Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive397

Ernst & Young

For several days now someone has been consistently adding and re-adding the same defamatory remarks about Akio Takisaki, Managing Partner of Ernst & Young in Japan on the Ernst & Young article. I do not work for Ernst & Young and have no axe to grind but per WP:SOAP wikipedia should not be a soapbox Dormskirk (talk) 21:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Semi protected for a week. That stuff was defamatory about a living person so falls under WP:BLP as far as I'm concerned. You should list these at WP:RFPP in future. Woody (talk) 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Ongoing COI issue at WSEAS

Resolved

 – These people's understandable enthusiasm for their new venture has led to them creating articles which are unfortunately more promotional than anything else.

This was originally reported at WP:COIN#WSEAS on April 4th, but no administrators have taken up the issue as yet. The COI contributors involved have chosen not to participate in discussion on the article's talk page or on their user pages. They continually restore the same version, purging all other changes (cleanup tags, referenced content, etc) to the version that they seem to insist on keeping. Can someone please take a look? I've reverted the changes, but even without the COI edits the article is a mess and requires considerable cleanup - that's assuming it even meets WP:N, which with a single source of its own site, I question. Much of their version of the article appears to be straight cut-and-paste from their website. To date, there appears to be four editor maintaining the version that's ported from their site: User:Prof.bose, User:Prof.juri, User:TKaczorek, and most recently User:CharlesLong - some of whom also share cross-over in creating and/or maintaining other articles which may also have WP:COI and WP:N issues such as North Atlantic University Union‎ and Nikos E. Mastorakis. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Update, I've reverted twice, and had the reverts undone by the same COI contributor (each of the users mentioned above have comparable names within the body of the COI version of the article) - so I'm stepping aside for someone else to look at this, rather than perform a 3RR myself. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a pretty good argument for G11 deleting the whole thing. CIreland (talk) 22:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that was just done ... the WP:COIN issue was picked up shortly after I posted this and the article deleted. It always comes down to my poor timing ... --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:198.168.48.34

The user behind the IP address 198.168.48.34 has repeatedly vandalized the articles about Mario Dumont (by inserting a picture of the video game character Super Mario) and Baraka (by inserting a picture of Barrack Obama). The users has been warned several times for his/her behaviour (and has been temporarily blocked once) but has chosen to ignore them and continue vandalize these articles. J-C V (talk) 22:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a couple problems with this report.

1. It belongs at WP:AIV.
2. Its a university IP, which means other users share it.
3. The vandalism is too sporadic.
4. Blocks are preventive not punitive.

If the IP vandalizes within closer periods of time and violates a final warning during such periods, feel free to report it at WP:AIV next time.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

We're sorry, Mario, but the Princess is in another castle. HalfShadow (talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

University System of Maryland IP vandals

Resolved

There seems to be a run of IP sockpuppets going through the University System of Maryland/Combnet IP range and as soon as one is blocked, he/she pops up with a new IP. It's now moved to taunting administrators who have blocked them. See 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and User_talk:Toddst1#Univ_of_Maryland_IP_troublemakers
Toddst1 (talk) 23:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

If it continues, perhaps we should investigate a range block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Would there be any chance in giving one final warning to the next IP that pops up, along the lines of "we don't want to put a rangeblock on you, as it will harm others, but if we have to we will"? And how about an abuse report? Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just left the "one final warning" here. I'll work on the abuse report. I'm sure there are others involved. Please help me complete the list of IPs involved if you know of any others (I assume there are). Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The IP address has vandalized my talkpage. Since I'm involved with this. May I help? Also, how are we going to stop this if these IPs will continue vandalizing (probably)? Block them for a long period of time?--RyRy5 ^{Got something to say?} 00:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) When you say "abuse report", do you mean reporting it to someone at the university? Is there an "official" or de facto accepted way to do that? I ask because I've been having some trouble with vandals using Boston University addresses. I dropped an e-mail to an address I got off of WHOIS, but never heard back. Just wondering if there's another channel to go through. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 00:39, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Abuse report Wikipedia:Abuse reports/136.160.x.x range created. Toddst1 (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing official, just some volunteers at WP:ABUSE. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is pretty weird, I just recieved sort of a confession on my talk page about this User_talk:Toddst1#Coming_Clean Toddst1 (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If a rangeblock does take place, please use care to make sure it's an anon-only block unless absolutely necessary. (Going to UMBC, my IP is in a range very close and somewhat related to the one causing trouble) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 00:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Per the coming clean, I do think we should give another chance. Those four IP's were all in 136.160.128.0/18 by the way. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The user claims now to be User:VegitaU, a seemingly good vandal patroller. Thoughts? Toddst1 (talk) 00:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Vandalism is vandalism is vandalism. I might expect a stunt like this from someone who hasn't been around the project that long, but not from someone who has been a registered user for three years. Recommend a block of at least three days. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 01:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll let someone else call that one. I'm a little annoyed right now. Toddst1 (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An attempt at ajusting clue level should be enough for now, with the warning that future disruptive behaviour may result in blocks, if he's not cutting it out. I don't have the idea that he will be continueing disruption on short notice, so a block now would be punitive. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 01:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If they don't log in as that account, I don't see why we should care who they say they are. :) EVula // talk // ☯ // 01:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at the latest contributions from VegitaU (talk · contribs). He/she has apologized for the vandalism spree, so I'd say that pretty well settles it as far as identity. --B (talk) 01:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the second incident in two days I've uncovered where well established wikipedians have gone underground and become rather distructive trolls. The first is Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Paul20070 and now this. It really does consume a tremendous amount of an admin's time to track these clowns down. I really think there should be a policy with consequences for this. In the other one, User: Paul20070 claims to have retired. How does one go about proposing such a policy? Toddst1 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is probably not a good thing to have a policy on for WP:BEANS reasons. I think it falls into the category of just use your best judgment. Whether you feel a block is warranted or not, I don't think anyone will object. --B (talk) 02:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's gone back to constructive editing. As mentioned above, a block now would be punitive, but maybe a new policy would be a good idea. Useight (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I blocked the user for 5 seconds, so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA or other duties. Unblocked already. Toddst1 (talk) 02:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:BLOCK#Recording_in_the_block_log. -- Naerii 02:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block - The policy Naerii linked was to discourage noting every little thing, but this action done in lieu of a lengthy block, seems reasonable. --B (talk) 02:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't agree with your interpretation at all. It it not subjective. It says Blocks should not be used solely for the purpose of recording warnings. It was a bad block. the_undertow ^talk 02:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Then pretend that Toddst1 blocked the user for 24 hours (justified under the circumstances) then, after an {{unblock}} request, commuted it to time served. Either way, the result is the same. --B (talk) 03:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've seen that argument. It's called 'the ends justify the means.' 24 hours = good block. Blocking "so that this stunt was recorded in logs should he/she ever apply for RFA" is against policy. I'm not into pretending, by the way, and I don't care for the suggestion. the_undertow ^talk 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

To close, I would like to reiterate my apologies for this incident and any offense I may have caused. If someone could definitively close the abuse report so that no IP addresses are blocked, everything should be taken care of. Sorry once again. -- VegitaU (talk) 04:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have added a note to the Abuse report requesting it be withdrawn. A sincere "thank you" to all who helped guide me through this. Toddst1 (talk) 04:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of what WP:BLOCK says, it was probably a good idea to note this in the block log. SQL^{Query me!} 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

So should we consider this issue "resolved" then? Vivio Testarossa^{Talk Who} 05:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The issue, which was the vandalism, has been resolved. The issue of the block can be further discussed at another venue, should anyone wish to pursue it. the_undertow ^talk 06:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And another death threat

Resolved

[1]. Corvus cornix_talk 03:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not a threat. We are all going to die anyway, but this IP feels that there would be more satisfaction if the death were of a painful nature. Blocked - 1 week. the_undertow ^talk 03:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

His only edit is his rather distasteful post. Perhaps he's a user hiding behind an anonymous edit? – ClockworkSoul 03:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It looks like JuJube's Talk page is full of threats and personal attacks from IPs. Corvus cornix_talk 03:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It was semi-protected. By the way, death threats should be taken more seriously than regular vandalism. I think more is required for that IP. Either a 4im or an immediate block. Enigma ^message Review 03:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

But this was really not a death threat. Tiptoety ^talk 03:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Still worse than your run-of-the-mill vandal. Enigma ^message Review 03:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Today is the day to revisit the topic of non-admin rollback....

Ok, so as promised I have went ahead and started a conversation in regards to rollback as promised a few months ago when the previous conversation was closed. Lets try and keep this drama free, and civil. You can find it here: Wikipedia talk:Requests for rollback#Its that time. (Posted on AN as well, do not want anyone to claim they did not hear about the discussion as happened previously). Tiptoety ^talk 03:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[2][3]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[4]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[5]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[6]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[7]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[8].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.

As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Moriss levy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Thecryptthing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Aho aho (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • YumpinYimini (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ultrastoopid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • UntimelyMaroon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Are all abusive sockpuppets of User:Stone put to sky per User:Thatcher's checkuser. All those accounts need to be blocked and SPTS needs to be blocked as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4GMiraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.

If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.

However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is Giovanni33...see diff..[9] checkuser will likely show that Giovanni33 has repeatedly violated his 1RR restriction. I think a long term ban is long overdue on his account.--MONGO 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that proves it is Giovanni - could be a meatpuppet or another independent user. I have filed a report to clear matters up. As for the Sky matter, can we please get an admin to confirm:

1. Whether any action is to be taken for recent activities as mentioned by Ultramarine.
2. Whether any action is to be taken over the "likely" sockpuppet report, where some "puppets" were not blocked and at least one has continued to edit. John Smith's (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[10] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[11] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[12]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[13]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of the ips that I blocked without even contacting me, and if I was wrong to revert and block in that situation, I'd like to know so I don't do it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe in this case ignore, ignore, ignore would be better. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively experienced user very deliberately trying to get editors to fight with each other. He is block-evading, using various techniques, openly defiant about it, very aware that he can manage to edit even with quite a bit of effort made here to prevent him, though more could be done (IP block his home range, for example. The damage from a range block would be small compared to the damage he is regularly inflicting, and the message from an IP block gives ways to get around it, not difficult. There are not many edits from his IP block. He still has other ways to post, but they are, I'm sure, more cumbersome. He can make lots of them for a short time, but keeping it up would be another matter.)

I still believe that the simplest solution would be to bot-assisted revert all his edits, once he is clearly identified, *then* review them manually and bring in what is legitimate. This converts his edits into what I've called "submissions." Just as if we had moderated submissions. Which ain't a bad idea, all by itself.

