT-R. The problem was a bit deeper, with extensive edit warring by CompScientist and various IP addresses which were recreating content or edits that were, for all intents and purposes, identical or very similar in style. Similar edits were made at supercar and at Vietnam War, where original research was inserted or text that was known to be of dispute were recreated against consensus and/or discussion. In these cases, one of the IP addresses would challenge the validity of the discussion and consensus, and content therein, and there would be accusations of bad faith thrown about.

After CompScientist was blocked for 96h on 01:58, 9 January 2008 for initial sockpuppetry and for filing false AIV reports against myself and possibly other editors/administrators (my memory is a bit foggy), he protested the block but was declined. He was blocked not long after for 1w on 12:14, 19 January 2008 for vandalism at Daniel Case (talk · contribs) and elsewhere.

Checkuser was performed and confirmed that nearly all of the IP contributions at Nissan GT-R and elsewhere were in fact, CompScientist. The block length was increased to 1m on 18:12, 21 January 2008.

Wikipeadian (talk · contribs) soon cropped up, with edits to Nissan GT-R and Vietnam War that were very similar, if not identical, to CompScientist. As a result, the block was reset and extended for 1m on 11:17, 3 February 2008.

As a result, I watchlisted all of the pages that CompScientist was involved in, and noted an edit by Mcknight11 (talk · contribs) on Vietnam War at 01:42, 17 February 2008 that was an identical edit by Wikipedian earlier. Per a comment here, I believe that it is appropriate to call for a community ban of CompScientist, given that this has become a clear abuse pattern. I have listed, with the help of Daniel Case, an extensive list of prior edits and IP addresses and usernames used by CompScientist -- Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/CompScientist. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 06:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I fully support this community ban. From the first time I encountered him, through spurious reports on AIV, I find him very disruptive and he has certainly exhausted my patience, not only through his constant sockpuppetry but his vandalism to my talk page, in which he has attempted to make it appear to me that an SSP had been opened on me. He has the benefit of a dynamic IP, so we need everything possible to convey our distrust of this user. Daniel Case (talk) 06:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Kborer has essentially reverted to a specific version (see also talk page), removing a key distinction (that socialized medicine is a term as opposed to a single system) four times in less than 24 hours, and and six or seven times in approximately 48 hours:

one two three four five six seven

Note that while there have been minor changes, the primary fixation seems to be to remove a (documented and referenced) issue with respect to the use of the term. Note that this is also a repeated pattern on this particular page, reverting three times or more within a short period of time. There is a clear pattern of violation of the spirit of wp:3rr.

The use of POV sources is also more than tendentious: witness the lead sentence being changed to "Socialized medicine is any health care system that embodies the fundamental principle of socialism."--Gregalton (talk) 08:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am cross-posting this to the 3rr noticeboard, didn't realise there was a separate one.--Gregalton (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Francis Schonken is repeatedly violating BLP policy on the Prem Rawat article by linking [[23]][[24]][[25]][[26]] to a anonymously written, self published web sites that contains enormous amounts of unsourced OR and such derogatory unsourced claims as Rawat is "an 'alcoholic'and "Rawat smoked cannabis "four or five nights a week" when in residence at Malibu" and "Dettmers described a collision between a cyclist and a car being driven by Prem Rawat, the cyclist was killed instantly. By Dettmers account, Prem Rawat left the scene without submitting himself to the normal police enquires that ensued."[[27]]. If I try to remove this link in accordance with BLP policy that "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" he threatens me with a 3RR on my talk page despite BLP policy saying "Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals." I would appreciate it if Admins will ensure BLP policy is upheld.Momento (talk) 11:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's not a clearcut BLP violation; if you can't get consensus, take it to WP:BLPN. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There's already Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Prem Rawat links. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The allegation of heavy drinking is also voiced in a reputable source i.e. Washington Post Parents Versus Cult: Frustration, Kidnaping, Tears; Who Became Kidnapers to Rescue Daughter From Her Guru by Chip Brown, Washington Post Staff Writer Monday, February 15, 1982. Andries (talk) 11:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, it's not a requirement that all of the content on external links adhere to WP:BLP. BLP is for the content of Wikipedia. We don't need to enforce on sites X links removed from Wikipedia. That's not an endorsement of keeping the links; I haven't read them. But saying that we can't link to something because it contains OR is to radically misunderstand Wikipedia policy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? That is new information to me and a positiion that was contradicted by he arbcom in several cases. Andries (talk) 11:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you link to one? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 11:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, rereading my comments, I definitely overstepped my position. Give me a couple of minutes to refactor. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Your view Sarcasticidealist is completely at odds with BLP policy which states = "Material about living persons available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should not be used, either as a source or as an external link" and "Self-published websites should never be used as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". And further from Links guidelines - "In biographies of living people, material available solely in questionable sources or sources of dubious value should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all, either as sources or via external links. External links in biographies of living persons must be of high quality and in full compliance with Wikipedia official policies.Momento (talk) 12:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Momento,

1. please note WP:FORUMSHOP (part of a behavioural guideline here at Wikipedia);
2. "Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Prem Rawat aka Maharaji Information Resource" appears like a sound source to me. You're far from convincing me of the contrary. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know about that second point. Who runs this website? Does it have some form of editorial control? What is its reputation for fact-checking? Has it been quoted in known reliable sources? These questions should have been, to quote, asked and answered by now. Relata refero (talk) 14:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Relata Refero. There's very little in the way of citation in the pages of that site. While I'm not disputing the information there, the 'interviews' aren't dated or explained, just random information attributed to the persons mentioned. He doesn't state when he talked to them, and some sections are just 'analysis' of the guys' hypocrisy. Until and unless that information's sources becomes transparent, that site's not up to the level of a WP:RS, and does, in fact, come off as slightly vendetta-ish. I'd say it's very bad form to link it, and that the BLP clauses probably ought to be applied. ThuranX (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Bamford is back to removing a COI tag that got him blocked just the other day. Prior thread is here. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Per this diff here which appears to be a "threat" to continue removing the tag, should his block be extended? Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for another 24 hours, (see block review below). I'd say he's had his chances at WP:AGF after this one and if he continues, a week long block would be appropriate. MBisanz ^talk 15:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to create an alternate account User:Intercontinental ballistic missile. I have some questions.

• Can I create such alternate account?
• Will the name User:Intercontinental ballistic missile be acceptable?
• If I create the acoount, then what will be the password. The same password I use for my present account, or other password. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead, just make it crystal clear on the user page of both users that each is an alternate account of the other, and don't edit as if you were two people. Use any good password you like. WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

And maybe read through the policy —αlεx•mullεr 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have been created by User:Otolemur crassicaudatus. Intercontinental ballistic missile (talk) 15:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that my log[28] clearly telling that I have created the alternate account, but the other's log is empty[29]. I have no idea why this happened. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 15:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It shows up here - note that I used the different text box. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:16, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This has been brought up here at least twice before, but the situation doesn't seem to be improving, please skim through the discussions located here: Wikipedia:Abuse reports/71.x.x.x, it started out with this user using some articles as a propaganda machine and me reverting him, since then, he has started using misleading and offensive edit summaries, make personal attacks in English and in Czech and worst for me: going through my contributions and undoing my edits, these edits 99% of the time look to be good faith. The user has been active for months maybe even years, he has acquired over forty blocks and two range blocks, he's not active right this second, but last night he went to undo my edits again, when I reported him, administrators failed to block him and an administrator (not going to name) removed him from AIV telling me to report here, obviously not even looking through the abuse reports from which the situation is very obvious. Numerous users including many admins are familiar with the situation most notably user:Kubigula who has seen him in action and has received personal attacks from him as well. I'm here to seek help since I'm finding it difficult to receive it elsewhere and I'm starting to think that simple blocks aren't working and it's time for something else.--The Dominator (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi removed a POV tag at Yi Ching[30]. Despite being asked to replace it[31], he has not done so. Instead he has place a citation template there (my edit was cited). I do not want to edit war with this user who also wikistalked me to the Project Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid and reverted me there[32].I'd be grateful if someone could help. Mccready (talk) 23:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

At the moment, this is not a drawn out edit war, and does not need admin attention. I would suggest politely pointing out that the POV tag should remain so long as one editor thinks the POV is present. That said, I also think you two should just stay away from each other and each other's talk pages: use the community talk pages. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User has been trolling on multiple articles which I happen to watch. He makes highly POV, pseudoscientific, or non/against consensus edits, then reverts, then goes to your talk page to scold as if you've broken policy (he apprently learned a small bit from all his blocks, but his basic manner remains unchanged). In the current instance, he is acting as though the whole article is POV because the lead does not mention criticism; the criticism at the time consisted of one sentence. This in spite of an {{expansion}} tag on the section. POV tag was removed per general consensus that it shouldn't be there. And I placed no {{cite}} tags on the article. Look at his block log and edit history Mccready (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Martinphi is correct in removing the neutrality tag, IMO. Mccready has not explained what aspect of the article's neutrality is in dispute. He has been asked to state the neutrality problem in respect to: WP:NPOV, WP:VER, and WP:NOR. This he has failed to do [33]. Sunray (talk) 06:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Could an admin now have a look at this. Both [[User:Martinphi] and User:Sunray have reverted the POV tag despite advice above in this thread and despite advice from another user on the talkpage. of Yi Ching. User:Sunray is also inserting OR. I have requested an apology from Martinphi for his inflammatory, uncivil and wrong accusation of trolling. Mccready (talk) 08:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I didn't remove it again. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've restored the tag, but only under the condition that you hash out your arguments on the talk page, and then abide by the consensus. If you believe more of the community needs to be privy to the argument, try WP:RFC. The Evil Spartan (talk) 09:34, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

This should be referred to arbitration enforcement. Martin is under restrictions for making disruptive edits per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist. ScienceApologist (talk) 12:53, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

User:81.145.242.67 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This user has just been brought to my attention. He has a long history of vandalism and unconstructive editing. WHOIS shows this is an ADSL connection, which I believe to be static, but the pattern of edits is more than persuasive that this is one editor. He has had numerous warnings, and stops when warned only to return with the same pattern of editing. My view is that we could do with a rest from this and have blocked him for a week (I was considering a month) to prevent further disruption and to bring home that his style of editing is unhelpful. There has already been discussion between two editors here, but my opinion is that this cannot continue. Would anyone care to review this block to make sure I'm not out of line please? --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 13:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

That's a BT IP and probably dynamic. With those you're better off just blocking for short periods. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

IPs in the ranges 81.145.240 - 81.145.242 are dynamically assigned by BT/AOL and best served by blocks lasting 31 hours at the very most. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 20:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite having been previously blocked for edit warring, JK Cromwell has continued to disrupt and add unsourced information to multiple articles. For more information, see her contributions. I believe her block should be reinstated and extended. Serendi^podous 18:44, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I have re-blocked and extended this to 48 hours. Returning to an edit war once a 3RR block has expired and replacing unsourced material is disruptive editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

UkraineToday is a banned user (I don't know how to format a link to a block, but here is the line from Yamla's log: # 20:02, 7 September 2007 Yamla (Talk | contribs) blocked "UkraineToday (Talk | contribs)" (account creation blocked, e-mail blocked) with an expiry time of indefinite ‎ (violation of WP:NLT, continuing email harassment).