This user regularly lies about what has happened. He knows that many readers won't bother to check, or that a superficial check may make it look correct. See above, where he claimed that "Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article." No, I did not revert out appeals to the BLP board unless nobody had responded to them yet, the original and long appeal was left in. Besides, editors concerned with this stuff use watchlists, you can't keep edits out of vision by reverting it. I invited users to check my reverts and bring back in anything legitimate, since I knew that some of it was almost certainly legitimate. Now, what he wrote above is totally unreliable, he knew what he was doing, he set it all up so as to be able to make claims that would seem legitimate on the surface. Hence edit summaries can't be relied upon. If he can, he will use copyvio and BLP claims to justify many of his actions, as a cover. He's a deletionist, so all he has to do is claim a violation (copyvio is handy, just claim that something is improperly quoted and it can take some work to determine if that is true). The real situation here is that this is an editor who has had some success setting up wiki-riots. That he can succeed in this is something that we should notice. It's about us, not about him. He plays on all the suspicions that, it seems, many of us hold about each other. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to believe he's trying to prove a WP:POINT that "ban-evading users can be helpful" and/or "it's easy to bait reverters into looking very stupid", but that he's skipped the low-lying fruit in favor of less trivial (and harder to find) issues which could, potentially, spare us from legal problems... something doesn't add up. So I have to ask, is it possible that at least some of the copyright and "BLP" violations were in fact planted by him beforehand (using whatever another account or IP)? — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Sarah Harding, one of the articles he complained about, and none of the bad edits came from ranges he's known to have used. If someone reminds me what the other articles were I'll look through them too. I wouldn't put it past him, especially considering the vast amount of ranges he seems to have access to, but it'd be difficult to prove. -- Naerii 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd never add BLP to an article because I'm aware that I would be legally liable for that edit, if the living figure came knocking. I'd removing it from articles that are in disputed categories and so on. Abd idea of a bot revert of edits of banned users is unworkable because it would make the bot owner legally responsible for adding libel to article (remember the foundation position is that you are all responsible for your own edits and actions, they would not help you). Regardless of whatever made-up rules Wikipedia has, the law is clear, if you add or repeat libel, then you are responsible as if you had created the libel. Saying "well it is our wikipedia policy that we revert banned users" would not cover you in a court of law. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So (can I call you Freddy?) is your goal here to prove that certain policies do not co-exist well and that common sense should ultimately prevail, or that one particular policy ought to be changed, or that you should be re-instated as some sort of "user in good standing", or that User:Abd puts his antipathy toward you ahead of the project's best interests, or are you acting only out of genuine concern for the article subjects, or do you just enjoy watching other users' heads explode? — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm too far gone to be re-instated as a user in good standing so that's not worth discussing. However, the most recent wikidrama we've seen here was kicked off two nights ago when I tried to remove BLP from a single article (a line in the Seal article about him working for prostitutes) - I was reverted and then when I headed over to BLP to bring it to people's attention, I was reverted there and the libel reinserted. I was a bit surprised at this, surely people were checking out if libel was occuring (and I was leaving detailed edit summaries of what I was removing)? So I'll be upfront, the following night (last night), I'd had a look at the porno categorizes and started to remove libel from there, At that point, I'll admit, I was interested to see how far people would go in their zeal to "punish" me. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the answer, people desire to play toughguy override their common sense about BLP - even when the edit summary clearly explained what the libel was. So yes in a sense, I guess I was testing policy - regardless of my status, is it really a bad thing that 2 things have been highlighted 1) that regardless of status, anyone bringing BLP violations to the BLP board should have those claims examined, not just reverted and that 2) regardless of status, that edits that seem to remove BLP violations should not just be reverted without consideration of what is being reverted back in. What I find most staggering is the claim that they should just all be reverted "because it's a lot of hard work to find sources"! that's is a shameful attitude for an ecyclopedia to take in regards to it's duty to Living figures. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what CharlotteWebb says, there is no example of "certain policies do not co-exist well". Even when dealing with banned editors, WP:BAN is clear on this - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". There is no policy that says that BLP violations are added back regardless of who removed them, and anyone doing so should be jumped on from a great height in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking somebody if they are trying to prove X does not mean I believe X is true, or that I even hold any opinion on X. I went on a limb to list several possibilities regarding Fredrick's actual views and motives. I was hoping a compromise of sorts could be worked out here, though I still have some doubt. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no sign of any effort to "jump from a great height" on those who inserted these allegedly violating claims (more accurately, they have been unsourced claims, low-lying fruit, when I investigated one it seemed pretty solid), but rather an attempt by Fd to get everyone else to jump on me, and on other users similarly aware of his shenanigans, based on some alleged disagreement about BLP policy, being deliberately set up by a blocked user who knows exactly what he is doing and how to get editors worked up, which he has done before (it's part of what he was blocked for in the first place). I'm finding certain aspects of BLP policy "not coexisting well" with BAN policy, on what may be deeper consideration than what is currently reflected on the policy pages. To really pursue this would probably involve consultation with Foundation legal advisors. Better procedures are needed. I have no intention to push the edges of BLP policy, it's important, and I don't blame other editors for being concerned. But be careful. This guy is lying about what happened, so don't jump to conclusions based on his reports. Know, as well, that he will report something that he knows could appear improper from a superficial examination, that is how he worked before. And, from what has been happening, it still works.

My possibly improper reverts are very easy to find, just look at Special:Contributions/Abd, all of them have clear edit summaries that are about the blocked user, not about the content, and are preceded by the edits allegedly fixing copyvio or BLP problems -- or other alleged problems. I have in some cases specifically invited other editors to look at the situation, and whenever another legitimate editor has intervened, I have taken my hands off that article. It's then up to that editor. Given that this information was already up, generally for a long time, my reverting it back in increases the risk to WMF, if at all, very, very little. Fd has claimed that I'm taking upon myself personal liability for what I do. Yes, I know that this could, under some extreme situations, be true. And that's my business, not anyone else's. Frankly, though, I take on more risk just driving down the street or owning a house. Much more.--Abd (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Don't be confused by the barrage of smoke set up by Fredrick day. There were a series of reverts which I did to the edits of a blocked user, and some of these reverts may have been inappropriate, they explicitly did not (much) consider content. Some were definitely appropriate, some, probably not, and Fd was deliberately setting this up so that a bad revert would be likely. Then, today, I made *one* edit to *one* of the articles where someone else, not me, had reverted Fd and Fd had again reverted back. What I did in my revert was *only* to restore the material and supply source, the fact involved is widely reported, and is actually in the article on the living person in question, Darren James, as well. I have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source, though I did check it, and what Fd has discovered may indeed be that there is a veritable hive of improperly sourced material in the articles on porn stars, but I see no sign whatever that the claim involved is controversial (though there is some question about the direction of infection; nevertheless, the original source I found, which, on the face, seems reliable, was old, 2004. The risk to Wikipedia of this material being up is minute. Nevertheless, even though Fd has again reverted it out, that is also harmless, our readers will not suffer for not being informed of something they could find in a few seconds with Google, and so I am not touching this article again. Besides, researching this, I get exposed to lots of material I'd rather not see. The question I have is, can we rely upon a known vandal and troll (one who seriously tries to get Wikipedia editors fighting with each other) to police these articles? One place I agree with him. If he edits an article, the edit should be examined carefully. Now, who is going to do it? And if one person does it, how do we know, so that many people don't duplicate the labor? I had a suggestion. Someone who knows he is a dangerous, blocked editor, who would not hesitate, I suspect, to actually carry out the threat to incite a libel action against Wikipedia, should immediately revert him on sight, and then other editors, more familiar with BLP policy and the general subject area, can look at the edits and quickly and easily restore them if they are useful. In this way, there is no duplication of effort, and the only harm is transient. This material was up for a long time, months at least, and being up a few more minutes isn't going to kill us. But that's my opinion, I'm certainly not going to force it on the community.--Abd (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

should immediately revert him - what part of don't reinsert material flagged as unsourced on BLPs don't you understand. It's irrelevant that people can find it on google, it's irrelevent, how long it's been there, it's even irrelevant that it might be true, because we are not interested in truth but verifiability from reliable sources. Your advice is very dangerous for a number of reasons - the main one, is that any editor who reverts the material back in will then be responsible (in the eyes of the law) if it actually was libel being added in. Be very very clear about this, as mentioned upthread, if someone comes knocking with a lawsuit, the foundation will hand over you IP and other identifying details about you. why? because YOU are responsible for the edits you make, not wikipedia, not the foundation. The correct way to deal with this is NOT Revert>>>check, it is check>>>>add in material that can be sourced. Abd should be asked to either a) stop repeating this advice on multiple boards and threads or b) be forced to add a disclaimer about the position of the editor who makes the revert. He is advocating reinserting BLP violation as a matter of course - regardless of my status, this would have massive ramifications and needs to stamped on immediately. --87.112.233.6 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not advice, it was a suggestion, clearly, not to be implemented unless the community agrees. First of all, I'm not an anonymous editor. My real name is on my User page. And I'm not making reverts that risk BLP violations; I certainly may have done that, there was a fuss, and I'm not doing it again. I made one edit today that I do not consider a risk at all. Fd, who apparently can now edit with impunity, reverted it, and I don't care.--Abd (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty, anyone?

Interestingly, Fd notes that he's too far gone to be unbanned at this point. But, he is arguably more disruptive and difficult to track when editing from all these IPs. I would rather see him edit from one account, so that his history can be more readily scrutinized. That would also facilitate his investing time in making some more constructive contributions, since he would not have to fear their reversion. Might we not extend amnesty, and allow him to edit under an account, in exchange for an agreement to follow Wikipedia rules? (And indeed, might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation?) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Say, aren't you a banned user who should be immediately blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation? He means himself - this editor is the blocked user Sarsaparilla --87.112.233.6 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been claimed by 87.112.x.x (which is certainly Fredrick day, I think it is also 87.113, 87.114, and 87.115, plus varios singlets of random ISPs around the world). Yes, there is reasonable suspicion that SLN is Sarsaparilla, and not surprising that Equazcion, a nemesis of Sarsaparilla, would notice it. There is a pending checkuser request to test this, I've commented there, confirming that the suspicion is reasonable. The suggestion is nevertheless worth consideration. And is likewise problematic. A great deal depends on details.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever, unbanning somebody because they go out of their way to prove that the ban was sound by vandalising and disrupting the project is probably not the smartest thing we could do. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG. banning is banning. we unban to let folks actually contribute, not to control thier disruption. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Arcayne

Resolved

 – Substantive matters being dealt with in another place

Kbthompson (talk) 16:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, let's put it another way ... what do you expect this notice board to do? Kbthompson (talk) 15:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

My first and most important request is that Arcayne be directed to support his specific allegation ("Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks") underpinning his formal effort to ban me, failing that it should be immediately withdrawn and if it proves to be as utterly baseless as I allege there should be a sanction. I would also request that Arcayne be directed to not accuse me of Sock-puppetry and to not follow me around threatening me or changing my talk page edits and include a time-out on reverting my article edits.75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd direct you to the notice board header - particularly What these pages are not - you should find the right forum at Are you in the right place?. This page is NOT part of the dispute resolution process - and so can take none of the remedies you seek. The WP:Wikiquette alerts issue against User:Arcane was already dealt with there, and any further bite of that particular cherry is likely to be resolved as the last one was. The Sockpuppet matter is ongoing - and if you are, as you claim, unrelated to the other AnonIPs, you have absolutely nothing to worry about. The only other resolution I can entertain is semi-protecting the articles that are in contention - this would obviously disadvantage yourself more than User:Arcayne, so not something I shall do unless I feel the situation warrants it (other admins' mileage may vary). Be assured they'll be a lot of eyes on this, so I would respectfully advise all parties to keep it cool. Kbthompson (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have claimed all the IP's. I even used a specific identifier to remove all doubt, I used the symbol before Arcayne entered the discussion. Here is a quote from Arcayne himself noting my identifier:

Every other one of the likely socks of the anon show similarly abusive editing patterns, and all use the '♠' as an identifier. Arcayne

The symbol was affixed because of the rapid nature of the discussion. It was lost on nobody - as Arcayne himself so pointedly notes. There were no incidents whatsoever from those IP's of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks".

There is really no substance, nothing at all. It never happened. Arcayne has made it up an effort to ban me - The only thing that exists is a static IP address. There is no pretense whatsoever that there is more than one user using those IP's at all.75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

... and as I said, this is not the forum for resolution of such matters. The process is evidential and an admin will review that matter in that forum. Bringing up the matter in multiple forums is 'forum shopping' and strongly discouraged. Kbthompson (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've never previously initiated an action against Arcayne. What is the correct forum for this kind of abusive bullying, stalking, reverting, etc?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the response Arcayne received to the action he initiated against me in the other Forum:

Clerk note: Since the IP does not deny being the same person on a dynamic range, I'm not sure what Checkuser can do to help :). -- lucasbfr talk 08:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Which forum addresses abusive use of Wikipedia forums to harass and harm? Which forum considers McCarthy like baseless user charges? Is there no limit to a members ability to completely fabricate formal charges without even a single example of the charge?75.57.165.180 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Why must you consider dragging this issue through the mud? You've already been told to take it to dispute resolution. This thread has been marked as resolved, and I see no further reason that it needs to continue here (or at WQA). You've been forum shopping, and by the looks of your recent edits, perhaps a bit too obsessed with the case in itself. seicer | talk | contribs 17:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

An editor has filed a formal charge against me without a single piece of evidence, not one diff. I have NEVER initiated a single action against this individual at any other Forum. There is NO forum shopping. I guess I just believed in the core Wiki philosophy "The basic right of all Wikipedians, public editor or anonymous wiki account holder is the same - a reasonable request for citation must be respected. ".

Arcayne has used the formal levers of Wikipedia power in an effort to ban me - I've asked for nothing more than a single shred of evidence. I apologize if I am out of place, or that my honest, civil and supported defense is now "obsessive". No links, no diffs=Good/Citations, Reliable Source=Bad? 75.57.165.180 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[Edit conflict] If I were the AnonIP, I would take a day off from wiki, or have a cup of coffee, and just calm down. It has been pointed out (ad nauseam) that you both need to pursue some form of dispute resolution; and there will be a forum there where you can have someone help untangle this mess. This is just becoming disruptive, and I feel, not helpful to you. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's see: you complained about Arcayne, absolved; it now appears that his sockpuppet counter claims are resolved. The process is evidential, and has been followed in those places. This is not the correct place to consider these matters and a recommendation has been made that allows you to resolve your disputes within the system. Kbthompson (talk) 17:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You sent me here first:

My personal opinion is that it is a storm in a teacup and the two parties should go there to sort out their differences, rather than forum shopping for a resolution in their own favour. Kbthompson (talk) 08:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now you are suggesting that I go to WP:DR? I looked at your second link and it is a resource for resolving disputes about content. I have explicitly stated that this is not a content dispute - nothing that I have written has even the hint of a content dispute. I shall do as I am directed though and post this dispute in DR.75.57.165.180 (talk) 19:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No, that is a partial quotation. At wikiquette, the admin closing the case against Arcayne suggested dispute resolution. I reiterated that advice, I went on to describe the matter as a 'storm in a teacup'. You have consistently been directed to dispute resolution, this forum is unable to provide any of the remedies you seek (see above).

I have communicated with Arcayne and asked s/he to treat you with respect and civility and make a genuine attempt to settle your differences. Basically wikipedia is about trying to create quality content for an encyclopaedia, and NOT about managing the relationship between you. In the previous thread to this one, User:Stifle provides some good advice to two editors in a similar dispute, and that is if they can't get on, to avoid each other.

I closed this off as resolved because when I concentrated the previously unstructured debate on the outcomes you were seeking from this forum, they were identified as not being appropriate for this forum. It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette. I still feel that to pursue sanctions when the issues appear to have been dealt with is fruitless and disruptive. I would urge both of you to concentrate on the content of articles and to assume good faith on the part of the other. Kbthompson (talk) 10:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Hear, hear, the issue is now about communications and relationships and Kbthompson offers sage advice. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC).

"It seems to me that the behaviour dispute has already been dealt with at wikiquette, and the sock puppet issue is also resolved. You complain that formal charges have been laid against you - but they've been resolved without any sanction. There is no 'punishment' for Arcayne reporting you to suspected sock puppets, just as there is no 'punishment' for Arcayne being reported to wikiquette."

Responding directly to the quoted matter above, the formal charges he brought against me were done without ANY evidence. This is unacceptable. He had no more basis to accuse me of "Ongoing, serious pattern vandalism involving dozens of incidents" and "3RR violation using socks". than I do of you.

What is the Wiki standard of evidence required to bring formal charges? Society always punishes those who make false accusations in official forums(Not a single citation was ever presented.). This is not a one-off, Arcayne has brought charges against numerous editors and multiple administrators[47] and on a near daily basis posts threats of formal charges and sanctions against various individual editors. What is the policy?

(Note: I did not initiate any action at Wikiquette - this is not a quid pro quo matter.)75.57.165.180 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As said before, your options can be found under WP:DR. You may not have read that policy in full as you appear to have followed advice from its top sections. DR applies to content disputes as well as behavioral disputes. Since you have complaints about the behavior of Arcayne, your options are e.g.: talk page discussion, mediation, RfC/U. I would say it isn't worth it though. Simply keep your interactions with Arcayne to a minimum and on-topic and don't overreact to accusations you know to be incorrect. If you need the advice of an experienced editor, you may want to register a user name and put a {{helpme}} or {{adoptme}} tag on your talk page. Avb 14:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I did miss the comments in WP:DR that addressed non-content issues. A final question then, Is there a Wiki standard for supporting formal charges and accusations with a citation or evidence?75.57.165.180 (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Depends on the forum (examples: WP:RfC and WP:RfAr require such formal evidence). However, accusations that are not supported by diffs or other links to problematic edits are generally not taken seriously and editors who keep accusing others without merit don't have a good reputation. Other things that come to mind are a WP:guideline called Don't bite the newcomers and an essay called No angry mastodons. Also worth noting is the principle that admin tools and especially WP:BLOCKs are not to be used as punishment. If I find the time I'll post a couple of pointers on your talk page. My advice re Arcayne remains: let it go. Avb 16:12, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Social network aggregation

Igorberger keeps removing my valid AFD nomination of Social network aggregation. Angrysusan (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be confused between the templates from his edit summary that you are marking it with a CSD tag, I'll drop him a line just to let him know. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He keeps calling me a vandal and erasing my messages pleading with him to actually read the tempaltes he is removing. Angrysusan (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[48] and now calling me a troll and claiming I put 10 CSDs on the article. I never once put a CSD on there, and was just trying to get him to listen on his talk page, but he keep deleting. What's up with this guy? Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you search the archives here you will find his name has come up before in the last month or so. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ref the user who posted this, anyone know the likely main account of that user? It's an obvious sockpuppet, and the AfD as edit one suggests a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr. Wheely Guy

Resolved

 – ON WHEELS!!!!!

This user page - acceptable or not? Saw it while checking the usages of some commons images of dubious value. First time I've put anything here, I think, so if this is the wrong place, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, while WP:USERPAGE gives users a whole lot of control over their userpage, wikipedia is not a porn site and I really see no way that this is constructive what so ever. Have you tried asking the user to remove it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalised as instructed to.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How could I resist? I moved it to User:Mr. Wheely Guy ON WHEELS!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem the original user added it himself but a rather perverted vandal instead.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know- mr wheely just put "you are all free to vandalise, ' and a User:Morecomes added the porn, someone else the cow. Looks a bit chan-ish, but might just be genuine wiki-ers having a laugh. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not think there is anything that says they can not request users to vanalize their page, and honestly I know a bunch of other users who have pages just like that. Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - User:UBX/hornysonofabitch, User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n, User:Cyde/Weird pictures are a few examples. They should all be MFD'd and deleted, but too many people enjoy Wikipedia providing them with GFDL porn galleries. Neıl ☎ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all in the censoring wikipedia camp, but maybe there should be some kind of guideline on this. Or maybe not. Are all or any of them on the bad image list? Might be a good idea to place the there if not. Brilliantine (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more about user inviting others to vandalize their userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the wording... I mean, the line between good faith edits and vandalism is blurred at the best of times, and even Jimbo encourages others to edit his page, just in slightly more guarded terms. There is precedent for images such as this to be placed on the bad image list in any case, to avoid their placement where their presence would be likely to be unwelcome. In any case, the bad image list is in need of an overhaul in general, containing as it does a large number of deleted images. Brilliantine (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I took him up on the offer also. KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals taking time on my page will take time away from them vandalizing real articles. So everyone is free to screw around with my user page all they want. And of course if you don't like what someone (such as that porn guy) puts on my page then anyone is free to revert it. Mr. Wheely Guy (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Resolved? Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

 – Resolvedresolvedresolvedresolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Appleappleappleapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blockedblockedblockedblocked. Thatcher 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DrHeLpErZx

Resolved

Continually deletes the AfD tag from the article he wrote about himself: DrHeLpErZx. This is despite being warned by another editor on user talk page: [49]. Can we get him blocked for a while, at least while the AfD has a chance to run through? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That revision was not the proper warning to place. I replaced it with the L2 AfD tag removal warning, and gave an explanation why other editors frown on such actions. DarkAudit (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD snow-closed, placed on watchlist; will salt if recreated. Black Kite 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/130.113.111.210

Resolved

User:130.113.111.210 persistently adds unverifiable information on Peter J George article in which the nickname "Ruddiger" is added. It is explained to this user many times that sources have to be verified online to be valid but ignores it and just insists it can be found in the 2003 academic calendar which is only available in paperback form. 218.102.179.31 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What gave you the idea "that sources have to be verified online to be valid"? It's not true; never has been. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, what is this "academic calendar" and is it a reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An academic calendar, in Canada (not sure about elsewhere, but I presume not in the States, since you're unfamiliar with it) is an annual university publication that lists university regulations, courses offered, etc. In general, I think it would be a reliable (albeit self-published) source, but I'm a little confused as to why it allegedly includes a professor's nickname. That certainly isn't true of any university calendar I've ever read (not that I've read all that many). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! In the States, they're usually called "catalogs" and have gone (mostly) biennial or online-only, due to the cost of printing. I used to maintain a library of those for a state educational agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the calendar in question *is* available online, here. I'll try to find the referred to information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the information in question. In any event, I've left a note on the article talk page explaining policy and asking for assistance in locating the actual cite. I don't think any admin action is required here. Marking resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The so called claimed "trivia" section cannot be found online. On the other hand, if sources cannot be verified online how can you make sure whether the user is posting rubbish or not. Do you really expect anyone to go through the trouble to verify his source. If it were anymore, it should be the original poster to do that 203.218.143.38 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith includes an assumption that a cite to a non-online publication is legitimate. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iolani School- 204.130.130.185

Resolved

I believe that this IP address should be permanently blocked. I also attend this school, and I have noticed vandalism levels going way too high. I am currently working with school administrators on this problem, but until further notice, 204.130.130.185 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia because whoever did this is still on the loose causing trouble elsewhere and will not stop. In addition, the problem still resides on new people to the school and others who are new to Wikipedia. There are multiple vandals at Iolani, and I think should not be overlooked. Once again, I am still working with school administrators, but this means the vandals are still free to do whatsoever they want, so until further notice i would like to request ip address 204.130.130.185 be blocked permanently or until further notice. Look at the user contributions of this address if you don't know what I mean.
Thanks, and I hope we can track-down and destroy this vandal!
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I have reviewed the User talk for this IP Address, and I do confirm this is vandalism. Also, there are a few edits that are legitimately not vandalism. These edits were done by my friend Midorihana and she agrees to making compromises at school to make Wikipedia a better source for information. If you are ready to "pull the trigger" you may when you get this message.
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of: {{schoolblock}} applied 23:22, 7 April 2008 by Blueboy96 for 6 months. Bencherlite^Talk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User ImatrollROAR

Resolved

 – blocked

User:ImatrollROAR created a provocative username and has proceeded to vandalize the userpage and talkpage of User:Utgard Loki‎. --Joe^Talk_Work 12:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:VegitaU

Hi. Regarding vandal edits here over the past few days: the above user has stepped forward here to own up. The IP addresses that he used - 136.160.138.51, 136.160.150.110 and 136.160.154.150, to name only the three which affected me, were given blocks for vandalism. I believe that the user himself requires an additional block for extreme disruption (I was not the only recipient of this stressful and unacceptable bahaviour, and I lost a lot of valuable editing time dealing with the user's idiocy).

If a block is not forthcoming, it will clearly set a precedent for any so-called reputable editor to carry out such experiments in the future. If there have been unpunished examples of this before (I have not checked), then conversely this is as a result of such lack of punitive measures. I have not taken this up with the user; I have no intention of having anything to do with such an immature mind. I would appreciate some action or at least a reply. If this is the incorrect place to take this, please point me in the direction. Thanks. Ref ^(chew)(do) 12:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Withdrawn. Ref ^(chew)(do) 14:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This has already been dealt with in a section above, titled University System of Maryland IP vandals. - auburnpilot talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Klejas

Can someone stop this Klejs character and also undo the moving-articles damage he has done? [50] Thank you! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to have stopped for now. I think he doesn't quite realise he isn't on the Polish WP. Maybe. Or something. Anyway, I undid his move and put the resulting redirect up for CSD; all his other edits have been reverted (including one self-revert), so no harm done. -- Zsero (talk) 13:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

sock and/or meatpuppet issue with WSEAS and related articles

These articles continue to be recreated by multiple user accounts despite being deleted each time as blatant advertising (G11). The images have also been re-uploaded. The related articles this time are WSEAS, Wseas, World scientific and engineering academy and society, and Nikos E. Mastorakis.

Please see prior discussions at WP:ANI#Ongoing_COI_issue_at_WSEAS and WP:COIN#WSEAS. Thanks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mokedi

Kind of a borderline vandal IMO. All his edits to date have been totally self-promotional including his image uploads. Just came back on to repost a NN bio about himself, one that was deleted back in March. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article's been deleted, but the images are still there. Thanks.  :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 14:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Image deleted under G11. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Truly odd userpage

Resolved

 – Speedily deleted

Came across User:Adam's Body in Noah's Ark today. Apparent attempt to build a fairly odd article in userspace. No other contributions by user. Not sure where to take this one. Is AFD appropriate for a userpage?Kww (talk) 16:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If there really is a "joke" somewhere in there, I don't get it. Tan | 39 16:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily delete as

Extensive personal opinions on matters unrelated to Wikipedia, wiki philosophy, collaboration, free content, the Creative Commons, etc.

per Wikipedia:UP#NOT Toddst1 (talk) 17:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Also WP:Soap, no article edits at all. Gwen Gale (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, if anyone looks at the page history, I accidently added a speedy delete tag while browing the options. I rolled it back as fast as I could. Oops. Tan | 39 17:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It can't be speedied but I think a MfD would be ok (done). Gwen Gale (talk) 17:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What looks like the same article except for the last sentence is at a blacklisted site http://hubpages .com/hub/Adams-Body-in-Noahs-Ark -- space added in link so I could put it here!Doug Weller (talk) 17:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedily deleted as copyvio of hubpages. Toddst1 (talk) 17:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Stone put to sky continues to make personal attacks

User:Stone put to sky has been blocked for 3RR violations, using multiple sockpuppets, personal attacks against me, and violating WP:Username by making attack accounts on my name.[51][52]

Warned again one month ago for new attacks.[53]

Continues now with new attacks.

"Blah blah blah. One hoppy 'roo can confuse even the best tracker. Trainor is Ultramarine's boy, and all here know it. What comes out of one goes right in the other, in and out in an ugly smear, and neither could reckon straight on the least part of their back yard, much less anything outside their beloved U.S. Keep your eyes on the content, boys, and stop -- how do ya say it? edit warring? Stop. I have nothing wrapped up in this place and will be happy to take your names before the grand board of hoo-hahs."[54]

"But anyone who knows wikipedia and has been around this page for any length of time knows that the only person who behaves dishonorably here is you"[55]

"You've been kicked out of Wikiipedia so many times that your backside has treadmarks on it."[56]

Aho aho is a sockpuppet of Stone put to sky.[57].Ultramarine (talk) 11:38, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I think that some strong words are needed to calm everything down. Maybe some informal admin mediation? But certainly the atmosphere is too bitter.