Now UkraineToday's socks are springing up really quickly. We have Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3 named socks, 3 IPs) from January 18, then this Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (3rd) (2 named socks, 7 IPs] from January 26, then Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (4th) (2 named socks and 7 IPs) from February 2, and Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/UkraineToday (5th) (1 named sock) February 17, and two more IPs (one blocked by Jehochman, the other, User:80.97.94.178 I have not reported yet (the IP has been used by other editors in the past).

I have applied for semi-protection (granted a few hours later - jd2718) for the article WP:RFP#Ukrainian Parliamentary Election, 2007 he has been trying to edit. Do I just keep reporting the socks as they appear? Is there something else to do? Jd2718 (talk) 19:10, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been a fairly unpleasant incident this weekend with this user getting indefinitely banned as a result. I don't question the process as the user used, to say the least, 'intemperate' language. However, the reason I'd like to broaden the discussion from what anyone can read above - and it's a given that we'd prefer to avoid banning contributors - is that the situation clearly spiralled out of control before everyone's eyes. Nobody wanted the matter to end up as it did but it ended badly because everyone got mad.

Feelings were running high on both sides and I'd suggest that we need a 'red button' that anyone can hit in any such situation. This 'red button', a chill-out button, when pressed, would prevent any addition to any discussion for 24 hours. An enforced time out. Then everyone can come back a day later to sort things out. By button, I don't necessarily mean a red thing on the screen; just perhaps an admin, or maybe any participant, to intervene arbitrarily to shut a heated dialogue down. I think if this had been present yesterday, we'd have avoided the fracas we had. We need to avoid driving contributors away. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[34] Corvus cornix_talk 00:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And another - [35] The guy's jumping IPs.Corvus cornix_talk 00:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Five different IPs in total, two appear to be proxies, two are dynamic (Verizon and AT&T), but the fifth is interesting - a college IP from Indiana 137.112.141.232 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Match anyone we know? Black Kite 00:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Does it?  :) Corvus cornix_talk 00:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. That's why I asked. :) At a guess, probably an off-wiki co-ordinated attack, I know this editor has had problems with this before, as have many others. Black Kite 00:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) He's been harassed for a long time; look at the history of Jack's user page and take your pick, though I suspect those are mostly the same person. It might be related to this; they're tagged as sockpuppets of "Grawp" but I don't know if that's significant. Antandrus (talk) 00:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... Maybe it means that we've found the specific location and institution of one of our most prolific current vandals. I don't know if this was known before. Grandmasterka 00:47, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just Grawp posting calls to vandalize on 4chan again... nothing to see... although the recent history of my user talk page is amusing... east.718 at 01:05, February 18, 2008

That's been going on for a couple of months. Frankly, if life is this empty for 4-chan members, one wonders why they don't consider suicide... HalfShadow (talk) 01:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, they probably say the same about us, but with this significant difference: we have created the largest encyclopedia in the history of the human race, while all they have done is ... is ... :) Antandrus (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Started their frontal assault on Scientology. bibliomaniac15 03:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• There is a complete moron vandalizing this article from various IPs and accounts with the name "Norman Rogers" in them. The article should be semi-protected and usernames with "Norman Rogers" in them blocked immediately. JuJube (talk) 00:32, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The article has been protected and if such users continue to vandalize, please report them to WP:AIV. SorryGuy  Talk  00:59, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I've semi'd the page for now (with full move protection), but I expect we might want to extend it to long term full protection in the near future. More about this rather old meme can probably be found on Google. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

In a discussion of -puppetry by Triberocker, I noted

And he appears to look at this situation as a feud. For example, after the checkuser result, I gave myself a temporary link to his block log, so that I could see what (if anything) followed. He responded as if this were a tit-for-tat thing.

I now note an edit in which Triberocker appears to declare just that.

(The administrative action taken in response to the -puppetry was to temporarily range-block anon edits from some Valparaiso University IPs. No block was applied to the Triberocker account itself.) —SlamDiego_←T 01:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Could someone close the 'tardgate, please? HalfShadow (talk) 01:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Semi-pp for three hours. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)re

It seems our immature interlopers may have some sleeper accounts, one of which I have just blocked indef. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the same 75 dynamic IP a few times towards the end of 2007. Apparently this IP has been stalking me, with these mysterious edits - (these are users that I indefinitely blocked) - [36] [37] [38] - this is suspicious as well. This IP has been causing more trouble, see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_U.S._Roads#75_IP. Could someone look at this situation? --Rschen7754 (T C) 02:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I wish to report the behaviour of user User:Mathsci who continually has tried to discourage me from contributing and editing articles on French localities in a significant display of WP:OWN and particularly WP:OWN#EVENTS. This first started with accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [39] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [40] and [41] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [42] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [43] and still displaying WP:OWN in [44]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" today at [45] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [46], [47], and given warnings [48], [49]. Michellecrisp (talk) 02:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I have hardly edited recently [50] because I am busy giving a graduate course/preparing a book. I did buy an 800 page book on the history of Marseille (in French) on a recent brief trip back to France: I have used this a little to check historical details mentioned by other editors on the page of Marseille and have suggested using it as the source for a detailed article on the chronology of Marseille (a similar article already exists on the French WP). Michellecrisp appears to have followed me to Aix-en-Provence. I own neither of these pages but have them on my watchlist. Much local information (eg detailed local history) on both these places is only available in French. If dates are added which contradict the chronology in an authoritative and encyclopedic history they will be corrected using the reliable source. Michellecrisp seems to have gone on a tagging spree on information added mostly by other editors long ago and has not tried to source the information on her own (such as population estimates from INSEE). Often sourcing information is not hard to do with a knowledge of French: the official information is often only available in French. I have no idea why she has brought this to WP:AN/I. Her choice of the word "continual" is odd considering my recent wikibreak. Mathsci (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

My original comments stand. I am not questioning Mathsci's knowledge of French topics. but the violation of principles of assuming good faith and clear WP:OWN (I have given seven examples above of this which has occured over the past month) which has regrettably developed to personal attacks. It is against Wikipedia principles to discredit or put down other editors for lacking knowledge. Michellecrisp (talk) 23:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Your content dispute does not represent what happened on the actual pages, where you added faulty information (mistaking a TGV station for an SNCF station, quizzing the climate of Aix, dismissing the ancient monuments of Marseille, getting dates wrong). I have no idea why, without adding any significant content to either of these pages but merely tagging indiscriminately, you have seen fit to bring your grievances to WP:AN/I. You have not made any very clear arguments on the talk pages and most of your taggings that I have had time to look at are easy to justify. They mostly concern long standing additions by other editors. If you tag without discussion and add faulty information, is it not to be expected that somebody with access to detailed information will check the information and add sources? That does not constitute ownership of an article: it merely means that sources are being provided. Data from dubious websites that contradict acknowledged encyclopedic history books will be corrected in this process. This "dispute", of your own making, should never have been brought here. Your tagging was provocative: you seem now to be objecting when proper sources have been added to justify material of long standing by other editors. That seems unreasonable on your part. It seem odd that you have been tagging with no intention of checking the information for yourself, which cannot be so hard, even in Australia. I think you have misrepresented the recent editing history: you seem to be making a mountain out of a molehill. Mathsci (talk) 01:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute but an issue of user behaviour. My issues is here are your comments that you have directed to me that violate assume good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS. ownership of article includes trying to discourage others from editing not necessarily "owning" in the literal sense. Please let this be reviewed by an administrator.Adding faulty information such as the SNCF edit was done in good faith. I have never deliberately added faulty information. Feel free to check the history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence where I have found some references and tried to improve wording. I have brought this grievance here because after repeated warning you fail to assume good faith and have developed into personal attacks, and a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"a deliberate campaign to dissuade me from editing articles"? On the contrary you have chosen a very public place to misrepresent my WP edits. Bonne nuit. Mathsci (talk) 02:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is very clearly a content dispute. Please take follow the policy Wikipedia:Dispute resolution in resolving this issue. Your dispute does not belong here. If necessary, please request mediation. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify how this is a content dispute? I am reporting the issue of user behaviour, specifically WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS as evidenced in my diffs in the original post. This is not related to specific content. I am not disputing the content of any article mentioned, I am disputing the validity of editors asking other editors not to contribute to certain articles. One of the things Mathsci is questioning is my right to tag articles. Michellecrisp (talk) 05:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have removed "content". You still need to work through dispute resolution to get this taken care of. That's what it's for. So far, I don't see anything that specifically needs an administrator to do anything. Any user can warn another for violating policy or guidelines. You are having a dispute with Mathsci, and the steps on WP:DR are there to help you work through the dispute. Please take advantage of that information and the steps found there. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I have said that I am on a wikibreak because I am otherwise occupied in real life. Michellecrisp is needlessly wikilawyering here because I have added "of note" after the word "fountains" in Aix-en-Provence to describe two particular fountains, picked out in the cited Guide Michelin for Provence. From her contributions here and on my talk page, she is simply trolling to make a highly ill-conceived point that appears at the bottom her user page. She is being highly disruptive. The presence of this inappropriate report suggests that she is set on harrassing me and does not properly understand how WP works. I unfortunately have no time at present to engage in interactions with Michellecrisp unrelated to actual content in WP articles. Thank goodness she has stayed away from mathematics articles. :) Mathsci (talk) 07:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp has added fresh citation tags to Marseille. She has inspired me to prepare a WP article on Pierre Corneille's play Médée when I return to France. Can someone please award her a barnstar? Mathsci (talk) 09:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone note the continual lack of good faith displayed by Mathsci towards me and less than subtle personal criticism in their above comments? Could an administrator please read my original post? I have attempted to warn the user in question of potential WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS violations and only came here because the user persisted with this behaviour to this point with no cessation as shown in the rather rude edit summary here [51]. I have made several warnings which I stepped up to higher levels (the next level being reporting here) but this behaviour towards me continued (as shown in the seven comments I have provided in diffs above). I would like to continue editing or tagging article I see fit without being rudely discouraged each time I edit an article. With the exception of Masalai I have never experienced this in the 20 months I've been on Wikipedia. An example as shown in my original post was Mathsci reverting one of my edits simply because it was me, I changed some text to conform to policy WP:LAYOUT and removed non-relevant links . [52] is not a content conflict but one based on one editor disliking me editing French geography articles. Where is the evidence of my disruptive behaviour? Tagging is not disruptive but as per WP:CITE and WP:PROVEIT Michellecrisp (talk) 10:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

There has been no revert war. One revert of your edits does not warrant the needless and inappropriate drama you have been creating here. You are behaving out of all proportion, apparently because you have been upset when some of your errors have been corrected. Please desist. Normally people with some knowledge of France or the French language edit pages related to France (the pages on Aix-en-Provence and Marseille are not "geography articles" as you quite wrongly suggest). When this is not the case, such errors are to be expected and should not be taken personally. Now you seem intent on exacting some form of revenge, quite outside wikipedia rules. Why not make yourself a nice cup of tea instead? Mathsci (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not a revert war, therefore not a content dispute. The above comments still reflect a lack of good faith and WP:OWN#EVENTS as displayed continously despite my repeated warning. This continues with Mathsci's recent revert of my comment[53]. I might have said geography but perhaps more broadly cities and towns fall under a category of geography and places. My original complaint stands as a violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS. Comment on content not editors as they say. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Michellecrisp, please, please, please, take some time to learn about WP. I can remove any comment on my own talk page if I wish. Your complaint is absurd and, as an administrator has already said, whatever your grievances, no administrator can help you. One remedy is to get a detailed book on the history/recent history of Marseille or Aix-en-Provence, read and digest the contents and then transfer that information to the English wikipedia. If the only books are in French, polish up your French. Become an "expert" on the topic. You are wasting time, space and energy here. Go and have that nice cup of tea now, it's starting to get cold :) Mathsci (talk) 08:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW you risk being blocked if you continue publicly harrassing me here. You have read but ignored that I am on a wikibreak. You are starting to be extremely disruptive. If I am not editing/reverting how can you continue to make these very unreasonable claims about wikiownership? Please stop now. Mathsci (talk) 08:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This is not harassment, I am reporting your behaviour of accusations of being lazy and unconstructive [54] and being disruptive and having no "special knowledge of French or France" [55] and [56] then reverted a legitimate edit of mine [57] which I believe this was solely done as I did that edit. This developed into a personal attack as shown in the edit summary of [58] and still displaying WP:OWN in [59]. And then accused me of "not aiding the WP project" at [60] At no point has this editor assumed good faith about my edits. I have tried to reason and warn about lacking good faith on numerous occasions to no avail [61], [62]. Become an "expert" on the topic. is classical WP:OWN#EVENTS. Please provide diffs of harassment to back your claim. I have provided diffs of violation of WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS Michellecrisp (talk) 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

An administrator has intervened to tell you that you are mistaken and yet you persist. This might suggest that you have some kind of personal problem. Kindly address this problem in private and stop using this page as a WP:FORUM. Since I am not editing mainspace or talk pages at the moment (that is what "wikibreak" means), your behaviour here constitutes harrassment. You raised your points three days ago and nobody has agreed with you. What exactly do you expect to happen? If you have difficulty understanding these issues, please seek help privately elsewhere. Your comments on my advice "Become an expert on the topic" seem quite unintelligent. You should probably also remove this inflammatory comment on your user page:

One thing I don't like is when editors display WP:OWN. No one owns articles on Wikipedia and no one can dissuade other legitimate editors from contributing. There is no hierarchy for more "experienced" or "qualified" editors.

It suggests that you are looking for "test cases" in your own faulty misreading of WP policies. You are acting as a vigilante and that is quite a serious offense. It suggests that you are set on disrupting the project to satisfy your own personal agenda. Mathsci (talk) 01:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect (and noting full well I used to do the same in 2006 when I didn't know any better) administrators are merely users with extra rights and there's about 1,500 of us, so citing one of us is not going to mean much. However, you're of course welcome to cite *me*, as I like feeling important. :P Orderinchaos 19:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you: I am quite aware of this. The editor User:Michellecrisp seems to be wikilawyering. In the two articles under discussion, she has not added any actual content and seems intent on creating some kind of dispute. As I have already said, I am too busy at the moment in real life to edit the wikipedia, except en passant. Mathsci (talk) 21:20, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

with regard to your claims to harassment, unless you can provide diffs (which you have failed to) then it's WP:KETTLE. Secondly, an admin made a comment, but haven't you noticed that generally a resolved icon is shown to close off the incident report. Michellecrisp (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are a particularly persistent individual who has made a faulty accusation that you are incapable of supporting. Since there has been only one reversion so far, your behaviour here seems to be highly irrational. Please nurse your bruised ego elsewhere. Mathsci (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, without making any attempt to analyse your mental processes, the fact that you have posted this non-existent "incident" is a proof of harassment. You have given no evidence of repeated reverts (because there have been none) or any other abnormal behaviour. You merely seem to be inordinately displeased and now seem intent on extracting your revenge. Is there something I might be missing? I am all ears, Michelle. Mathsci (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[63] ;)Mathsci (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not questioning any reverts except one. "Incapable of supporting" my claim? My complaint centres around your seven comments to me displaying WP:AGF and WP:OWN#EVENTS that's in my original post. It's that simple. It's plan to see that you have assumed bad faith about me all along.Michellecrisp (talk) 08:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Mathsci claims above that "the two articles under discussion (Marseille and Aix-en-Provence, she has not added any actual content". Well I've added a few references to strengthen the articles, [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69] how is that not helping? This is again another example of bad faith of MathSci. Michellecrisp (talk) 08:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another example of Mathsci's assuming bad faith with their edit summary of [70] which another editor commented as "these citation tags are more to do with your dispute with MichelleCrisp than anything else" [71]. May also be considered evidence of WP:POINT. No coincidence that Mathsci wanted to disrupt an article that I was editing earlier that day? Michellecrisp (talk) 14:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#11,000 images tagged NFUR in one day. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Supertoolbox is going around and changing the userpages of User:V-Dash socks to make it appear as if they were Jeske socks. Anyone want to handle this? shoy 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. But, we should ignore these to whatever extent possible. I see no value in bothering to create userpages for throwaway troll accounts. Revert, block, ignore. Creating a collection of trophies only encourages them. Friday (talk) 17:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

(merging duplicate threads)

User's talk page has a personal attack against Friday and Jeske... dont know how this started or who's sock this user is, but it should be investigated. Queerbubbles (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know! The user has been blocked. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 20:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, guys. It's nice to know that I can sit down and play a video game without worrying about getting blocked due to this guy. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 19:19, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Jeke_Couriano is another V-Dash sock who is going around...he just tried to say I was Jéské sock. -Sukecchi (talk) 19:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Another...MatthewCouriano (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 07:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He's been blocked. Please only report unblocked socks, and, as Friday says, please do not tag them as V-Dash socks - he's taken to altering sockpuppet tags (meaning tagging them gives him more targets), and I notice he's now waiting until I'm not on. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 07:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was already blocked. I'll go change that tag, since Slakr just banned it without a word (no offense)...—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 07:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WillOakland (talk · contribs) has been removing "in pop culture" sections from articles unilaterally. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:00, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's right. WillOakland (talk) 09:01, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He also took it upon himself to do this [72]. Charles Stewart (talk) 09:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I changed the passive "could be" (by someone else, it always seems) to "please do." —Preceding unsigned comment added by WillOakland (talk • contribs) 09:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I urge you to discuss these removals on the talk pages of the applicable articles, as large-scale removal of such sections generally results in a widespread edit war, which is very much unwelcome.--Father Goose (talk) 09:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This edit summmary, being WillOakland's third edit since registering, and the user's general behavior strongly suggests this is a sock account.--Father Goose (talk) 09:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree Will seems pretty familiar with the swing of things which does suggest a previous incarnation. Though that in itself is not an issue unless it was a banned person. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

This WillOakland is also deleting large amounts of information in Trivia sections as well as taking it upon his/herself to change the trivia template without discussion so it appears that damage is being done on a large scale in different sections. I am talking about referenced items being removed unilaterally not long after a trivia tag is applied also. I really think Admins need to intervene with this person. UB65 (talk) 09:54, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I honestly did not imagine that a mere change in tone of the template would be a problem. WillOakland (talk) 10:09, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Trivia and "In pop culture lists" are almost always bad news - they trivialise important and serious subjects and make wikipedia look stupid and tacky. The pop culture list creators make the mistake of saying their subject has something to do with their pop culture item, when plainly it is the other way around *only*. If some video game has the Eiffel Tower in it for example, that is not a fact about the tower but a fact about the game (and thus should not go on the tower page). Further, their inherent listy nature (rather than seamless prose) is a major detraction. People don't read lists, but (bored teenage?) editors love adding their personal favourite pop culture tid bits. GAH!!!

But my rant above is not what ANI is for. Thus, let me say that WillOakland would likely have a better impact on wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk) 10:22, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

PS, removing trivial trivia and pop culture additions when they appear is a lot easier than removing established lists which require more consultation. That's where your more likely to get quick results.--Merbabu (talk) 10:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• I have reviewed some of these edits - Kermit the frog, Leonard Mccoy, Dilbert, parsec. He goes further than I would but they seem to be reasonable edits made with some care, rather than unthinking slashes. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

rg ::PS, Ah, maybe that was what he was thinking in the case that I was mostly concerned with. The information had been a part of the article for some time as far as I can tell and then somebody added the trivia tag a few days ago and so boom, he removes all of it. UB65 (talk) 10:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI at that point I was just going down the list of article that link to Family Guy. WillOakland (talk) 10:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I guessed you were doing. FWIW, my method was to review your contributions and then look at the few articles which interested me. Colonel Warden (talk) 10:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• It really boils down to retaining the information rather than just deleting it. Incorporating the information into the article takes a few minutes but is much better than losing it by cutting. I agree with Merbabu's statement:

...would likely have a better impact on Wikipedia if he went about these removals in a more consultative rather than combative fashion. Sudden removal can really annoys people (who otherwise might have been persuadable), entrenches positions in place of reason, and starts edit wars. If he made a clearer case for removal first, and brought people with him, he'd have more luck, create less agro, and improve Wikipedia. regards --Merbabu (talk)

PS, articles do look way better with the information incorporated into the article rather than set apart as tivia and pop lists , etc..

UB65 (talk) 11:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• In the end, it boils down to "does this information enhance the reader's understanding of the subject?" If the answer is no, then excise it. After all, this is (or was last time I looked) an encyclopedia. (And if the answer is yes, include it in the main article, rather than in a separate section). Black Kite 11:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