As for the request user result, what does "likely" mean for Wikipedia's purposes? Is it treated as the same as "confirmed", or what? Sky has already been blocked for sockpuppet use. If people believe he is doing it currently then that should be stopped, especially as it is not a declared sockpuppet account. Given the level of disagreements over the article in question using sockpuppets is even more dangerous than usual - assuming he is. John Smith's (talk) 14:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

As a point of reference, of the four "likely" sockpuppets listed in the checkuser request, only User:Thecryptthing was indefinitely blocked - the others were not, however. I'm not sure why this is. John Smith's (talk) 14:52, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

For the record, Thecryptthing was blocked after an earlier case, along with the others that were, in that case,  Confirmed. — the Sidhekin (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, so that's why that account was blocked. But what happens with "likely" results? I think this is where I'm not clear on what should be done with these other accounts. It is suspicious that of the three not blocked, only Aho aho continued to post - the others stopped. John Smith's (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

• • Moriss levy (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Thecryptthing (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Aho aho (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • YumpinYimini (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • Ultrastoopid (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
  • UntimelyMaroon (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
    • Are all abusive sockpuppets of User:Stone put to sky per User:Thatcher's checkuser. All those accounts need to be blocked and SPTS needs to be blocked as an abusive sockpuppeteer. --DHeyward (talk) 05:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So can we get an administrative remedy here? A timed topic ban perhaps? Otherwise he will keep attacking these pages with socks. - Merzbow (talk) 02:09, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ultramarine and Stone put to sky have been editing warring on the same controversial page for months. I agree with User:John Smith's, the only person, to my knowledge, who has not been personally involved with Stone put to sky that some "informal admin mediation" is appropriate.Trav (talk) 13:43, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Close, but it's really Ultramarine and SPTS's army of sock puppets, including two that were crated to disparage UM's user name, that have been edit warring. User:Stone put to sky should be blocked for violating policy and it will end two problems. --DHeyward (talk) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My two cents are they should both be blocked. The page has turned into a war ground for both of them, the few attempts I make to reach a middle ground with either are often met with repetitive arguments, such as Ultramarines continued insinuation that there is a double standard, even though everyone has told him otherwise, and Stone's continued need to battle him. Ultramarines passive aggressive behavior should be examined, and Stones harsh replies to it. While I myself have been annoyed with Ultra for his constant circular arguments, and appeals to random policies as it suits him, the goal is to maintain civility on such a hot button topic. Due to both, primarily Ultra, and it seems the new arrival of DHeyward, I have had to step back from the article.

The participants on it seem to feel they are in a war for the United States, taking each item in the article as personal attacks, renaming the article after not even participating on the talk page, and worst of all appearing here to ask one of the problem people have action taken against them and not the other. Unfortunately everyone's, including my own behavior, has been sub par, perhaps the article should be deleted to save Wikipedia, what appears to be, a handful of good editors.

Just to add it was eluded by Giovanni33 that John Smith and himself are suppose to be avoiding each other due to past admin action, yet John Smith appeared on the page a short while ago, of course arguing the point counter to Giovanni, this article has been turned into a battleground, I am starting to wonder if anyone is really arguing over the article content anymore, or if its a continued fight over past issues. --N4GMiraflores 16:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni is incorrect. There is no restriction on either of us avoiding pages that the other works on.

If a community sanction is to be placed on both Ultramarine and Sky then that may be appropriate. However, that does not address the issue of whether Sky has been abusing sockpuppets. There was a "likely" result that was not properly processed. I still would like clarification as to how the administration deals with "likely" results and a formal decision made as to whether any action will be taken over the report or not. If it is left idle that will cause more problems. John Smith's (talk) 18:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

This article was a mess when I dropped out months ago and is still a mess. It's always been under attack by banned users and socks (socks of NuclearUmph and FAAFA were caught and banned there), when it's not under full prot. Certainly there has been bad behavior on all sides, but abusive socking is unacceptable and needs to be immediately addressed. The alternative is going to be ArbCom (which may in fact be the only entity capable of cleaning this up). - Merzbow (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Merzbow has a great suggestion, fully protect the article for a month to a couple of months. This has worked before. Everyone loses interest and goes their separate ways. Trav (talk) 02:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not exactly suggesting that as the best way forward, but it's a superior alternative if peace can't be had. But one of the reasons peace can't be had is due to socking. Why not this proposal: 1) Article is put on 1RR probation, 2) Anyone caught socking will be be subject to increasing bans, beginning with a week. To enforce this, we need an uninvolved admin to promise to pay attention to the article. This will save the community the time sink of an ArbCom case. Aside from that, I'm out of ideas. - Merzbow (talk) 06:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As a note here, SPTS has been virulently aggressive towards anyone attempting to change the article in question to one different from his own POV. As a further note, given the results of the checkuser on SPTS, N4GMiraflores is likely his meatpuppet at the very least. I'll cheerfully submit to a checkuser to prove I'm not Ultramarine's sockpuppet or whatever-- in fact, I invite it. I'm glad this thread has been made, because the repeated incivil behaviour displayed by SPTS is unacceptable.

Ultramarine has been making good faith efforts to clean up a very bad article, attempting to engage in talk page discussion, and creating sandboxes. SPTS (and his allies), on the other hand blanket revert virtually every edit he makes to the article, and accuse him of bad faith, disruptive editing, and vandalism. Frankly, I think Ultramarine has been remarkably restrained considering the torrent of abuse that has been and continues to be aimed in his direction. Any intimations that he is as large of a problem as SPTS are, quite simply, false. The problem is with SPTS and the other editors who have WP:OWN problems with the article in question and resist any and all efforts at cleanup. Jtrainor (talk) 16:42, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure what the difference between a "meat puppet" and a "sock puppet" are, however I already make it clear on my user page that I have an alternate account. It is one of the reasons I have walked away from this mess of personal issues, it has become too much of a distraction. It is difficult to look at that talk page and not realize you have stepped into a mine field of personal issues. Perfectly reasonable middle grounds are ignored, everyone has stake in the ground and refuses to move, everyone uses the talk page because they are required to, yet no one is interested in forming a consensus at all. Even this message requesting administrators assist the situation is split into a defense of one side, and an attack on the other. It is almost unbelievable that those who views are seen as defending the US position are all stating Ultramarine is not that bad, and all those seen as attacking the US, all see it as Stone is not that bad. Is no one concerned with the article itself? Do you think removing the alternate view is going to make the article any less of a mess that needs work? I think the best answer is to make the article disappear, that way all the editors can move on much like I did. N4GMiraflores is my alternate account, subsequently closed. --I Write Stuff (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A sockpuppet is an alternate account directly controlled by someone. A meatpuppet is someone you know in real-life who agrees to help you out when you get into disputes, etc. John Smith's (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, I think that distracts from the issues at hand. First of all final action needs to be taken over Sky's checkuser report and whether a sanction is required. Second Sky and Ultramarine's actions more generally. John Smith's (talk) 18:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of sockpuppets, User:64.118.111.137 has shown up on the talk page and begun trolling. Given this thread and the user's contributions, I find the timing rather suspicious. Same user has also violated 3RR on the article itself in an attempt to remove tags. Jtrainor (talk) 19:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Four reverts (one over two edits), so yes, it's a 3RR violation. In less than an hour. I'm almost impressed. But if I read this right, the IP was not warned until the minute of the fourth, so I doubt anything will come of that.

However, I'd welcome a checkuser at this time. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh wow, was I wrong! one more revert within the hour, and yet one more revert while I was writing this! Mr. IP wants a time out. — the Sidhekin (talk) 19:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:76.102.72.153 has now shown up as well. Fortunately an admin semi-protected the page. Giovanni33, however, has begun reverting the page to the version insisted on by the previously reported IP that was blocked for 3RR. Jtrainor (talk) 16:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That is Giovanni33...see diff..[58] checkuser will likely show that Giovanni33 has repeatedly violated his 1RR restriction. I think a long term ban is long overdue on his account.--MONGO 10:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how that proves it is Giovanni - could be a meatpuppet or another independent user. I have filed a report to clear matters up. As for the Sky matter, can we please get an admin to confirm:

1. Whether any action is to be taken for recent activities as mentioned by Ultramarine.
2. Whether any action is to be taken over the "likely" sockpuppet report, where some "puppets" were not blocked and at least one has continued to edit. John Smith's (talk) 12:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Probable sockpuppet

User:Rafaelsfingers was only registered at the end of last month and has jumped into the above article, State terrorism and the United States. It wouldn't surprising if he is a sockpuppet - could someone do a checkuser/file a report? I'm not quite sure what to do here. John Smith's (talk) 21:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Now we have to deal with sleepers... great. - Merzbow (talk) 00:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Fredrick day threatening to stir up libel actions.

This user is blocked for vandalism and gross incivility. He's been evading the block by coming in with variant IP, sometimes just his local ISP block, likely, but also from various ISPs around the world. I was reverting his edits, as have some others. He then turned to some biographies of porn stars and removed unsourced material, claiming BLP violation. As he is a blocked editor, I reverted his edits, though in some cases I also posted to Talk, inviting any editor to review his edits, stating that I was not making any content decision in reverting him.

As he had, I am sure, planned, he reported this to WP:BLP,[59] where, as he has before, he stirred up a flap, with the first response being, from a number of users, that he had no right to edit articles. At this point I continued with my reverts. Then other editors arrived and protested at the return of BLP violating material to the articles (which is understandable). Then an admin unblocked one of the block-evading IP addresses,[60] though it was quite certain this was being used by the block evader. Because I was asked to stop the reversions where BLP might be involved, I have; however, this is background. The following is the occasion for this report:

User:Fredrick day (See Wikipedia talk:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day for a list of IP addresses and socks, the ID is not doubtful) wrote:

am I going to have to email those people to get some action taken? nobody is bothered that a unsourced claim about people having AIDS is being re-added to articles?[61]

so the answer is - I'll have to email each of those people individually and put out the audit trail that shows that I tried to remove libel from articles but it was felt best to add it back in.[62]

[edit inserted by Fredrick day]This of course misses out the context, that Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article. This is all in the history - ABD preferred to just keep reverting them back out. Even in a situation where it was indicated that the article stated without sources that a woman had infected others with HIV. What option was I left with but to get a bit shouty? I'd tried removing the BLP vios,abd reverted me, I'd tried to highlight the BLP vios on the BLP page, Abd reverted me --87.112.67.187 (talk) 10:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course, what I was doing was being explained, and legitimate users were being invited to undo my reversions if the edits were legitimate, my actions weren't based on content, it is as if I were a bot capable of identifying that an edit was made by a blocked user, but not capable of reviewing the content, so no content decision was made through them, and yet attention was called to them, ultimately through BLP, and, indeed, some users did revert some of my reverts, which was quite proper, all I was doing was placing, effectively, Fd's contributions in a kind of "submitted status," instead of allowing him to unilaterally edit articles, given that he is blocked and massively evading it. As I mentioned, I've stopped doing this in the same way, but the above shows that the blocked user is not acting for the welfare of the project, but to force his own agenda. More aggressive measures may be warranted, and, at least, his IP should be blocked on sight.

--Abd (talk) 04:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It does sound as though the blocked editor might be playing games with us. But I don't see the logic of you reverting his edits to biographical articles without checking the content. I think WP:BLP should take precedence over the more subtle issues you have mentioned. Nobody should act like a bot where biographical articles are concerned. Measures to prevent User:Fredrick day from editing biographical articles might be considered, but mechanical reverting should not in my opinion be one of the ways. EdJohnston (talk) 04:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep. I've seen this game before. Banned user edits in such a way that when we revert him we do something worse, which of course is what he wants. It's a particularly refined form of malice. My recommendation is to just check each edit. Dynamic IP -- you probably wouldn't even have to bother to block unless he starts disrupting something, or vandalising again. Antandrus (talk) 04:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If he isn't banned, then you shouldn't be reverting all of his edits.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, does anyone actually think that he shouldn't be? -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I'm just saying that if he hasn't been banned by the community or an administrator, then his edits should not be undone wholesale.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stop reverting edits that violate BLP. -- Naerii 04:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocking is also seeming a little pointless as he appears to have a limitless amount of IPs. The best thing to do is revert, block, ignore (i.e. deny recognition) with the caveat in this case that you don't restore BLP violations. I know it's tempting to revert him as he is intensely obnoxious but by doing so you're playing right into his hands. -- Naerii 04:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bother with the biography changes, but I did revert his edits to the BLP board. They at least were clearly intended to be disruptive and attention-seeking, and I thought that revert, block, ignore was the appropriate action in that case. I was a little hurt that one user said I was wrong to do it, and another admin unblocked one of the ips that I blocked without even contacting me, and if I was wrong to revert and block in that situation, I'd like to know so I don't do it again. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe in this case ignore, ignore, ignore would be better. — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a relatively experienced user very deliberately trying to get editors to fight with each other. He is block-evading, using various techniques, openly defiant about it, very aware that he can manage to edit even with quite a bit of effort made here to prevent him, though more could be done (IP block his home range, for example. The damage from a range block would be small compared to the damage he is regularly inflicting, and the message from an IP block gives ways to get around it, not difficult. There are not many edits from his IP block. He still has other ways to post, but they are, I'm sure, more cumbersome. He can make lots of them for a short time, but keeping it up would be another matter.)