• Having done it a few times before, it is not that easy or quick to integrate trivia into prose. MickMacNee (talk) 14:14, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like Burntsauce reincarnated. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 15:35, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Obviously, disruptive editing. I'll start to revert these. This kind of disruptive editing does call for administrative intervention. We've been through this nonsense several times before already. If the user won't stop he needs to be blocked. Wikidemo (talk) 15:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't support sockpuppets of banned editors, but I fully support the outright, unilateral removal of poorly written, indiscriminate pop culture sections. When there's mostly bathwater and very little baby, sometimes it's best to start from scratch.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, you can only prune an overgrown bush when you've actually got a bush. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Please do not simply revert these. In some cases, you have reverted original research and unsourced speculation right back into the article. By all means put back specific references if they're notable, significant, encyclopedic, and well-sourced. While I disapprove of this guy's methods, on the whole his edits are improving the encyclopedia. And that should be the bottom line. Nandesuka (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the Fat Man and Nandesuka; such content is rarely useful, and if it could have been integrated into the article, it should have been. Reverting all of them makes no more sense than deleting them to begin with did. And I'm not comfortable with logic like "sounds like" referring to previous banned users. Haven't we learned? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course I will simply revert these. I am looking through them and selectively reverting - a number of the deletions are clearly inappropriate. In many other cases there is no useful content there so I'm leaving them as is. It's not up to me to chase behind disruptive editors with a broom cleaning up their messes. The editor admits here[73] that he is conducting an "intervention" on Wikipedia. Again, we have been through this ridiculous thing before, and it resulted in arbcom cases, administrators being de-sysopped, and so on. We don't need that kind of thing here. That is not what this project is about. Wikidemo (talk) 16:11, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Nor is this project about defending the inclusion of unsightly, unencylopedic garbage in articles. I have no comment on the editor but generally support the edits.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, actually, it is. Keeping up the encyclopedia always involves being on the lookout for people who are more interested in making points than actually contributing. I'm not defending bad content, just dealing with a disruptive editor who is causing unnecessary drama. Again, we have been through this issue before. The issue has been settled already, which is why we have a guideline on the subject. This kind of nonsense always causes trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's unfair to the editor. What point is this editor trying to make other than every article should be readable, well-organized and well-written? The editor is greatly improving the readability and presentability of articles in a minimum amount of time; I have a problem scolding anyone for that.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm done. I've looked through and carefully read most of this editors content deletions over the past few days, and reverted perhaps 1/3 of them. As a rule I've reverted when I saw that the deletions eliminated a substantial amount of encyclopedic material, and let them be in cases where there was very little or nothing salvageable. One thing that he, and some other users, gravely misunderstand is that many of these articles (e.g. Kermet the Frog) are pop culture phenomena to begin with, so that the subject's place in popular culture is part and parcel of their notability. For an actor to participate in popular culture (e.g. taking a role, voicing a character) is what they do. An important event such as the Tiananmen Square massacre is important not because people were killed and jailed but because it reshaped culture. To actually deal with the articles this editor disrupted would take days...and that's what we do here, deal with and improve articles. To go about deleting content you don't like is a lazy, pointless exercise that does more harm than good. If you don't like trivia, edit articles for real but don't come here to cause trouble. Wikidemo (talk) 16:37, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting useless information is "editing articles for real." The text you restored contains encyclopedic gems like: In October 2005, Kermit embarked on a tour visiting 50 "incredibly fun - and some just plain strange - places around the world to celebrate my 50th year in show business." You're pouncing on an editor and calling him names for trying to keep articles free of this nonsense.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 16:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Quoting a piece of material you object to is besides the point. If he had wanted to delete that particular line he could have. He didn't though. Instead, he deleted a bunch of other material that another editor partly restored, including some encyclopedic content such as "On Kermit's 50th anniversary in show business, the United States Postal Service released a set of new stamps with photos of Kermit and some of his fellow Muppets on them" and "A statue of Henson and Kermit was erected on the campus of Henson's alma mater, the University of Maryland, College Park in 2003." I did not touch the Kermit article, and nobody deleted or restored the section you quoted. Deleting large swaths of content as "trivia" is a disruptive activity that serves no valid purpose and sets us back instead of forward. It is counter to guidelines. Please don't encourage people to make disruptive edits. Wikidemo (talk) 17:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Including large swaths of content as trivia is also a disruptive activity. Simply reverting removals of it is even more disruptive. It's a very good thing you selectively reverted them, rather than just blindly reverted everything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 04:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, good faith edits aren't disruptive nor are rollbacks of disruptive edits. When someone makes a large number of improper edits all at once, the simplest thing to do is simply restore the old version and I wouldn't fault anyone for that. But with trivia it's worth the extra few minutes to see if there is anything worth saving or not because 90% of all the content in trivia sections is usually useless.Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

It's too bad people choose to just delete content instead of fixing it. I know it's easier to delete...that's plain enough, but some effort needs to be put into improving articles by integrating content that belongs. No doubt, some content needs to go but it's a little lazy to just delete everything unilaterally. Put a little work into it and you end up with a better article, which is why we're here! RxS (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

So we've got a red-linked user, brand new on February 5th, and his first activity is to immediately start to whack trivia lists. [74] Sounds like hosiery of some kind, eh? Aside from that, the meataxe approach contributes nothing. It's the lazy way, the "I don't like it so no one else can have it" attitude. Because actually working on the articles would require a time investment and would not be nearly as much fun as chopping. I feel like I'm repeating myself here. Oh, yeh... words like or similar to what I said about the now-banned user called Burntsauce, whose attitude and approach were similar (though maybe not identical) to this current red-linked user. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:13, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out to Mr. Redlink that the reason Burntsauce was banned was not because he deleted trivia lists, as such, but because he didn't care what anyone else thought about it and wouldn't take any corrective action to work with the wikipedia community. And Mr. Redlink's most recent edit as of this writing does not look encouraging in that regard either, with its "I'm right and everybody else is wrong" stance. [75] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

He's already been warned, so the above is overkill, as of the moment. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Just so we're clear... yes, trivia sections should be dealt with... with a scalpel, not a meataxe. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester, removing large blocks of material deliberately on the basis of ones personal opinion about content without prior discussion is vandalism; that is not the way toward cooperative editing and is destructive of the encyclopedia. (As you say, the same would apply to similarly reckless additions--and we revert them as spam with hesitation, and block for them to prevent further damage). Vandalism can be reverted. If one doesnt think it vandalism, then it's B as the first step in BRD, and the second step is R. Either way, BB would have been fully justified in just reverting back these deletions, and suggesting that if it were constructively intended, they be done more reasonably. I'm not all that happy with the entire principle of BRD, which i think leads to just this sort of problem, but if B is justified, so is R, as a necessary part of it. The rule does not read BD. The Bold may be necessary to provoke the discussion, and the R shows it is not obvious, and lets the discussion proceed in a hopefully peaceful spirit. Its the subsequent insistence of repeating opposed Bold moves that turns it into edit warring. The plain meaning of "It's a very good thing you ... " is as an attempt at intimidation. DGG (talk) 06:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No, editing pages with the intent of damaging Wikipedia is vandalism, editing pages because one believes that they should be one particular way and disagreeing with everyone else is disruptive and/or tendentious editing. Neither is acceptable, but calling good faith but disruptive editing vandalism is not an assumption of good faith, and tends to engender bad faith in the person you accuse of being a vandal. I am also of the belief that while "In popular culture" sections are bad, but that wholesale deletion of such sections just because they include a "referenced in Family Guy, South Park or the Simpsons" entry is a bad way to go about it (personally, I'd like to see an external PopCultureWiki developed that houses these sections, since it is occasionally interesting to read them even if they're not encyclopedic). Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 01:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the best idea I've heard all day. Just as there is a separate wikisource and wikiquotes (the latter filled with unattributed stuff), there could be a wikitrivia, and then the stuff that's either questionable or "unencyclopedic" could be moved there, and then theoretically everyone would be happy. What would it take to get something like that going? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I vote we call it 'WikiPop'! We could then port over the WikiPop deletionist editors' versions to yet another version, called 'DietWikiPop'! (end humor.) ThuranX (talk) 14:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I also think this is a superb idea. I would totally contribute there.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 14:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I want to flag up a persistent pattern of reversion by Nihil novi on the Spiritualism topic. [76], [77], [78], [79], [80].

As one proponent in the development of the page, I am doing in an attempt to "do the right thing" and out of a wish to avoid flaming any further fires by dropping vandalism or WP:3RR warning on an other editors' talk pages.

I am perfectly happy for material to be removed from the topic that others do not feel is supported by the references and citations provided. I am cognizant of the relative policies and need for consensus but I have made the point that if they wish to remove offending content, they can do so with reverting entirely good reference formating [ [81]], improved images [82], [83] or [84] versus [85] and layouts [86]. Indeed, the removal of the Feminist, Abolitionists or religious principles sections is being done with any discussion and that where references were requested for Post-WWII section they were provided [87].

My feeling is that this a particular situation is being contrived with two or more editors performing identical and total revisions as a provocation, e.g.; Nihil novi and Anthon.Eff [88], [89] etc and that the reverting have now become "personal" rather than topic related. There can be no rational reason for removing formatted references, improved images etc.

I offer that the edits I have done stand as good and I would appreciate practical assistance in this matter as it has gone beyond a mere content issue. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 12:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A quick response. User:Lucyintheskywithdada is doubling the size of the article with one edit, in the process removing preexisting text and images. Concerns have been raised that she has copied and pasted material verbatim from websites (if interested, here's where she was told), and that her "sources" don't say the things she claims they say (some discussion of that here). She has therefore been asked to bring in a little new material at a time, to give us a chance to build consensus, both with regard to her additions and her deletions. So far, she's not listening. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 18:11, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Anthon is the other party engaged in persistent reversions not just on this page but also over the mass deletion of an infobox from every page it was on. An infobox which he referred for deletion and which failed and so he responded by repeatedly removing every example of it. See 31 Jan to 2 Feb [90].

Anthon refers to a paraphrased section of a book I quoted ON A TALK PAGE to support the use of the term spiritualism in philosophy as having an entirely different use. (This has since been accepted and included in a disambiguation page).

Anthon repeats what he knows not to be true, as we discussed this before, by suggesting that it "came from a website" he found. An assertion I have clarified for him in discussion ... [91]. I took it from a copy of the book, hence the paraphrasing. What he seeks to do here is avoid reference to the fact that the quote entirely contradicted his assertion of the lack of connection between spiritualism and E. B. Tylor.

I want to underline that, in essence, the issue here is of WP:BIAS with two or three editors wishing to pursue the generic term in use for the American movement only. I gave the example of the Football page but no one seemed to want to discuss it. Only two editors, Anthon and I formally discussion in move on the proper admin move page. --Lucyintheskywithdada (talk) 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetacommandBot is malfunctioning again. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#BetaCommandBot and NFCC10c - New discussion page. 15:34, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this is my first block, I want to make sure I did it per protoccol. I've blocked Bamford (talk · contribs) for 24 hours as he's fresh off a block for disruptive editing and started blanking pages [92] and [93] and removing tags he's the subject of [94] and [95]. Of course, if I was worng, feel free to unblock. MBisanz ^talk 15:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I added my $.02 on the above thread about Bamford, however this comment here makes me wonder if 24 hours wasn't long enough. Good catch those for at least the 24 hours, some cooling off is definitely needed, especially with being warned about the removal of the COI tag. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Support block. I suggest to anyone else reviewing this to have a read through his talk page, and a look at his contribution history. He's also made a specific threat to evade any block using different IPs [96]. We don't need this kind of hostile, disruptive editor here. Antandrus (talk) 15:26, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yea, over at Wikipedia:COIN#National_Policing_Improvement_Agency, we've caught him or meatpuppets using over 30 different IP addresses. I'm beginning to wondering if this isn't a long-term abuser whose figured out how to spoof an NPIA IP address. MBisanz ^talk 15:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd have blocked at least 72 hours. The short ones seem to have no effect. — Rlevse • Talk • 16:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure why we WP:AGF with people who are obviously just here to make trouble. This should have been indef IMHO. JuJube (talk) 18:00, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll keep that in mind and will try to be around tomorrow when the block comes off to watch things. My rationale was that if he is associated with a semi-governmental law enforcement body (what WHOIS said), we really don't ned them getting mad at wikipedia. But he's obviously used up his good faith and hopefully knows it by now. MBisanz ^talk 01:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

His block is over in a bit over five hours. He's made quite a mess of his talk page; it's rather bizarre. If he goes at it again, I say block him for a week and blank the talk page except for a fresh note and then protect it. Cheers, Jack Merridew 11:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Mattisse continues to attribute to me actions I've never done, attitudes I've never had, and opinions I never held or voiced. Her behaviour has escalated over the last two weeks. It seems like she is either unable or unwilling to check edit histories, and instead holds me reponsible as a scapegoat for any activity she disapproves of in the vicinity of the article Uvs Nuur, no matter who actually did what. A listing of the diffs disproving her numerous false accusations would fill several pages by now, but can be provided if necessary.