I still believe that the simplest solution would be to bot-assisted revert all his edits, once he is clearly identified, *then* review them manually and bring in what is legitimate. This converts his edits into what I've called "submissions." Just as if we had moderated submissions. Which ain't a bad idea, all by itself.

This user regularly lies about what has happened. He knows that many readers won't bother to check, or that a superficial check may make it look correct. See above, where he claimed that "Abd kept reverting back out my appeals to the BLP boards to a) check my edits and b) to stop him reverting back in libel. I am well aware that I am now banned but at the time was blocked and more importantly - I had indicated by edit summary, what the BLP problem was in each article." No, I did not revert out appeals to the BLP board unless nobody had responded to them yet, the original and long appeal was left in. Besides, editors concerned with this stuff use watchlists, you can't keep edits out of vision by reverting it. I invited users to check my reverts and bring back in anything legitimate, since I knew that some of it was almost certainly legitimate. Now, what he wrote above is totally unreliable, he knew what he was doing, he set it all up so as to be able to make claims that would seem legitimate on the surface. Hence edit summaries can't be relied upon. If he can, he will use copyvio and BLP claims to justify many of his actions, as a cover. He's a deletionist, so all he has to do is claim a violation (copyvio is handy, just claim that something is improperly quoted and it can take some work to determine if that is true). The real situation here is that this is an editor who has had some success setting up wiki-riots. That he can succeed in this is something that we should notice. It's about us, not about him. He plays on all the suspicions that, it seems, many of us hold about each other. --Abd (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If we are to believe he's trying to prove a WP:POINT that "ban-evading users can be helpful" and/or "it's easy to bait reverters into looking very stupid", but that he's skipped the low-lying fruit in favor of less trivial (and harder to find) issues which could, potentially, spare us from legal problems... something doesn't add up. So I have to ask, is it possible that at least some of the copyright and "BLP" violations were in fact planted by him beforehand (using whatever another account or IP)? — CharlotteWebb 13:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I reviewed the edit history of Sarah Harding, one of the articles he complained about, and none of the bad edits came from ranges he's known to have used. If someone reminds me what the other articles were I'll look through them too. I wouldn't put it past him, especially considering the vast amount of ranges he seems to have access to, but it'd be difficult to prove. -- Naerii 13:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd never add BLP to an article because I'm aware that I would be legally liable for that edit, if the living figure came knocking. I'd removing it from articles that are in disputed categories and so on. Abd idea of a bot revert of edits of banned users is unworkable because it would make the bot owner legally responsible for adding libel to article (remember the foundation position is that you are all responsible for your own edits and actions, they would not help you). Regardless of whatever made-up rules Wikipedia has, the law is clear, if you add or repeat libel, then you are responsible as if you had created the libel. Saying "well it is our wikipedia policy that we revert banned users" would not cover you in a court of law. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

So (can I call you Freddy?) is your goal here to prove that certain policies do not co-exist well and that common sense should ultimately prevail, or that one particular policy ought to be changed, or that you should be re-instated as some sort of "user in good standing", or that User:Abd puts his antipathy toward you ahead of the project's best interests, or are you acting only out of genuine concern for the article subjects, or do you just enjoy watching other users' heads explode? — CharlotteWebb 14:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm too far gone to be re-instated as a user in good standing so that's not worth discussing. However, the most recent wikidrama we've seen here was kicked off two nights ago when I tried to remove BLP from a single article (a line in the Seal article about him working for prostitutes) - I was reverted and then when I headed over to BLP to bring it to people's attention, I was reverted there and the libel reinserted. I was a bit surprised at this, surely people were checking out if libel was occuring (and I was leaving detailed edit summaries of what I was removing)? So I'll be upfront, the following night (last night), I'd had a look at the porno categorizes and started to remove libel from there, At that point, I'll admit, I was interested to see how far people would go in their zeal to "punish" me. Frankly, I'm disappointed in the answer, people desire to play toughguy override their common sense about BLP - even when the edit summary clearly explained what the libel was. So yes in a sense, I guess I was testing policy - regardless of my status, is it really a bad thing that 2 things have been highlighted 1) that regardless of status, anyone bringing BLP violations to the BLP board should have those claims examined, not just reverted and that 2) regardless of status, that edits that seem to remove BLP violations should not just be reverted without consideration of what is being reverted back in. What I find most staggering is the claim that they should just all be reverted "because it's a lot of hard work to find sources"! that's is a shameful attitude for an ecyclopedia to take in regards to it's duty to Living figures. --Fredrick daytime (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Contrary to what CharlotteWebb says, there is no example of "certain policies do not co-exist well". Even when dealing with banned editors, WP:BAN is clear on this - "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". There is no policy that says that BLP violations are added back regardless of who removed them, and anyone doing so should be jumped on from a great height in my opinion. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking somebody if they are trying to prove X does not mean I believe X is true, or that I even hold any opinion on X. I went on a limb to list several possibilities regarding Fredrick's actual views and motives. I was hoping a compromise of sorts could be worked out here, though I still have some doubt. — CharlotteWebb 15:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I see no sign of any effort to "jump from a great height" on those who inserted these allegedly violating claims (more accurately, they have been unsourced claims, low-lying fruit, when I investigated one it seemed pretty solid), but rather an attempt by Fd to get everyone else to jump on me, and on other users similarly aware of his shenanigans, based on some alleged disagreement about BLP policy, being deliberately set up by a blocked user who knows exactly what he is doing and how to get editors worked up, which he has done before (it's part of what he was blocked for in the first place). I'm finding certain aspects of BLP policy "not coexisting well" with BAN policy, on what may be deeper consideration than what is currently reflected on the policy pages. To really pursue this would probably involve consultation with Foundation legal advisors. Better procedures are needed. I have no intention to push the edges of BLP policy, it's important, and I don't blame other editors for being concerned. But be careful. This guy is lying about what happened, so don't jump to conclusions based on his reports. Know, as well, that he will report something that he knows could appear improper from a superficial examination, that is how he worked before. And, from what has been happening, it still works.

My possibly improper reverts are very easy to find, just look at Special:Contributions/Abd, all of them have clear edit summaries that are about the blocked user, not about the content, and are preceded by the edits allegedly fixing copyvio or BLP problems -- or other alleged problems. I have in some cases specifically invited other editors to look at the situation, and whenever another legitimate editor has intervened, I have taken my hands off that article. It's then up to that editor. Given that this information was already up, generally for a long time, my reverting it back in increases the risk to WMF, if at all, very, very little. Fd has claimed that I'm taking upon myself personal liability for what I do. Yes, I know that this could, under some extreme situations, be true. And that's my business, not anyone else's. Frankly, though, I take on more risk just driving down the street or owning a house. Much more.--Abd (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Don't be confused by the barrage of smoke set up by Fredrick day. There were a series of reverts which I did to the edits of a blocked user, and some of these reverts may have been inappropriate, they explicitly did not (much) consider content. Some were definitely appropriate, some, probably not, and Fd was deliberately setting this up so that a bad revert would be likely. Then, today, I made *one* edit to *one* of the articles where someone else, not me, had reverted Fd and Fd had again reverted back. What I did in my revert was *only* to restore the material and supply source, the fact involved is widely reported, and is actually in the article on the living person in question, Darren James, as well. I have no strong opinion on the reliability of the source, though I did check it, and what Fd has discovered may indeed be that there is a veritable hive of improperly sourced material in the articles on porn stars, but I see no sign whatever that the claim involved is controversial (though there is some question about the direction of infection; nevertheless, the original source I found, which, on the face, seems reliable, was old, 2004. The risk to Wikipedia of this material being up is minute. Nevertheless, even though Fd has again reverted it out, that is also harmless, our readers will not suffer for not being informed of something they could find in a few seconds with Google, and so I am not touching this article again. Besides, researching this, I get exposed to lots of material I'd rather not see. The question I have is, can we rely upon a known vandal and troll (one who seriously tries to get Wikipedia editors fighting with each other) to police these articles? One place I agree with him. If he edits an article, the edit should be examined carefully. Now, who is going to do it? And if one person does it, how do we know, so that many people don't duplicate the labor? I had a suggestion. Someone who knows he is a dangerous, blocked editor, who would not hesitate, I suspect, to actually carry out the threat to incite a libel action against Wikipedia, should immediately revert him on sight, and then other editors, more familiar with BLP policy and the general subject area, can look at the edits and quickly and easily restore them if they are useful. In this way, there is no duplication of effort, and the only harm is transient. This material was up for a long time, months at least, and being up a few more minutes isn't going to kill us. But that's my opinion, I'm certainly not going to force it on the community.--Abd (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

should immediately revert him - what part of don't reinsert material flagged as unsourced on BLPs don't you understand. It's irrelevant that people can find it on google, it's irrelevent, how long it's been there, it's even irrelevant that it might be true, because we are not interested in truth but verifiability from reliable sources. Your advice is very dangerous for a number of reasons - the main one, is that any editor who reverts the material back in will then be responsible (in the eyes of the law) if it actually was libel being added in. Be very very clear about this, as mentioned upthread, if someone comes knocking with a lawsuit, the foundation will hand over you IP and other identifying details about you. why? because YOU are responsible for the edits you make, not wikipedia, not the foundation. The correct way to deal with this is NOT Revert>>>check, it is check>>>>add in material that can be sourced. Abd should be asked to either a) stop repeating this advice on multiple boards and threads or b) be forced to add a disclaimer about the position of the editor who makes the revert. He is advocating reinserting BLP violation as a matter of course - regardless of my status, this would have massive ramifications and needs to stamped on immediately. --87.112.233.6 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It's not advice, it was a suggestion, clearly, not to be implemented unless the community agrees. First of all, I'm not an anonymous editor. My real name is on my User page. And I'm not making reverts that risk BLP violations; I certainly may have done that, there was a fuss, and I'm not doing it again. I made one edit today that I do not consider a risk at all. Fd, who apparently can now edit with impunity, reverted it, and I don't care.--Abd (talk) 19:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amnesty, anyone?

Interestingly, Fd notes that he's too far gone to be unbanned at this point. But, he is arguably more disruptive and difficult to track when editing from all these IPs. I would rather see him edit from one account, so that his history can be more readily scrutinized. That would also facilitate his investing time in making some more constructive contributions, since he would not have to fear their reversion. Might we not extend amnesty, and allow him to edit under an account, in exchange for an agreement to follow Wikipedia rules? (And indeed, might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation?) Sarah Lynne Nashif (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Say, aren't you a banned user who should be immediately blocked? Equazcion •✗/C • 18:56, 8 Apr 2008 (UTC)

might we not extend the same offer to certain other users in a similar situation? He means himself - this editor is the blocked user Sarsaparilla --87.112.233.6 (talk) 18:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That has been claimed by 87.112.x.x (which is certainly Fredrick day, I think it is also 87.113, 87.114, and 87.115, plus varios singlets of random ISPs around the world). Yes, there is reasonable suspicion that SLN is Sarsaparilla, and not surprising that Equazcion, a nemesis of Sarsaparilla, would notice it. There is a pending checkuser request to test this, I've commented there, confirming that the suspicion is reasonable. The suggestion is nevertheless worth consideration. And is likewise problematic. A great deal depends on details.--Abd (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Whatever, unbanning somebody because they go out of their way to prove that the ban was sound by vandalising and disrupting the project is probably not the smartest thing we could do. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
• I agree with JzG. banning is banning. we unban to let folks actually contribute, not to control thier disruption. --Rocksanddirt (talk) 15:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam.J.W.C. Stalking

Adam.J.W.C. (talk · contribs) has recently outed the identity of (or attempted to - I don't know if the identity they gave was correct), another editor. The edit in question was oversighted. Adam has since taunted the other editor with his claim to know his identity e.g. "did you get my Facebook poke?" Now he is querying on his talk page whether it is permissable for him to post photographs of people against their will. In my opinion this is both Wikistalking and real world stalking, and I believe it is appropriate to turf him off the site for good. Any comments before I do the honours? Hesperian 04:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh.... he made a general inquiry here regarding people in photographs, never alluding to "post(ing) photographs of people against their will." It was a question and not a forceful statement, and does not constitute stalking. And a Facebook "poke" isn't stalking. seicer | talk | contribs 04:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh... he published the identity of someone, poked them to prove he knew who they were, taunted them about it here, then started a thread about whether he would get in trouble if he posted a photo of someone and they complained about it? I reckon if it was you who had been outed, you'd be a little better at reading between the lines. Hesperian 04:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Your statement hear is a bit misleading. I inquired of User:J Bar a few days back about posting photos with people in them. He did not respond until sometime today. If you look closely I am responding to the message that he left on my talk page, that is why I wrote what I did. If it wasn't for him replying to my question that I left on his talk page a few days ago. I never would have wrote this. You need to check the message that I left on his talk page and his reply days later, and then my response to him at the same time of the other incident. Please Check. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Also User Jbar copies and pastes what you left on his talk page onto your talk page every time. You need to check the diffs a bit better and his take page.

You are giving us very little to work with, other than vague generalizations. A "Facebook poke" isn't stalking, and you have provided very little context or supporting evidence of anything else. Starting a general thread asking if posting a photograph with a person in it isn't stalking either. If the statement was phrased in a way that alluded to the publishing of a photograph on WP with an individual in it, then that could be a legitimate complaint, but I don't see that. Unless I am missing something here, isn't this where you should be adding in citations to your statements, or at least providing at least some documentation -- an OTRS #, for instance. seicer | talk | contribs 05:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It'd be difficult to do that - no-one who's replied to this thread are OTRS volunteers so aren't privy to that information. I'll ask and see if that information is available somewhere. Orderinchaos 17:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

One editor outs another, outing edit gets oversighted, outing editor gets indefblocked. SOP in my book. In fact, I was thisclose to blocking him myself after reading this thread. But in lieu of that, I endorse Hesperian's proposal. Blueboy96 05:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Hesperian and Blueboy - I saw the edit before it was oversighted. We do not need the drama of possible real life stalkers on Wikipedia and the indef block has a lot of precedent. Orderinchaos 08:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What about a possible copyright vio.? This post at UER.ca from Hatsumi stated, "some disgruntled person steals your images, sets up a wiki, then sets about trying to get every location u know and love locked down while also trying to ruin urbex for ur whole city - then brags about it ?" The user disclosed in private conversation that it was Adam J.W.C., but has not provided any supporting evidence of such incident. Would it be safe to remove the images? seicer | talk | contribs 05:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Are they uploaded here? If they are, gimme the links and I'll speedy the lot. Blueboy96 05:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

A lot. If you start at the top... But it's hard to determine which images are legit and which are not, and I couldn't garner any further information from Hatsumi @ UER. seicer | talk | contribs 05:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't help matters that the UER message board is behind a subscription wall. Still reason enough to watch this user's uploads VERY closely. Blueboy96 05:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Damn. I've sent in a request to have the thread made public, but it contained no other posts from the user except for that. The private correspondence was a little more detailed, but not by much. seicer | talk | contribs 05:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The images Adam kept stealing were Bunker today.jpg and Inside bbunker.jpg from the Bankstown Bunker article please also see : [63] Dmod (talk) 07:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have already explained this to you on the Bankstown Bunker talk page. I was given permission from the guy that runs this website [64]. If you look through the permissions for those images there are email confirmations from this guy, Peter Dunn who runs the website. The matter was taken care of on Commons once the mistake was pointed out to me. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't intend to war with you any further - I could go on about this issue forever. I just hope you can learn to listen, if you did the whole OTRS thing would have been avoided Dmod (talk) 08:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Its over and done with, like I said before once the mistake was pointed out that was it. Now someone has nominated the CC article for deletion, I am neutral to this but it might be of interest to both parties if it was deleted. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 08:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is over and done with? There was a complaint at the top of this section and it is usually an admin - and not the complained about - who either closes or somehow resolves the issue - and the issue seems to have been lost - would an admin please at least allow someone else other than the editor complained about to actually review the issue before attempting to divert the original point completely SatuSuro 11:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - revealing someone's identity on here in a fashion which actually had to be oversighted, then taunting them about Facebook just two hours after an oversighter deletes the offending edit, while implying geographical proximity to the person, is very menacing behaviour and completely unacceptable. It's most definitely not "over and done with". Orderinchaos 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any issue with an indef. block for stalking, and continuation of such behavior after the outing was deleted. As for the images, I'm discussing the matter with a user from the Cave Clan group itself, and I am hoping that that issue can be resolved shortly. seicer | talk | contribs 19:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Other image problems

Other uploads by Adam.J.W.C. also present problems. Surveying the situation with representative examples (this isn't the whole of the problem). For starters have a look at the fisheye lens article and compare it to the official specs of Adam's camera. The widest angle setting of a Fujifilm FinePix S5700 is 38mm, which does not produce extreme distortion. A large number of Adam's uploads are missing parts of the metadata, and combined with the physical limits of his known camera's lens this raises questions about his claims to copyright. I'll supply examples.

• 
  Extreme distortion; notice the floor tiles. Image metadata includes the aperture but not the camera model.
• 
  Extreme wide angle distortion. Metadata includes aperture but not camera model.

Also, Adam has been edit warring over Photoshop changes. Check this image edit history. Another example is Ladakh Highway: original version, Adam's version. Adam's edits are poorly conceived and less valuable than the original images.

A number of Adam's uploads are also orphaned images.

• Image:2008 0101klklk0009.JPG
• Image:2007 0801klklk0010.JPG
• Image:2007_0801klklk0023.JPG

Also, I was not impressed to discover that one of Adam's joke images was being used in an article.[65] Note the image description EU ID for user space and uncyclopedia later. Not only did Adam place that in an article,[66] when someone removed it he reverted the edit as vandalism.[67]

So I suggest the following:

• For modified images, wherever Adam's edit is the live version compare it to the original and probably revert.
• For original uploads, first check the metadata. Given Adam's forum post and the limitations of his camera, there's a very strong possibility that the images which lack camera make and model may need to be deleted as copyvio.
• For original uploads that do list his camera in the metadata, check to see whether the page is orphaned.

Durova^Charge! 09:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well all I can say to this is that I make mistakes but try to improve myself when possible even though my improvements may be wrong. You need to get your facts straight. I spend money on this shitty website that I work on for free as in, camera, petrol and computer software. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk)

I am not using a fish eye lens, I join photos using a special program. Some of the photos that I upload are a combination of up to thirty photos or more. I am afraid that you are completely wrong. The meta data changes when I use programs such as photo shop and PTGUI. I have recently started to use this software and am trying to improve my image quality. I used to use a fish eye, it was useless and then I found out about photo stitching and then learnt how to use the photo shop program. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 09:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If you want I have a good proposal, I can show you the photos before they were joined, I think this would solve this problem. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What about adding the joke Bin Laden image to mainspace? - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with that. The images were from commons. If it is that bad then just delete it. Here is the original [*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_And_Herzegowina_ID_issued_13_12_2007.jpg] but I am having trouble finding the osama one. I may have gotten it from this project and not commons. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That wharf isn't stitched. Some of your uploads may have been stitched, but not that one. Durova^Charge! 10:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

If it weren't for your post to that forum about doing copyvios of other people's work I'd be more inclined to give benefit of doubt. Do you have a good explanation for why so many of your recent uploads list aperture setting and even exposure time, but not the camera make or model? Durova^Charge! 10:18, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

That is my whole point. I am trying to show you the photos before they were stitched. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• 
• File:Before the stitch.JPG

Well I have found that when you use ptgui or photo shop it changes the meta data for the camera. If you want you can delete all my photos. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:23, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, benefit of the doubt for the wide angle issue. Photoshop adds edit data; it doesn't normally strip camera data that I know of. What about the orphaned images and the joke image you used in article space? Durova^Charge! 10:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - every one of my uploaded photos goes through Photoshop. Paintshop Pro strips *all* metadata from it, but Photoshop maintains the original info - see for example [68]. Orderinchaos 10:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Durova, you're not at all right - Photoshop does indeed strip metadata, dependent on your save settings, whether you Save For Web, Save As. I use Lightroom and Photoshop every day as a semipro wedding photographer, and meta data is not, for the most part, even remotely reliable. Saying that because some of a person's images have metadata indicating a consumer P&S digital is concerning as evidence as to taking a photo with a fisheye lens is far from corroboratory or conclusive, very far. I use a P&S many a time when I don't want to lug around an SLR with a heavy 2.8 lens, and I can tell you that out of the camera, the P&S embeds EXIF metadata, and the DSLR does not. Lightroom can add that in for you if you Export to JPEG, but editing in Photoshop from Lightroom will give you precisely zero metadata, unless you ask it to, and even then you can strictly control, and indeed edit, what fields and values are there, as a matter of triviality. Achromatic (talk) 06:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Look at the single shot cathedral with the man sitting in the chair and the stitched version at the top he is in both photos. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

• I posted this before I got one of them from commons. Also what foram are you talking about. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with that. The images were from commons. If it is that bad then just delete it. Here is the original [*http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Bosnia_And_Herzegowina_ID_issued_13_12_2007.jpg] but I am having trouble finding the osama one. I may have gotten it from this project and not commons. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC

• I have to leave my computer now. I will be away until tomorrow round the same time. --User:Adam.J.W.C. (talk) (talk) 10:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam, if you think this is a shitty website, stop contributing. While on the topic of images, do you think you could change the image you added in Urban Exploration to one which has the same width as all of the other images? Dmod (talk) 12:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

As for the distortion-fisheye issue, some camera models come with extra lenses that attach onto the lens. For instance, my old Nikon Coolpix 4500 had a variety of lenses that I could have used, like a fisheye or wide angle. And some programs do strip the EXIF data or at least some of it -- I seemingly lose some EXIF data after post-processing in Lightroom->Photoshop CS2 it seems (mainly aperture). seicer | talk | contribs 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Adam's camera doesn't have that interchangeability. If you can show me an instance where your photo processing software accidentally stripped camera make and model from your metadata, I'd be interested. Here's my field experience:

• 
  An image I resized in Photoshop CS. Adds info for the program, but doesn't take any camera info away.
• 
  After upgrading to Photoshop CS3. Same thing.
• 
  Here's one I worked on in CS. It's missing camera data. That's because it isn't my photography; the photo was shot in 1942.

This discussion has verified two instances that shed considerable doubt on Adam's good faith and editorial judgement: one where he deliberately discussed pulling mass copyright violations on someone else's photography and another where he put a Photoshopped joke into article space and kept it there. He doesn't regret either of those actions. A substantial portion of his uploads had already been deleted before I started looking into this. So I no longer assume good faith in any of these gray areas. Our responsibility is to protect the integrity of the project and prevent possible legal exposure to the Foundation. Durova^Charge! 15:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have numerous photographs inserted on my four web-sites (linked from my user page) but they have been processed from a RAW file to TIFF and then to JPEG (for web-viewing) through Adobe Lightroom. Some images have been HDRed in Photoshop CS2, and the compression of multiple images most likely distorts or eliminates EXIF data. Stitching together multiple photographs into a single image will have the same effect, and some or all of the original EXIF data will be lost. I also cannot find any wide angle or fisheye lenses for the Fujifilm Finepix S5700, although a wide angle exists for other Fujifilm models; this does not take into account any possible third-party manufacturers.

Adam, can you give the model of the lens? It would do much in simplifying the discussion. seicer | talk | contribs 16:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

fyi [69]--mikaul^talk 01:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Please review the thread: we've already settled the fisheye issue. Others remain. Durova^Charge! 19:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The issue may be settled, and for the record I'm in concurrence with there being "significant concerns", but I am also disconcerted by mis-information being presented as fact. A quick Google search will show a variety of lens adapters and extenders to suit that particular camera. Indeed, Wide Fisheye For S5700. Further, the inference of "accidental stripping of metadata" is disingenuous: my previous example above shows that there need be nothing accidental or buggy about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Achromatic (talk • contribs) 18:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Indiscriminate reverting

Adam has been persistently reverting edits made to the Cave Clan article wherever his contributions have been altered. He does this citing vandalism and advertising where neither seems applicable, and despite the objections of several other editors. I have attempted to discuss this matter with Adam on his talk page, however my inquiries have gone unanswered. He has recently[70] been challenged regarding similar editing practices on other articles and been blocked from editing Cave Clan.

Other editors seem to have been experiencing similar problems with Adam's reverting habits on Identity document [71] and a 45 revisions & 2 months revert [72] on John Wayne Glover. S.Nadir (talk) 13:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

I have blocked him per the discussion above and particularly the comments made by Hesperian in support of such a move. This makes no presumption on the separate issues raised regarding the images, those still remain to be resolved. Orderinchaos 19:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Those discussions above should continue - he will probably be unblocked within 12-48 hours once he engages with the community about his recent behaviour. Orderinchaos 00:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Adam deserves to be blocked for a period of time and so I endorse the block, however, I must admit that I'm not all that comfortable with a ban or an indefinite block at this point. It seems quite obvious to me that the other person's name was raised as a means of intimidating an editorial adversary and there are still concerns above about some of his images and his habit of edit warring and blanket reverting any edits to articles he's essentially taken ownership of. So I would support a fixed block of say a week or something like that with the understanding that the indefinite block will be immediately reinstated if he ever posts another user's personal details or possible personal details again and an agreement from Adam that he will stop the blanket reverts and edit warring and start to work collaboratively with other editors. Sarah 04:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I go with the "indefinite is not infinite" point of view. We have indefinitely blocked him, when we get a commitment from him that the behaviour will not persist, then we can unblock him or shorten his block to an appropriate finite length. From developments at his talk page I suspect we will get some kind of commitment to that effect soon. Orderinchaos 07:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries by User:Gennarous

I'd like to draw your attention to the personal attacks and gross incivility employed as standard by Gennarous. My belief is that his/her method deters other users from editing, and thus I call into question the benefit to the community of such editor and suggest that action may be necessary.