Her crusade began after I reverted two of her changes to Uvs Nuur (change a, revert a, change b bordering on vandalism, revert b). Before the second revert, I initiated a conversation on her talk page. Although I basically agreed with her intention to split the information about the Uvs Nuur basin from the lake Uvs Nuur, her responses turned increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things. Other editors tried to explain to her what had really happened, which eventually resulted in an apology, which I accepted. Unfortunately, her false accusations didn't stop after that. After a while she even retracted her apology, for reason that in reality I had nothing at all to do with. She kept accusing me of "unilateral actions" that either other people were responsible for or that never even happened.

After all normal reasoning didn't result in any change, I formally warned her to stop the badmouthing. in her responses, she didn't seem to understand the problem, and tried to present herself as the victim. Other editors tried to talk sense into her, but without success. Caught in her assumed role as the "innocent victim", she continued to attack me with unsubstantiated accusations. At the same time, she announced she would leave the topic for others to edit, even though nobody had asked her to do that.

A number of editors have participated in editing the related articles recently. That activity also triggered some content disputes. I am not directly involved in those content disputes myself, mainly because I haven't formed a final opinion yet on the matters involved. Other than adding some information on the lake, I've primarily done minor formal edits to the related articles. Most of what I did in the respective discussions was to ask questions. The latest episode of those debates has evolved on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia#Trying to make sense of the Uvs Nuur situation. This discussion was overshadowed by an independent user conduct conflict between two other editors. When I tried to get the discussion back on topic, Mattisse took that as an opportunity to attack me once more, as if the uncivil behaviour of another editor had been mine.

Although I have no idea what Mattisse is trying to accomplish with all that hostility, I don't see any sign of her stopping any time soon. After I and several other editors have exhausted our good will in trying to talk with her, I have now finally to ask for admin support. Sorry for the lengthy explanations, and thanks for any constructive ideas. --Latebird (talk) 16:59, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I've interacted with Mattisse on occasions prior to this event (which I have no knowledge of) - I don't mean to come to an assumed position where I am "protecting" her, but in consideration of the much effort you've already put into this statement, could you provide some diffs for the turning responses which were becoming "...increasingly hostile and accusatory, blaming me for a merge that another user had performed a year ago among other things". I know this case is already pretty apparent, but would appreciate some further diffs for clarification, even though we have a sufficient amount of other arguments being presented here, the additional elements can help for the conclusion. Thank you. Rudget. 17:08, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Her user talk page below our initial conversation contains a sizeable chunk of that stuff. Interestingly, in her very first response, she already suggested to "have an RFC over it" (over naming questions that I wasn't actually interested in at that time). In my next contribution I stated that I'd support a split of the topics. A little later she claimed "I see you have merged many articles I wrote", which is utter nonsense. It just went downhill from there. Other relevant discussions can be found at the following locations:

• Talk:Uvs Nuur
• Talk:Uvs Nuur Basin
• Talk:Ubsunur Hollow Biosphere Reserve
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Central Asia (starting here)
• my user page (specifically: User Talk:Latebird#Please do not make unilateral decisions without consensus)

Fortunately, most of the article talk pages (and article edit histories) are not very long, so that it's relatively easy to find most evidence. But of course, I'll be happy to provide other diffs as required to clear up specific questions. --Latebird (talk) 18:05, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not all are sure what it is you're asking for. The options which appear open to me are Wikipedia:Requests for comment, Wikipedia:Third opinion, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts, and maybe Wikipedia:Mediation Committee. The editor appears to have an opinion, perhaps based on some evidence, perhaps not, and seems to be regularly insulting you. Some of the insults might qualify as personal attacks, some might not, but I'm far from certain that anyone would block her on the basis of them alone. John Carter (talk) 18:14, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dear John Carter, while your comments may look reasonably neutral on the surface, I still suggest that you leave this issue to other admins, who haven't also recently insulted me. --Latebird (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked you a reasonable question about what you wanted to see done. You chose to respond with a completely off-topic snide remark, which was the result of your own irrational and summarily closed request for deletion of several pages because you were "pissed off" at their existence for no acceptable reason, despite having been told in advance that your original basis for complaint was not a valid one. I realize you may have some difficulty in general in assuming good faith, but you still haven't indicated what you seek to gain from your own posting here. The options I indicated are, basically, the only ones available barring some specific outside intervention for cause. Are you indicating that you see some specific cause for action from an administrator? Please respond directly to the question, so that people can know what it is you are seeking to achieve by posting here. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The purpose of a report here is to bring an issue to the attention of administrators, both to get their opinions and possibly their assistance. Then, out of more than a thousand at least theoretically available admins, the single one who was recently involved in a conflict with me and has explicitly stated to hold a low opinion of me, enters the stage and gives the appearance of trying to help. Independently of any assumptions of faith or any potential grudges, just plain common sense tells me that this is not a good idea. In the interest of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest on your side, I ask you again to stay away from this issue. If another admin needs help in understanding the purpose of ANI, I'm sure they'll let me know. --Latebird (talk) 06:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, this does not surprise me. I knew Mattisse would eventually push someone to the point where they would have to come here to settle a dispute. What you, User:Latebird, described about her attributing edits to people who never made them is exactly what she did to me on the talk page for Chinese architecture. Have a look. As to her playing the role of the "innocent victim" in talk page disputes, look to her several-month-long quibble with User:PalaceGuard008. I've noticed she has a bizarre habit of accusing people on talk pages for articles of a certain topic, playing the "victim" while everyone else is out to own and destroy articles she is interested in, and then shifting on to a completely different subject where she unfortunately repeats the process. Just my 2 cents on the matter in order to give wider context.--Pericles of Athens^Talk 08:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with Pericles. I tried once to get involved and all I got a page-long complaint, then when I first attempted to assist, a complete striking out of the whole thing and a "looks like everyone is going to attack me so I'll go do something else." This is just her habit, and as I've learned, you just accept it or others will attack you for picking on her. You just have to accept that being passive-aggressive tends to actually work in this environment, so I'd suggest a detailed timeline of diffs, Latebird, to make it harder for others to complain about you being too thin-skinned. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I originally posted a request at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(miscellaneous)#Unprotect_Wikipedia:Esperanza, thinking that this needed community consensus. But after looking again at Wikipedia:Page_protection#Content_disputes, this seems to me like a clear-cut issue of policy application. An expiry date needs to be set on protection of these pages. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

aside from arguing process, is there a reason you want the protection altered? Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I am also concerned for the reasons listed in m:Protected pages considered harmful. And the language currently on the Esperanza page, "This essay serves as a warning to all editors that existing projects must be open and transparent to all editors at all times, not to be overly hierarchical lest they are to meet a fate similar to Esperanza's" seems like uncalled-for obiter dictum that should be edited out, although that is a separate issue from page protection. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:28, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Er, please lets not rehash the esperanza deletion debates. I can't see any benefit of restarting the arguments and the reason why it was shut down is nicely captured by the wording of that essay. There is no good going to come from trying to rewrite history after all this time. I'd say you need to get consensus to rewrite the essay before trying to get the page unlocked. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

The page goes beyond saying why it was shut down to warn that if people start something like it, their project will get deleted too. I don't propose getting in an edit war over the content but permanent protection is not allowed for content disputes. The standard process, even with sometimes-contentious pages like policy and guidelines, and certainly with essays (which is what Wikipedia:Esperanza purports to be), is to allow users to be bold (within reason), experiment with tweaks in wording, and work things out on the talk page as necessary. Ron Duvall (talk) 18:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Its not a content dispute. Its a locked page that we don't need any more drama over. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

So basically you are saying we should apply WP:IAR in this instance? Ron Duvall (talk) 19:15, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

No that's not what I'm saying. There is a community consensus to leave things as they are. If you want to change the page you need to change the community consensus first. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

What about Wikipedia:CONSENSUS#Exceptions? "Consensus decisions in specific cases are not expected to override consensus on a wider scale very quickly - for instance, a local debate on a WikiProject does not override the larger consensus behind a policy or guideline. The project cannot decide that for 'their' articles, said policy does not apply." Why should the consensus expressed in the MfD override the larger consensus behind the policy that protection is only to be temporary, with an expiration date? Interestingly, neither of those two project pages are listed at our "list of pages that are permanently protected or semi-protected, in line with the protection policy." Maybe it's because their permanent protection was not in line with our protection policy. Ron Duvall (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I would only comment that the Association of Members' Advocates may have been substantially replaced by Wikipedia:WikiProject Accessibility. Maybe it could be turned into a redirect there? John Carter (talk) 18:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

They don't seem to be that similar and there are so many internal links to ama that I would be very loath to endorse a redirect. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Concur - wikiproject accessibility seems to be trying to improve the project - let's not make any suggested link between their good works and the vile waste of space that project:wikilawyer was. --Fredrick day (talk) 18:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I see no reason why an editor would need to change the esperanza page, the community consensus on this matter was very clear and no good reason has been presented to revisit the matter. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

• Given the extensive warring that occurred over these two, I would say the appropriate date for protection to expire is three days after the fifth of never. I also wonder about a new user raising this topic. What was your old account, Ron? Guy (Help!) 20:19, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree-ish. It is not the case that all protections should usually have an expiration date. Quite a few pages are permanently protected. Merkinsmum 21:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? You mean, not just deleted and salted against re-creation, but we actually protect them and put up a notice like that? What's an example? Ron Duvall (talk) 22:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Well I thought there were lol, the one I meant seems to have been unprotected, I bet there are some, though. I don't see why you want this unprotected, except you want to remove the statement thing at the top. But it all reads as very ironic in the light of recent debates about the wikipedia IRC channel :) Perhaps just ask for the bit at the top to be removed, as you would ask for a change on any protected page? Is it not NPOV, what's written there? Looks like it. It just says the concerns people had about it. Merkinsmum 23:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(un-indent) From m:Protected pages considered harmful, "What about theoretically already calm third parties who will be turned off by the inability to edit?" (That would be me; I was not involved with Esperanza at all but I'm considered about the impact of that notice on freedom of association here in general. I realize we do not have rights here other than the right to leave and the right to fork, but as a practical matter, it is useful to extend freedom of association for non-disruptive purposes. Arguably, the disruption from Esperanza may have been caused primarily by people freaking out about it; and accordingly we reward the fomenters of wiki-drama by letting them successfully use the drama they caused as an excuse to delete a project?) Other disadvantages of protection listed: "Difficulty of editing; Legitimate community policy changes, and even minor spelling corrections and linking, have to be mediated through sysops; If there is low sysop interest in some page, requests may not be noticed (sysops as bottleneck)" all of which represent a disruption of the normal WP:BRD process. The WP:AMA statement seems fine to me (although I favor eventual unprotection because policy requires it and because of those protection disadvantages listed above) but the Wikipedia:Esperanza one should just provide the information given in the first couple paragraphs and briefly explain the reason why it was deleted, rather than saying that it's a warning to others not to do something like this. It's the wrong place for such directives. Ron Duvall (talk) 00:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that the community has largely agreed that AMA and Esperanza were harmful to the community and should not be recreated. Granted, the wording is POV against the projects, but it's projectspace and the community consensus is against the organizations anyway. Why would the wording need to be changed? Unlocking it just invites more drama over the /precise/ wording when that drama is un-needed. (Personally, I'd rather not drag through AMA again). ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

And if anyone genuinely believes the wording to be a problem there is always {{editprotected}}. Regardless, the long history of bitter dispute is a powerful argument for leaving this closed at a point where most people (I'd have said all, but then we had this pop up) have moved on. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There doesn't seem to be any bot involved or other intervention required. --Tikiwont (talk) 09:30, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You gotta love this guy's use of adjectives [98] not sure whether it should be viewed as a personal attack..what do other folks think? cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 20:37, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Those words reflect accusations of bitching, whining and moaning. I would label it as uncivil. Personal attack? The user is definitely treading the border. I would take offense to such "adjectives". The user is also acting pretentious for even bothering to use those words. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 20:49, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, umm... I don't like it. It's unlikeable, deplorable, belated, encrusted, bejesused, detrimented, and xenophobic. It is however incidental, occasional, decapitated, rejuvenated, ambiguous, pansexual, accelerated, and altruistic. I would not be opposed to describing him as stingy, cleansed, adamantine, fallacious, erudite, descriptive, infertile, and a whole other mess of adjectives that have nothing to do with him (I don't own a thesaurus. those are just big words I know). Justin^(c)_(u) 20:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

<chuckle> Are you kidding! It's a linguist's dream come true. — Zerida ☥ 23:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly someone in the 1800s has devised a time machine for the express purpose of coming to the 21st century to insult Wikipedia users. Genius! Editmaniac (talk) 09:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor's obnoxious behavior towards several editors and articles is appalling and out of control, and needs to stop. It's steadily been escalating to a point that requests, warnings and alerts have not deterred the editor from changing his/her ways, even after a number of months.

The editor has made it a habit of being incivil with editors who make edits that he/she disagrees with. The editor has been requested and warned on several occasions. Once here, and on another occasion, I myself requested the editor to stop being so overly-critical of others contributions and start giving some recognition so that editors don't leave as a result of the unnecessary incivility (evidenced here). There are several other examples which can be found through this editor's talk page history (unfortunately, this editor has made it a habit to delete many of the comments on his/her page) and through some article talk pages where this editor has made comments.

However, he/she continues to resort to using a judgemental tone in edit summaries evidenced-here, assumes bad faith, is rude, calling others contributions names, and making it a priority to direct personal attacks at editors who do not support his/her edits and/or reasoning. The editor also forces others to the point of breaching civility without seeming to commit such a breach themselves. This can be seen as he/she scatters some valid points among an extensive attack on an article or on those who have contributed to it. This is evidenced especially here. Again, there are other examples, but i cite only this one as it was the final straw that prompted me to report such behavior. (On a separate note, he/she has also made other attacks on the article and its contributors over the last couple of years, and yet, in all this time, has made no actual positive contributions towards improving the article significantly. In stark contrast, the editors involved have made a major improvement from the nonsense it was to begin with.)

The editor uses mannerisms like 'I'm just obsessed with improving this article', 'This article is dear to me' and 'I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are', or the like, as a justification for the impolite, incivil and inconsiderate communications he/she uses, when really, such communications are unwarranted under any circumstance.

This editor in addition to often assuming bad faith, often assumes WP:OWN over the articles he/she concerns himself/herself with. He/she has vandalized articles (or blanked material without explanation), and when left a warning about it, has deliberately deleted the warning (seen here). Similarly, the editor removed a request (that an otherwise reasonable editor would have taken the time explain to the concerned editor who made the request) labeling it 'trolling' here. It is ironic that he/she expects reasoning from others, when he/she often fails to provide any when he/she makes edits or removals of information. He/she in effect thinks its justifiable to do anything as he/she sees fit, without any explanation to support it. For example, the editor has blanked out entire references in an article without properly explaining how or why the references are 'extremist' (as he/she indicates in his/her edit summary here), perhaps in an attempt to advance his/her position that content from this article should not be mentioned in another article, Carnatic music. Having deleted these references, the editor then goes one step further and adds tags that there are no references for the article here. In several other instances, editors have requested for some sort of explanation for his/her reverts and edit wars evidenced-here, but again, no explanation is given as he/she asserts WP:OWN over these articles. Similarly, when an editor has requested that he/she stop making derogatory statements, his/her reply involves telling the other editor to stop whining evidenced-here.

Shown here and here is the manner in which this editor has (consciously) chosen to interact with another editor recently, in response to being told to be more civil and assume good faith. This display (on another noticeboard) is yet another example of his/her hostility (or troll-like tendencies) and lack of regard or respect (as well as any sense of etiquette or civility) towards editors who disagree with him/her at Wikipedia.

This overall style of interaction between editors has resulted in driving away some contributors. Whether it is a lack of patience, or just a deliberate attempt to assume WP:OWN over certain articles he/she concerns himself/herself with, driving away editors is the direct opposite of a postive contribution. It is a serious issue that us editors have been forced to tolerate such incivility, disrespect and persistent assumption of bad faith by him/her, when it shouldn't be happening in the first place, (nor is it necessary).

For these reasons, I request that this editor be blocked for a period of time, both to prevent this happening again (until he/she cools off), and to make it clear that such behaviour is not tolerated at Wikipedia. This editor needs some time so that he/she can refresh his/her style of interacting with other editors (this would involve learning to show more respect for other editors contributions to Wikipedia, and also, learn to show more control over what he/she edits and how emotionally involved he/she gets in disputes). Warnings and requests have clearly not worked, and I, nor any other editor, wishes to stoop to the same obnoxious level as him/her, nor would any editor like to leave as a result of such obnoxious behaviour, or gaming of the system. Ncmvocalist (talk) 14:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Huh! So, here is an ANI which is a result of content dispute from Carnatic Music.

Ncmvocalist, how did you conclude expressions such as 'I'm just obsessed with improving this article', 'This article is dear to me' and 'I am just as frustrated with the state of the article as you are', etc as " unwarranted under any circumstance" ? I do not see any logical reasoning why they are unwarranted under any circumstances.

Regarding removing the warning, I would like to see the policy which states not to remove the warning. On the other hand, Ncmvocalist has been templating the warnings on a user who has written almost a dozen FAs!

And again what is all this with this diff? Those tags are completely relevant to that article, and Sarvagnya has done a good job to that article by those tags. By addressing those tags, the article can only be improved further. Oh, yeah, I observed the previous diff given above, regarding extremist ref. Thats again a content dispute, and a prolonged discussion had happened tamilnation.org and other such sites.

And the plain allegations of assumption of bad faith is just reciprocative on Ncmvocalist's conduct here. Where is the assumption of good faith here? - KNM ^Talk 15:50, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop twisting my words out of the context in which they were used - such mannerisms are unwarranted (under any circumstance) as an excuse/justification for incivility. Civility is not an optional policy. Most editors feel the same way about Wikipedia articles in terms of how much they value them or care about them, yet, they are more than capable (and make it a habit) of interacting and behaving in a much more desirable, and appropriate manner, whether it is a content dispute, or just a basic discussion or edit summary.

Again, just because an editor has contributed to some FAs, does not mean that behavioural policies and standards of etiquette are optional.

By addressing those tags? If this editor was truely concerned about improving the article, he/she would've at least opened a topic on the article's talk and then would've been bold and begun actually improving the article rather than expecting others to do it after he/she has done quite the opposite to what existed. The same applies for several other articles. He/she has not been bold enough to add any noteworthy material. Tags don't automatically improve an article.

The assumption of good faith has been prevalent over this period of a couple of years, where such behaviour was not reported in the false hope that it would eventually change, as he/she had been reasonably alerted of his/her civility and behaviour. Yet, this hasn't happened, and it seems to continue to escalate out of control rather than improve, which is why I've reported it now. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've added one other para to the original incident report, above. Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I've just taken this out of the archives as it has not been resolved. The editor has clearly refused to respond here, even after being informed on his/her talk page. I request that appropriate action is taken against the editor. Ncmvocalist (talk) 02:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I regret to say that, based on the above and my own limited knowledge of these matters, what seems to be the case here may not be necessarily one which is best resolved here. I do certainly think that maybe a User RfC and/or Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts might be in order however. Then, there might be other actions taken thereafter as well. But I'm not sure that there have necessarily been such obvious breaches of policy that any block is likely to occur right now. John Carter (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

220.224.204.* has been inserting *.brainbubbles.biz under external links for various articles (particularly kindergarten). This is just some kind of search engine. IPs that have done this so far include:

• 220.224.204.17 - Kindergarten, Medical gloves
• 220.224.204.67 - Kindergarten
• 220.224.204.70 - Golf courses
• 220.224.204.194 - Kindergarten, Pre-kindergarten

I'm not sure what to do about these. WP:SPAM doesn't really provide a course of action for where to report SPAM that isn't current and persistent, so I'm listing these here. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 04:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP looks pretty solid. What sort of damage would a lock do? HalfShadow (talk) 05:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

not much, unfortnately. is there any way to report this infomration to his ISP and get his connection yanked??. Smith Jones (talk) 05:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, also don't forget to check Special:Linksearch (he'll change to a log-in soon enough), and if nothing else, blacklist time. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:03, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

http://spam.brainbubbles.biz

• brainbubbles.biz: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

In the future, you should report these to WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 10:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It would really help if WP:SPAM or even WP:WPSPAM indicated this. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:17, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Shankbone has uploaded pictures of himself in a political gathering and added them to various articles on wikipedia such as Anger, Body language, Gesture, Index finger, Type of gesture, Logical argument‎, Eye contact, Staring (please see the history as well, as I have tried to remove the pictures from some of them now and on some I have not been successful). Because of the large number of these articles including his pictures and that they follow the same pattern I'd like to notify the community about them.

For example, please take a look at this section in Anger article: [99]. It is my belief that adding political-flavored images to articles that are not notable or known for any political issue is not appropriate. The concept of anger itself is rather independent of politics; If the images were notable (they are not), they were only justified to represent the concept of anger in the context of politics (but there is no such section there); and lastly the image is not historically notable; there are thousands of images available on the internet that do not have political flavor but represent the matter and I believe there are already such images in the article.

User:Durova proposed other historical and notable images like [100] but David rejected this approach saying: "We need a modern example that isn't a statute."

There are already similar images on the same topic here [101]--Be happy!! (talk) 07:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but this is not the venue for content dispute, please go to WP:Dispute Resolution. nat.utoronto 07:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nat, I brought the case here because of the large number of articles involved. If it was one, I would not have brought them here.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

None of those pictures even have David Shankbone in them. You should thank him for the pictures, not complain here. John Reaves 07:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

John, both pictures involved are of the same man who looks similar to him. Be it himself or someone else, my point is something completely different. I would thank him if he adds his pictures to the relevant articles (not on general concept such Anger etc ). --Be happy!! (talk) 07:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How can this be encyclopedic? [102] --Be happy!! (talk) 07:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is David Shankbone, those pictures do not have him in them. John Reaves 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That guy is certainly angry, what is the problem with it being in the article? John Reaves 07:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

John, thank you very much for the link but my argument here does not revolve around the identity of the person in those images.

He is angry but the image has an additional political flavor. This relevant section explains how body reacts when a person becomes angry (but nothing more). I of course agreed with User:Durova proposal of focusing on the angry man itself by cropping the picture (focusing on the emotion itself) and rename the image title to something neutral. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with these, Aminz. The images aren't being used to promote any particular POV. They're just images of angry people. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Please zoom on the image or See the Image title. These are good for a section on "Anger in the context of politics" if there was such a section and if the pictures were notable. Another thing is that there are many other non-notable images that do not have political flavor.