Users that disagree with Gennarous are seemingly "stalkers" [73][74][75][76][77][78] "ignorant human beings" [79], "commie trolls" [80][81] and vandals [82][83] prone to "typical communist behaviour" whose edits will be reverted "tomorrow when you are at school". [84]. The user is given to edit war above consensus [85] to support his/her personal POV [86], especially in relation to the Mussolini family [87] [88][89][90] with abusive edit summaries [91] where he/she seemingly doesn't even bother to examine what other editors do - these for example during a recent edit war over what the 'main' Syracuse is: [92] [93]. There are many other such examples, and I can go further into the hist contribs of this editor. However, I think that's sufficient, and importantly visitors to User talk:Gennarous can see what upset this user is causing in the community. Many thanks for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And having been notified of this discussion, the user promptly does this [94] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that AlasdairGreen has started this thread after the attentions of his pro-communist propaganda edits were brought to light. On the article Rab concentration camp despite three people telling him he is wrong[95] Alasdair has gone on a campaign to slur Italians in the article. Refusing to enter discussion on the talkpage in an attempt to wind up editors.[96] He removed citation requests from the article and a tag bringing to attention its POV status.[97] In an article where he has attempted to depict Italians as some sort of holocaust killers, despite the fact that three people on the talk have pointed out to him that this is a prisoner of war camp.[98] AlasdairGreen27 has attacked and mocked the Italian people in the content of the article saying they all have "amnesia", this despite the user Bedford pointing out that it is POV. Three different users have added the POV tag, three times he has removed it without solving the problems.[99] He has also trolled the article Walter Audisio, in regards to Benito Mussolini. Alasdair's anti-Italian propaganda and hatred is also exhibited on the Dalmatian Italians page amongst others,[100] where he comes to blows with other editors about Italians where he uses abusive language about Dalmatian Italians "it's all a pile of bollocks".[101] - Gennarous (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Rab concentration camp article: There was not a single editor in the last three months that said the current version of the article by User:AlasdairGreen27 would not be neutral. Today User:Gennarous edited the article in an extremely revisionist way [102]. I do not want to start a discussion about the article itself though, but just wanted to clarify Gennarous' "constructiveness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomis (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think all of my edits are OK. I'm happy to have my whole edit history in every article, every talk page checked. I think I'm quite a good Wikipedian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment (before the Red mist - and the capitalisation is deliberate - descends and I do something I will regret) - Wikipedia has a policy regarding NPOV. Not anti-Communist POV, not pro-Vegatable Rights POV or Lets-All-Sit-Down-and-Have-a-Calming-Drink-of-Tea POV, but NPOV. Every time I see someone justify their actions as "anti-communist" I have this barely checked urge to plaster hammerandsickle templates over their userpages. Please, you defenders of democracy and free speech, just stick to violations of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and not indulge in your morally petrified interpretations of who is and isn't permitted to say what and where. It is hard to take seriously complaints of POV when an opposing one is so obviously (red) flagged. </rant ends> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (it is hard being a liberal...)

Though many of AlasdairGreen27's diffs are relatively old, I do agree that Gennarous seems to be unable or unwilling to remain civil. Then again, some of AlasdairGreen27's edits aren't much better.[103][104] Overall though, AlasdairGreen27 seems to be the far more civil of the two.

I have been giving Gennarous some steadily-escalating warnings since April 2, [105][106][107][108] but he doesn't appear to be listening. If Gennarous could acknowledge the problem and make a promise that he was willing to try and do better to abide by WP:CIVIL, I would say to give him another chance; but if not, and/or he continues with this kind of behavior, I would support administrator action to rein him in. Though some of Gennarous's work is good, that can't excuse this steady pattern of antagonistic behavior in what are already powderkeg articles. I have no opinion on the content that is being disputed, but it is essential that editors remain civil with each other while they are in a dispute, otherwise it just magnifies the problem and makes it that much more difficult to find a solution. --Elonka 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Alessandra Mussolini was the article where I stumbled upon Gennarous. He constantly reverted edits by an IP which removed [109] a sentence about her education, stating that the university never issued such degrees [110]. Gennarous reverted without any comment, and when I tried to argue with him and asked him to cite his claim, he called me a communist repeatedly. [111] Later he attacked me on my talkpage. [112] I don't have a problem with giving him another chance if he promises to cease such behavior, but then again, he has done this in so many articles already. lomis (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And he doesn't stop. Now he called another user and me "Eastern Bloc neo-Balkan nationalists" [113] for trying to keep a concentration camp article neutral. Though I actually start to find this amusing, nevertheless he really should get banned or at least be given a last warning. He has done this far too often, in my opinion. lomis (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis is voilating WP:STALK, by stalking me to an another article to continue a dispute. After Lomis followed me to the article in question, he then vandalised an article with numerous sources from scholars and historians by blanking 75% of the article.[114] I warned this user above stalking me and blanking sourced information[115] yet he ignored it and removed the warning from me. I would like somebody to take a look at this Lomis character, since coming over here from the German Wikipedia he has contributed nothing of worth, all he has done is attempted to remove sourced information, motivated by political opinions[116]. Is there any reason a user who has contributed nothing is allowed to follow me to continue a dispute and generally act in a wild manner? - Gennarous (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A note to all participants: though you may or not have valid points on the article content, ANI is really not the place to sort out content disputes. This board is more for immediate problems with user conduct and serious policy violations. If the issue involves anything where an administrator actually needs to research sources to figure out who's telling the truth and who isn't, then that's probably going to be more complex than what you need an admin for. Instead, on issues of content, your better bet is to try one of the steps in Wikipedia dispute resolution, such as requesting comment from other editors, or perhaps posting at the the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can get the opinions of other editors on whether or not sources are appropriate to include in an article, and perhaps on whether or not those sources are being properly interpreted. --Elonka 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one comment: Gennarous must cease to politicise content disputes. Instead of accusing others of communism, Islamophilia, and slandering Italy (always without any basis) he should concentrate on discussing content and especially sources at the talk pages when his changes are disputed. This is all a part of not just civility but assuming good faith. Srnec (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR edit-warring and incivility. Further details have been posted at User talk:Gennarous#Block, if any other admins would like to review and/or comment. --Elonka 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks, incivil and abusive edits/edit summaries by User:Gennarous

I'd like to draw your attention to the personal attacks and gross incivility employed as standard by Gennarous. My belief is that his/her method deters other users from editing, and thus I call into question the benefit to the community of such editor and suggest that action may be necessary.

Users that disagree with Gennarous are seemingly "stalkers" [117][118][119][120][121][122] "ignorant human beings" [123], "commie trolls" [124][125] and vandals [126][127] prone to "typical communist behaviour" whose edits will be reverted "tomorrow when you are at school". [128]. The user is given to edit war above consensus [129] to support his/her personal POV [130], especially in relation to the Mussolini family [131] [132][133][134] with abusive edit summaries [135] where he/she seemingly doesn't even bother to examine what other editors do - these for example during a recent edit war over what the 'main' Syracuse is: [136] [137]. There are many other such examples, and I can go further into the hist contribs of this editor. However, I think that's sufficient, and importantly visitors to User talk:Gennarous can see what upset this user is causing in the community. Many thanks for your attention. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

And having been notified of this discussion, the user promptly does this [138] AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It should be noted that AlasdairGreen has started this thread after the attentions of his pro-communist propaganda edits were brought to light. On the article Rab concentration camp despite three people telling him he is wrong[139] Alasdair has gone on a campaign to slur Italians in the article. Refusing to enter discussion on the talkpage in an attempt to wind up editors.[140] He removed citation requests from the article and a tag bringing to attention its POV status.[141] In an article where he has attempted to depict Italians as some sort of holocaust killers, despite the fact that three people on the talk have pointed out to him that this is a prisoner of war camp.[142] AlasdairGreen27 has attacked and mocked the Italian people in the content of the article saying they all have "amnesia", this despite the user Bedford pointing out that it is POV. Three different users have added the POV tag, three times he has removed it without solving the problems.[143] He has also trolled the article Walter Audisio, in regards to Benito Mussolini. Alasdair's anti-Italian propaganda and hatred is also exhibited on the Dalmatian Italians page amongst others,[144] where he comes to blows with other editors about Italians where he uses abusive language about Dalmatian Italians "it's all a pile of bollocks".[145] - Gennarous (talk) 22:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on the Rab concentration camp article: There was not a single editor in the last three months that said the current version of the article by User:AlasdairGreen27 would not be neutral. Today User:Gennarous edited the article in an extremely revisionist way [146]. I do not want to start a discussion about the article itself though, but just wanted to clarify Gennarous' "constructiveness". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lomis (talk • contribs) 11:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm... I think all of my edits are OK. I'm happy to have my whole edit history in every article, every talk page checked. I think I'm quite a good Wikipedian. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment (before the Red mist - and the capitalisation is deliberate - descends and I do something I will regret) - Wikipedia has a policy regarding NPOV. Not anti-Communist POV, not pro-Vegatable Rights POV or Lets-All-Sit-Down-and-Have-a-Calming-Drink-of-Tea POV, but NPOV. Every time I see someone justify their actions as "anti-communist" I have this barely checked urge to plaster hammerandsickle templates over their userpages. Please, you defenders of democracy and free speech, just stick to violations of Wikipedia policy/guidelines and not indulge in your morally petrified interpretations of who is and isn't permitted to say what and where. It is hard to take seriously complaints of POV when an opposing one is so obviously (red) flagged. </rant ends> LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC) (it is hard being a liberal...)

Though many of AlasdairGreen27's diffs are relatively old, I do agree that Gennarous seems to be unable or unwilling to remain civil. Then again, some of AlasdairGreen27's edits aren't much better.[147][148] Overall though, AlasdairGreen27 seems to be the far more civil of the two.

I have been giving Gennarous some steadily-escalating warnings since April 2, [149][150][151][152] but he doesn't appear to be listening. If Gennarous could acknowledge the problem and make a promise that he was willing to try and do better to abide by WP:CIVIL, I would say to give him another chance; but if not, and/or he continues with this kind of behavior, I would support administrator action to rein him in. Though some of Gennarous's work is good, that can't excuse this steady pattern of antagonistic behavior in what are already powderkeg articles. I have no opinion on the content that is being disputed, but it is essential that editors remain civil with each other while they are in a dispute, otherwise it just magnifies the problem and makes it that much more difficult to find a solution. --Elonka 08:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment Alessandra Mussolini was the article where I stumbled upon Gennarous. He constantly reverted edits by an IP which removed [153] a sentence about her education, stating that the university never issued such degrees [154]. Gennarous reverted without any comment, and when I tried to argue with him and asked him to cite his claim, he called me a communist repeatedly. [155] Later he attacked me on my talkpage. [156] I don't have a problem with giving him another chance if he promises to cease such behavior, but then again, he has done this in so many articles already. lomis (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And he doesn't stop. Now he called another user and me "Eastern Bloc neo-Balkan nationalists" [157] for trying to keep a concentration camp article neutral. Though I actually start to find this amusing, nevertheless he really should get banned or at least be given a last warning. He has done this far too often, in my opinion. lomis (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Lomis is voilating WP:STALK, by stalking me to an another article to continue a dispute. After Lomis followed me to the article in question, he then vandalised an article with numerous sources from scholars and historians by blanking 75% of the article.[158] I warned this user above stalking me and blanking sourced information[159] yet he ignored it and removed the warning from me. I would like somebody to take a look at this Lomis character, since coming over here from the German Wikipedia he has contributed nothing of worth, all he has done is attempted to remove sourced information, motivated by political opinions[160]. Is there any reason a user who has contributed nothing is allowed to follow me to continue a dispute and generally act in a wild manner? - Gennarous (talk) 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

A note to all participants: though you may or not have valid points on the article content, ANI is really not the place to sort out content disputes. This board is more for immediate problems with user conduct and serious policy violations. If the issue involves anything where an administrator actually needs to research sources to figure out who's telling the truth and who isn't, then that's probably going to be more complex than what you need an admin for. Instead, on issues of content, your better bet is to try one of the steps in Wikipedia dispute resolution, such as requesting comment from other editors, or perhaps posting at the the reliable sources noticeboard, where you can get the opinions of other editors on whether or not sources are appropriate to include in an article, and perhaps on whether or not those sources are being properly interpreted. --Elonka 21:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Only one comment: Gennarous must cease to politicise content disputes. Instead of accusing others of communism, Islamophilia, and slandering Italy (always without any basis) he should concentrate on discussing content and especially sources at the talk pages when his changes are disputed. This is all a part of not just civility but assuming good faith. Srnec (talk) 04:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Gennarous has been blocked for 24 hours for 3RR edit-warring and incivility. Further details have been posted at User talk:Gennarous#Block, if any other admins would like to review and/or comment. --Elonka 21:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Social network aggregation

Igorberger keeps removing my valid AFD nomination of Social network aggregation. Angrysusan (talk) 18:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He seems to be confused between the templates from his edit summary that you are marking it with a CSD tag, I'll drop him a line just to let him know. Wildthing61476 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

He keeps calling me a vandal and erasing my messages pleading with him to actually read the tempaltes he is removing. Angrysusan (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[161] and now calling me a troll and claiming I put 10 CSDs on the article. I never once put a CSD on there, and was just trying to get him to listen on his talk page, but he keep deleting. What's up with this guy? Angrysusan (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think if you search the archives here you will find his name has come up before in the last month or so. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Ref the user who posted this, anyone know the likely main account of that user? It's an obvious sockpuppet, and the AfD as edit one suggests a problem. Guy (Help!) 18:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Being Stalked by user:Maher-shalal-hashbaz

About a month ago, this user jumped into a disagreement I was a part of, and escalated it into a revert war. After attempting to get me blocked the page was temporally locked and the users who were part of the initial disagreement, came to a consensus while Maher-shalal-hashbaz spent his time arguing that The Wrong Version was protected.