But yes, of course they do not promote a POV except that they link and reinforce the concept of anger with politics in reader's mind. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:41, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why does a political context disqualify a photo? That doesn't make any sense to me. Any photo of someone who is angry is bound to have a context behind it. R. Baley (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The images don't even have an overt political context. It seems like you're just grasping at straws for a reason to delete. John Reaves 07:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if the images have overt political context. By adding them, we are providing a specific strong connection between contemporary politics and the concept of anger in the subconscious of the readers if not in their conscious. The images are not encyclopedic at all. --Be happy!! (talk) 07:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

That's utter nonsense. John Reaves 07:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can refer to related experiments in psychology and neurology if you are interested. For user:David Shankbone, there might be some correlations between concept of anger and politics just as for a football player there might be similar correlations in the context of his life but these connections are specific and have irrelevant component to the topic of this article: that is body's reaction to anger. This has been already shown using encyclopedic and historical artworks. My logic here and elsewhere is that when an image is not related to politics, it does not have to involve it.--Be happy!! (talk) 07:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The picture doesn't cause me to relate politics to anger. I see an overtly angry man, and nothing more. It isn't our job to worry about the subconscious mental health of the reader; our job is to inform the reader, which this picture does by showing a man with physical signs of anger. SexySeaBass 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is another picture in the same section that expresses the body's reaction when someone is angry(and the person is nude) [103]. What's the point of adding that particular image that shows more than what it is supposed to show.--Be happy!! (talk) 08:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

David Shankbone is an interviewer and photographer. That is obviously not him in the photo, unless he suddenly aged about 20 years, besides which he apparently took the photo. That dispells the original complaint. And tell me if I'm wrong (my PC won't play the sound bite), but I don't see where he's taking sides on anything, he's just illustrating anger, finger-pointing, etc., so the complainants can't make the "POV" argument either. The picture's title simply identifies where it was taken, it doesn't say who's right or wrong in the argument. And it's a lot more interesting than some statue. I don't get what's up with wikipedians. They've got robot jobs clobbering thousands of fair-use images on the grounds that they only want "free" content in wikipedia. So here's a bit of "free" content and wikipedians are trying to shoot it down. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

One Wikipedian is making a completely illogical and desperate argument, and a group of other Wikipedians are putting a stop to it. Don't stereotype, SexySeaBass 08:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Hold on thar. Is there anything about the photo or the sound bite (which I can't hear) that suggests whose side anyone should be taking? Because if there is, the complainant has a legitimate complaint. If not, then not. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I can not open that file but my point is about its political nature. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The Hybrid, Please tell me what aspect of anger is that picture supposed to show? --Be happy!! (talk) 08:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm assuming this is a WP:OWN issue since you brought Anger up to GA status. John Reaves 08:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Why are you not assuming good faith? I am simply more concerned about the quality of this article simply because I spent much time on it and want to see it in a good shape. That picture however lowers the quality. I am however completely open to any addition that can help the article become FA. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Body language, I haven't checked the sound file, but if anything is wrong with it, then it can be removed. The sound fil I assume is to show verbal signs of anger, such as a raised and combative voice. BTW, something being political in nature is irrelevant so long as it doesn't push any one POV, which this does not. SexySeaBass 08:19, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the article is about anger, body language, etc., why does it matter what he's angry about? It's a good generic illustration of anger. And the statues don't necessarily work. The statue of the Biblical David, alleged to be anger, looks to me like "concentration". He looks like a lot of photos I've seen of baseball pitchers in mid-delivery. As for the "fury" statue, it doesn't say "anger" to me. But the photo does. And who cares what he's angry about? He could just as easily be yelling at somebody for blocking him into his parking space... or for deleting his fair-use image on wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm bowing out now, BTW. I also suggest undenting this whole thing, as John did. SexySeaBass 08:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree 100% with Baseball Bug's comment. It doesn't matter if the guy is upset because of something political as much as it be if he was upset because he only got two pickle slices with his burger instead of three. It really should be a moot point. David's photo is very encyclopedic in content and serves as a worthy illustration for the concept of Anger and in some of the other articles it was added to. As for the statue pic, it is certainly an interpretation piece. I see more agony rather than anger or fury, but that is me. David's pic illustrates anger much more clearly. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 08:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

User:David Shankbone gives his perspective on this dispute in Wikipedia talk:Images. Apparently the "political" context of this image is the protest against Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad at Columbia University last year. Shankbone has changed the image caption and retitled the image to accommodate User:Aminz, but apparently this is not enough. / edg ☺ ☭ 08:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

The compromise that I agreed to was to crop the image and include only the man. And also change the image title to something related to the emotion. --Be happy!! (talk) 08:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Shankbone's reasons for having both disputants in the image are given in Wikipedia talk:Images#Do we not use images because we don't like the circumstances.3F. He proposes Aminz is trying to get the barely legible flyer on the bottom right removed from the article, at the expense of showing both disputants. I'm going to stop arguing Shankbone's position now. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I confess, as yet another argument starts up about David's images, that I really don't understand what's going on. And I'm not saying this because I am David's friend; as time has gone on, and David has been hauled into disputes for illustrating topics as diverse as public hair, Orthodox Judaism, and now anger, I find myself more and more baffled as to why people are so determined to harry an editor who has done nothing but provide good quality images for Wikipedia. Call me stupid, but when people claim that, say, a drawing of pubic hair, or a statue expressing anger, or unbelivably, no image at all, is preferable to one of David's images of a real life person illustrating the article in question, I really, truly do not understand why they think this makes sense. Is anyone on here to write an encyclopedia any more?

To move to this specific case: why this man is angry is utterly irrelevant, as stated above. Few things get people so riled up as politics, so why not show it? Yes, David suffixes all his images with "by David Shankbone". So what? The man has spent hundreds of hours developing free images for us, is it so awful that he might want some credit? Do we not release images under the Creative Commons licence for this exact same reason?

Again, I am astonished that David has yet again come under fire for illustrating an article with a better image than what there was before. Seriously, what the hell. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A vaguely related question: there are identifiable minors in the image, does that matter at all, or since it was at a public place we are okay using them? Jd2718 (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Another issue, the sound file gives out the names and locations of these two people (though the man gives an obvious fake name). At the very least, this should be edited out for the sake of privacy. --MPerel 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

How do you know it's fake? What is it? I can't play the thing. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm just guessing that Rumpelstiltskin was a fake name : ) The woman seemed to give her real name though. --MPerel 09:17, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

He looks more like an Ichabod Crane than a Rumpelstiltskin, but you never know. Maybe her name should not be made available, though, unless she gave permission. And if not, it's probably a little late now. Again, it would be best to check the policy manual. Logic tells me if you're in public and someone is photographing or videotaping you, you might assume that's going to be published somewhere. But I don't know the law on that matter. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Cropping is inappropriate, as it amounts to censorship. The viewer might be interested in who he was yelling at and why. As far as privacy goes, I have raised this question before. In a public place, there is no particular right to privacy in terms of simply being photographed. And since this guy was drawing attention to himself by yelling, he has even less grounds to claim privacy. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:12, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Censorship is a spurious argument in this case. The expressed aim of the photo is to illustrate the emotion, not the event. Just imagine David having used a higher zoom level (for a smaller field of view) when taking the picture - would he be censoring as well? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

If the photographer decides to crop the photo, that's his editorial judgment, and is only an issue if cropping it makes it misleading. If someone else tells him he has to do it, just because he doesn't like what's in the picture, that's censorship. The photo is a good illustration of anger, regardless of the context. And someone who might be interested has the right to know why he was angry. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So if David crops it, that is editorial judgment, but if we do it, its censorship? Sorry, no. We want to use the photo not to describe the event in question - this is purely coincidental. We use it to shown the emotion of anger. In this context, the user does not have the right or even the expectation to know why the user is angry - and in fact, the photo is useless in telling us the reason. He may very well be shouting at the woman because her minivan scratched his SUV on the parking lot. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was asking about the privacy of the two young people watching the dispute. Jd2718 (talk) 09:14, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

They are not identified, and I expect you'll find other photos that show minors. However, it would be best to consult the policy manual, wherever that may be. Regarding the flier in the lower right, as someone brought up earlier, Mr. Shankbone could perhaps be persuaded to blur it out, but I say again that it doesn't really matter. Whose side would the picture compel the viewer to take? The viewer might feel sympathy for the woman who's being yelled at. Or the viewer might side with the guy because he thinks he's right. It's not our place to tell the viewer what point of view to take on a political topic. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There are thousands of non-political drawings, pictures and statues of people expressing anger. Why is it necessary to use the controversial ones? --Be happy!! (talk) 09:31, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

What's controversial about it? What are you seeing that I'm not seeing? And how do those non-descript statues express anger better than this photo does? Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Something tells me that had the picture been taken at a rally against, say, George W Bush, this thread would never have happened. rudra (talk) 09:28, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is frankly bonkers - David spends a lot of time providing good quality photos and other material to the encyclopaedia and the thanks is that some users want to kick him in the bollocks. --Fredrick day (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

We are specifically talking about addition of certain pictures to certain articles. That's all.--Be happy!! (talk) 09:44, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Which you examined so closely, you concluded that David was in them! I can see nothing wrong with any of those photos and there placement on the anger article, nobody else here seems to have a problem. This is a content dispute and does not actually require admin action BUT this thread shows that current community thinking is that there is not a problem with including those pictures. --Fredrick day (talk) 10:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Anger is anger. It doesn't matter where it occurs. Editmaniac (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like Mr. Happy to explain what it is about this specific photo that he has such a problem with. As the Editmaniac said, and I sort-of said, anger is anger. And there is nothing in that photo that inherently pushes a point of view. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 09:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

It isn't the point of view. It's the associations. rudra (talk) 10:07, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Can this be clarified a little? I may have "associations" with all sorts of images. Perhaps because of this I have objections to any depiction (implicit or explicit) of a certain thing. What demands can I make of Wikipedia on behalf of my associations, and those of people like me? / edg ☺ ☭ 10:16, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

You all are kind of talking in riddles here. I infer that the original complainant is sensitive to the fact that this rally has something to do with that Iranian guy. But that's not the focus of the picture, and there is no justification for censoring it. Actually, as someone suggested, the minors being in the picture might be a bigger issue. But this is the American-English wikipedia, which is not censored just because someone doesn't like something. The photo does not inherently take a viewpoint on the subject of its participants' debate. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Not the Iranian guy, but the religion the Iranian guy professes. Yes, that's tangential. Yes, that's a stretch. But... It's there, and that's enough for Aminz. rudra (talk) 10:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, please, only in plain and forthright language as to what the exact problem is. I'm not very good at reading between the lines. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:26, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not fully agree with the Iran's president nor with many of his opponents outside Iran. But this is aside the point. When you mention X and Y together, one's brain associates them and strengthens the connection between them. That's the basic principle of learning in neuro science. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! I'll take the opportunity to mention "wikilawyering" and "kitman" together. Maybe we can all learn a basic principle. rudra (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know from neuroscience. All I see is a photo of an angry guy yelling at a woman. If you think the photographer is trying to promote a point of view, then you've got something. But you haven't made that claim, you're making an argument on some kind of theoretical grounds about nerve endings or something. If you can persuade him to slice the bottom of the photo or to blur out the illustration that bothers you, that's fine. But you're making way too much of this. P.S. You would be well-advised to remove or reword your initial statement about the photo actually being of the photographer. It's clearly untrue, and it undermines your argument. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier aside from the political associations, I have no objections to the image. Thanks also for the advice. My argument didn't depend on that point. --Be happy!! (talk) 10:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing. And I don't agree that political associations is what the photo is about. It's about anger, and it just happens to be at a political rally. That's American free speech at work. But if you think the photographer is trying to push a particular viewpoint, you need to raise that issue. P.S. I'm as WASP as they come, and I've got no use for the Iranian president, but my initial reaction to the photo was sympathy for the one being yelled at. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 10:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to say, not everyone would agree with Aminz's beliefs about what he says is "neuro science" to him and how it works, nor even about the belief that there is such a thing as the unconscious mind. As to cropping the photos if anyone wished to do so- they are under a free license, so we can edit them mercilessly, and the artist will have known that. :) Merkinsmum 12:35, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the images are very useful and nicely done. I see nothing wrong with the association of anger (or whatever the subject is) with politics because there is always some context - if we show someone angry over losing his keys, we're associating anger with keys. However, if we do get a preponderance of similarly-styled and themed images from the same editor (I'm talking hundreds or thousands, not just a few) or it begins to look POV then it's fair to make an editorial decision that we don't want the encyclopedia to take on that flavor. I'm concerned over the incivility directed to the poster for bringing the question up, and the attempt to simply shut down the discussion. Yes, it is a matter of general interest that potentially raises behavior concerns, so please don't WP:BITE anyone, old or new, for bringing something up here in good faith. If you don't want to deal with it, you can skip to the next section.Wikidemo (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

• Comment, I see that this discussion has been tagged as "resolved" and I am all for it because quite frankly, I could not see what the big deal was. I am not particularly interested in the issue, I just happened to notice the situation while on patrol. I will give my opinion only this once on this subject and that is all. I do not believe that the image has any political insinuation. I believe that the image properly reflects the topic in the section of the article which is the expression of anger, in this case amongst two groups. Therefore, the image is revelant to the section of the article. This should not be turned into a big deal. To Mr. Shankbone, thank you for all of the images which you have contributed to Wikipedia. That is all and Thank you. Tony the Marine (talk) 06:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This really would not be a dispute if Jakew and Avraham did not try to control an entire article and bully everybody else from editing. The article is circumcision and it is well-believed by many or most doctors that circumcision can reduce a man's risk of getting HIV but can INcrease a man's risk of getting chlamydia and herpes. Jakew and Avraham WILL NOT allow me to add ONE SENTENCE about the chlamydia and herpes, even though it is verifiable and provable that many doctors feel this way. Circumcision article mentions HIV probably 100 times (I'm not joking) and mentions herpes or chlamydia not once. The entire article is an advertisement for how the procedure MAY decrease HIV. That's all it is. Why can't I add ONE ARTICLE to Wikipedia here?? Anyway, I'd greatly appreciate anyone who wants to help balance this article. Also there's hardly any discussion about the sexual effects of circumcision, they want to you to link to an entirely new article. But shouldn't the Whole HIV and circumcision connection simply be put into a separate article too? The entire circumcision article is really only about HIV. Help would be much appreciated. LPRABCMP (talk) 07:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I really don't see what you are claiming here. You added a reference that suggested the chlamidia/herpes connection which has been removed several times, when you added it as an IP address and now as a logged in account, and "HIV" is only used a little over a dozen times. Please bring controversial material to the talk page of the article first, as it is already being described on the talk page. Continue there, gain consensus, and then add it to the article.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:24, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess canvassing dozens of random uninvolved admins didn't suffice. Frankly, the only one I see bullying other editors is yourself [104] [105]. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 08:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I've run across several items that this person has vandalized, and have now told him/her twice to stop. Inks.LWC (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Reports like this generally belong on WP:AIV. Cheers, SexySeaBass 09:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This discussion has been moved to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Betacommand#Non-notification. 15:27, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Unrealistic timestamp to fool the archive bot -- lucasbfr ^talk 15:53, 18 February 2018

First of all, this user has removed tags that marked his uploads as having no copyright info. See diffs: [106], [107], and [108].

Second, Fenderesk created four articles on seemingly the same article: ShirAbad Waterfall, Shirabad, Shirabad waterfall and Waterfall shirabad. I saw this, and put merge tags on three of the articles, and a {{mergefrom}} on the first. See diffs: [109], [110], [111] and [112]. I even left a message on Talk:ShirAbad Waterfall explaining the tags. Fenderesk removed all those tags too. Diffs: [113], [114], [115] and [116]. I have since returned the tags.

I do not know the proper course of action here and haven't found much in the Help or Wikipedia namespaces. Please advise/help. Thanks, -Reuvenk_{T C} 13:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Just appears to be a good-faith editor with no knowledge of our policies. I left them the stock welcome notice, tagged or delete some images, and redirected all the articles. east.718 at 13:59, February 18, 2008

I'm requesting admin assistance with this. I'm not sure this doesn't go too far into the direction WP:NLT. User:Dorftrottel 14:56, February 18, 2008

Not a legal threat but worth keeping an eye on. Stifle (talk) 15:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, no threat as Stifle says - commenting on a legal matter doesn't make it a Legal Threat. Neıl ☎ 15:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I thought better to err on the side of caution. User:Dorftrottel 15:58, February 18, 2008

There's a thread above, which is entirely subsumed by his ranting so I pulled this out. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA take your pick, especially from this comment, which he'd initially done not signed in. For the sake of a reasonable discussion, not to mention WP:CIVIL, and anyone's sanity he needs a time out. Travellingcari (talk) 16:39, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Mctrain (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Would anyone endorse a block for Mctrain based on these AFD comments and the other harassment of ThuranX? Seems somewhat focused on insulting other users. Regards, Rudget. 17:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

see my thread immediately above yours. I'm not an admin, but I think it's clearly needed. Travellingcari (talk) 17:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah, apologies. It seems he posted after a final warning (see history of talk page). Block is therefore warranted. Rudget. 17:04, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just looking at User:Mctrain's contribs and I would support a block of up to 48 hours. He has become "unstable", to say it the nice way and has spent the last 2 days ranting about leaving Wikipedia anyway. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Blocked for 40 hours. Little comment on his talk page regarding the behaviour. Rudget. 17:11, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There were several warnings on the talkpage that he replaced with an "I'm leaving" and other such "huff". By "little comment" do you mean few warnings, or do you mean that you've left a little comment? Also, the block template or your note should be updated to say 40 hours. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 17:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I re-instate the warnings? And I mean't I've left a little comment. Updating now. Rudget. 17:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Nope, not neccessary --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that essay should necessarily apply when a user removes valid warnings. Those also serve to inform future editors of past behavioral problems; it's unrealistic to expect them to check the history every time they need to issue a warning tag. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 20:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Admins: A user shahid just wants his POV to be presented on this page. I have put up material from various scholars and he is removing it without providing a single reference which contradicts the references provided. What should we do? Itihaaskar (talk) 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC) PS: I sometimes forget to log in and my IP address 125.* shows up in edits.

Some edit warring, subject in the news, someone might want to look at it and consider semiprotection. Relata refero (talk) 17:52, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

A small number of editors are repeatedly adding an uncited, unsourced paragraph containing allegations of impropriety by living people to Nepotism. By my reading this is a violation of WP:BLP. The paragraph claims as its (uncited) source "online comments", which are not even acceptable as a source under WP:SPS. Discussion on the talk page has not been adequate to stop the reverting, and at least one editor has become abusive in edit summaries over this issue. Protection seems warranted. --FOo (talk) 17:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

So done. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:43, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Draft of comments to be sent to an ISP abuse contact in respect of a recent incident on the tlak page for the Anonymous(group) talk page..

Dear Sirs, A user/customer of your services has made unacceptable edits to English Wikipedia, See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/77.187.210.184 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnonymous_%28group%29&diff=192339010&oldid=192338681

Owing to the nature of the disruption the IP is currently indefinitely blocked from editing on English Wikipedia, which may cause inconvenience to other legitimate editors using your services.

It would be appreciated if you could ensure that the user or customer responsible is reminded of their obligations with respect to your applicable Terms Of Service/ Acceptable Use Policy. If the matter is deemed a serious abuse, then I would strongly urge you to ensure the user/customer concerned's abuse is referred to the appropriate authorities...

Figured I would mention the incident here first, before referring it to the ISP concerned Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:46, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Due to the disruptive nature of the rendered text, I would suggest including "&diffonly=1" in the diff url. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AAnonymous_%28group%29&diff=192339010&oldid=192338681&diffonly=1 —Random832 17:51, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, your message is more likely to be taken seriously if it is spelled correctly, I have made corrections above.

There is a procedure at WP:ABREP. —Random832 17:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to file an ISP abuse report, given that it is just (very creative) vandalism and nothing more. Furthermore, an IP address cannot (and should not) be indefinitely blocked, and the block on 77.187.210.184 was reduced to 1w. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

I came across IP 72.130.32.142 making some death threats during their vandalism, as seen in their contributions. I have blocked them for 48 hours for the time being, and come here to ANI as I honestly do not come across these everyday, and am unsure of where else to turn/go. What is the next step (if any) in this situation? Jmlk17 00:25, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, 99% chance it's just run-of-the-mill vandalism. If you feel like reporting it to the authorities, go ahead, but there's almost no chance it's serious, and the authorities might not be able to do much anyway. Then again, I might be biased; my friends and I used to joke around all the time in high school that we'd kill each other, and my one time best-friend got caught doing so on a webpage and was hauled before a judge... The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think any death threat that names a specific individual should probably be reported. Reporting to the ISP is easy enough, but can anyone narrow that IP's location down further than all of southern California? Someguy1221 (talk) 01:46, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Narrowed it down some to Orange, California. 33.7949, -117.8410. I think that is specific enough. The same search came up with "Is proxy: false" and a Certainty rate of 99%. Regards, — Save_Us † 01:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Just to make sure, you're referring to the city and not the county? Someguy1221 (talk) 02:04, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the search resulted in the parameter "city: Orange". — Save_Us † 02:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I've contacted the police and the ISP's abuse address. Someguy1221 (talk) 02:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ugh, we should have coordinated our timing, I've done the same. — Save_Us † 03:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: where did you get this place information? It isn't on the WHOIS and it gives a probability (I would like to have that, as I know WHOIS is often wrong). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Geobytes. I've found it mostly reliable for static IP addresses, but Geobytes is mostly useless for open proxies or dynamic IP addresses, which results will be misleading. — Save_Us † 04:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

(slightly offtopic) I just tried Geobytes with a static IP and it got the country right, but the city was way off. Ros0709 (talk) 10:36, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Really? hmm... awkward, maybe something changed with the IP? — Save_Us † 03:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, one erroneous result does condemn the service. FWIW, the country is England and the cited city was London - which could well be a "default". I have had the same static IP assigned to me by my ISP for the last six years and neither myself or my ISP are in London. Ros0709 (talk) 23:20, 18 February 2008 (UTC)