Now a month later he has followed me to another article, and is actively attempting to turn it into another edit war. After cleaning up and discussing an issue with a misguided (but well meaning) editor Maher-shalal-hashbaz is taking the opportunity to start another edit war. Already he is dropping 3RR warnings on my talk page, citing my six undos to the article in the past three months (despite him having just as many in the past week).

In the end, I am wondering if there is anything that can be done about this. Or if I am stuck having to repeatedly revert this user on every single page I edit for the rest of my life. Can I get any help? --T-rex 19:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a note on your talk page asking him 'not to template the regulars'. I'd suggest that you ask for a consensus in the talk page of the relevant article, and then perhaps get another editor, or admin to carry it out. There's the Request for Comments process if you need to get other opinions on a topic. If the editor is uncivil or impolite, a request to look into it can be made at WP:Wikiquette alerts. Have a read of the advice at WP:DFTT for avoiding edit wars. HTH Kbthompson (talk) 13:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, but the issue does not appear to be confined to any individual article, so I'm not sure a request for comment will really clear anything up long term. The lack of civility doesn't really bother me, at least not as much as being unable to prevent him from continuing to undo every change I make to any article. --T-rex 18:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem, what might appear to you to be a consistent pattern of stalking is always difficult to prove within the normal give and take of editing. Someone else might have a better idea - but sometimes a 'stalker' will give up if they know others are watching. Otherwise avoid them and seek consensus. Kbthompson (talk) 20:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/NASIOC

There's some serious SPAing and forum shopping going on from both sides of this debate. It's gotten pretty out of hand. Would someone mind taking a look at it and closing it if need be? --Smashville^BONK! 19:50, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

At least one account (AnteaterZot) who participated has been confirmed as a sock per Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Boomgaylove. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 19:59, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through that one when going through WP:AFDO earlier today. What a mess. Apparently, the Subaru Impreza has a pretty loyal fanbase. The general accusation is that those voting to "keep" this organization's article have been forum shopped on their own forum, encouraged to "join wikipedia". Been trying to get "involved" on NASIOC to find the relevant thread there...Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:03, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Found it. 18 pages long. And stickied. --Smashville^BONK! 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

That absolutely needs to be linked to the AfD. I'm on it. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:49, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Linked. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as a quick update, some of the members of the sock farm identified here participated on the delete side of that AfD. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of undeleting NASIOC; it is clear that a band of sockpuppets intentionally created and disrupted the AfD and I don't believe we can credibly say that it was performed in good faith. This is without prejudice to the article being renominated for AfD; I agree there are sourcing issues, but given the confirmed fact that the AfD was launched and supported by a sockpuppet ring, this cannot have been considered a fair process. FCYTravis (talk) 03:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What!? The closing admin provided his reasoning. I don't get this at all. Also, I notice you voted keep. To avoid the appearance of conflict of interest, I think you should not have undeleted. Take it to deletion review if you disagree. Friday (talk) 03:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact is that the AfD was launched and supported by a sockpuppet troll farm. That is manifest bad faith and it cannot be allowed to stand. FCYTravis (talk) 04:00, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There was a clear consensus among established editors. I don't care who started what. Friday (talk) 04:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think we should care. I can't make heads or tails of a consensus from that mess - and yes, some of the article's supporters are guilty of the same thing. But that doesn't mean we should condone the malfeasance of sockpuppets who have engaged in long-term disruption of the encyclopedia and the deletion processes. If the article is truly unworthy, then another AfD should end with the same result - only without making it look like a sockpuppet troll railroaded the article into oblivion. FCYTravis (talk) 04:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, say you say you can't close it.. but someone else already did. Did you take it up with him? Why not use normal channels? The close looks like a good call in a tricky situation to me. We can judge the case on its merits without regard for who started what. Friday (talk) 04:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not use normal channels? Pretend that troll-driven AfD nomination never existed. Nominate the article for deletion yourself right now and start the clock. If, as you say, it's an open-and-shut delete case, then it'll be deleted in five days - and there's not an appearance of bad faith based on the fact that the AfD was started by a sockpuppet troll farm. There is no deadline - having the article up for another five days isn't going to kill us. FCYTravis (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's been deleted again - based on a sock-farm trolling AfD. I'm not going to wheel war but it is a very sad day for the encyclopedia when we allow a confirmed sockpuppet farm to troll our deletion process so badly. Just awful. When outsiders look at this, they see nothing but suck. We took the bait - hook, line and sinker - and any attempt to rectify that, fails. Pathetic. FCYTravis (talk) 04:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why not start a deletion review? Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Pathetic? You voted keep for an article and when it was deleted per consensus, you overturned the AfD and restored it. Do you honestly not see why this is a problem? --Smashville^BONK! 04:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Do you honestly not see why we should consider AfDs which are started in bad faith by a confirmed sockpuppet troll farm to be patently invalid? If that hadn't been the case, I wouldn't have touched the article. But when we delete articles based on bad-faith trolling AfDs, we make ourselves look stupid at best, and complicit at worst. FCYTravis (talk) 04:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You restored an article that you participated in the deletion debate on the opposing side to the conclusion. After another admin deleted it. You didn't even discuss it with him. So are we just going to cave because of umpteen SPAs posted on the page and called us douchebags on their message board? And now they threaten vandalism and all of such and we're just going to give them their way so we don't look "stupid"? --Smashville^BONK! 04:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are we worrying about whether or not we're "giving them their way?" The actions of people on a forum should have nothing to do with our decision. You're making this into some sort of "us vs. them" thing - and that's bad. That's turning it into something personal, which we should be above. We ought to be making decisions based on guidelines and policies, and the attitude of "omg we can't give them their way" is poisonous.

The point is that we should be doing things right, so that there is not the slightest appearance of impropriety. By sustaining a sock-farm-based AfD, we are creating a massive appearance of impropriety. The solution is not to cover things up and hide and run away and shout "OMG WE CAN'T GIVE THEM THEIR WAY" - the solution is to do things right. So a known user should renominate the article for AfD, and if it's really deletion-worthy, it'll be clearly and unambiguously deleted. FCYTravis (talk) 05:03, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(side note: I just randomly wikilinked "appearance of impropriety," not really expecting it to be an article. But it is. Cool.) FCYTravis (talk) 05:07, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Restoring the article to the opposite result of your vote most definitely gives the appearance of impropriety. What are we covering up? That a sockpuppet was correct? The fact of the matter is that most of the trolling on this was done via SPA NASIOC editors. But my main problem is that you are sitting here going on and on about impropriety and all that when your own action with this is extremely uncouth. I mean, I'm sure you have good intentions, but the fact that you've already restored it once has killed any appearance of propriety this would have. --Smashville^BONK! 05:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

After all this crap, any thoughts on this planned attack on Wikipedia ..??? perhaps its time to blacklist this site?--Hu12 (talk) 04:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thought we just said bad-faith AfDs were OK. If it was OK for a sockpuppet troll to bad-faith AfD-nominate NASIOC, what's your problem with NASIOC members bad-faith AfDing a few articles in return? Bizarre. We reap what we sow. FCYTravis (talk) 05:05, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just went through it to identify the confirmed sock (or other blocked) participants:

Nominator: User:Moosato Cowabata

Deletes: User:Willirennen, User:Garth Bader, User:Lara Dalle, User:AnteaterZot

Keeps: User:Baldcyclops

So of the confirmed socks and vandal accounts that have been blocked, they are predominantly on the deletion side and most of the above indicated sock/vandal accounts made multiple posts in the discussion. With that said, there are a slew of other accounts the made few if any edits to anything other than this AfD. There were also some false tagging within the discussion. Someone said, for example, "Hobit (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic," which is of course is just not true. There may also be some kind of retaliation editing going on outside of the discussion. One account accurately called the nominator a sock, but has also prodded an article with a name that is phonetically similar to the nominator account's name. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing that digging, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. Just more evidence that this is a fatally broken AfD which should not be sustained. FCYTravis (talk) 05:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I am always happy to help. :) Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(multiple EC) FCYTravis, if you disagree with the result, take it to DRV. Just because it was nominated in bad faith does not mean the good-faith comments from established users are magically invalidated. Nor does that mean future trolling is acceptable; kindly cut the hyperbole. Le Grand Roi, AfD is not a vote. The established contributors who commented clearly showed that the "sources" in the article are trivial name-drop type mentions, are unreliable, or don't even mention the subject at all. No substantial independent reliable sources=no article, regardless of vote count. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, exactly, AfD is not a vote and as it is a discussion, it was a discussion marred and guided in large part by at least a half-dozen confirmed sock and vandal accounts that made a tremendous amount of edits to the AfD and certainly influenced the direction and tenure of the discourse. Were it a vote, it would be much easier, because then we could just discount the blocked accounts, but in a discussion people are influenced by each other and how the discussion progresses. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How did they influence the votes? Would secondary sources have existed if there was no sockpuppetry? --Smashville^BONK! 05:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, consider this delete comment by Redvers: "The number of single purpose accounts flooding this debate has, of course, influenced my decision." Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

First, AfD is not a vote. Pretty much all AfDs end up with invalid deletion rationale. And considering the single purpose accounts came from NASIOC, I fail to see how starting another AfD that will again be flooded by NASIOC editors will make the issue any better. Especially when, again, there was a clear, strong consensus to delete. The number of socks and SPAs from each side do not change the fact that there were no secondary sources. Again, would secondary sources have existed without the sockpuppetry? Because that was the main argument for deletion. --Smashville^BONK! 05:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You say above: "How did they influence the votes?" then you say "AfD is not a vote". If it's note a "vote," then "votes" can't be influenced. I don't point that out to be flippant or anything, but it just seems contradictory, especially, when I stated above that "Yes, exactly, AfD is not a vote and as it is a discussion...", so I don't see why it's worth stating, "First, AfD is not a vote," when I already said I agree with that concept. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A 7-6 "!vote" is not a "clear, strong consensus to delete." The closer was incorrect and based his decision on sockpuppetry. That is a fact. FCYTravis (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There is definitely no consensus expressed in that AfD. Subtracting all sock and meatpuppets (defined as users who signed up exclusively to participate in this AfD, and CheckUser confirmed sockpuppets), the !vote was 7 to 6. FCYTravis (talk) 05:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. It's based on consensus. Your keep votes were: "Agree with Hobit that this meets WP:N, and it appears that the article has been updated recently to add references to meet guidelines. Not sure why this is AfD", which was proven to be false since the references were all either unrelated to the subject, from social networking sites or the subject itself; "other aspects aside, appears now to have independent references", which again, was shown to not be the case; "Encyclopedic automotive special interest group. I think there's something about it in one of my back issues of Car and Driver, but unfortunately they're all back in California right now. I'll give a look at the college library tonight," which has no basis in Wikipedia guidelines or policies; "References meet WP:N in my opinion. Not a lot of blogs get mainstream press, but this one has (though fairly minor, but more than "in passing")", but again, not one person was able to provide these references in "mainstream press"; an SPA vote by Manarius: "It should be noted also that when one puts the search term "Subaru" into Google, NASIOC does appear on the first page of results" Google hits is neither a valid keep nor delete reason; and "Why is this even listed?? There is no viable reason for deletion" which again, is not a valid keep reason --Smashville^BONK! 05:48, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeps: Beethoven05, Casliber, FCYTravis, Hobit, Manarius, Mww113.

Deletes: Friday, Redvers, Smashville, Tanthalus39, Rocksanddirt, Keeper39, DeLarge.

Take this to deletion review then. seicer | talk | contribs 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD is not a vote. The number of votes for each side is irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that it was established after a 7 day AfD that there were no reliable secondary sources on the subject. --Smashville^BONK! 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

You keep changing the goalposts. First, it's an alleged "consensus" to delete. Well, no, I've destroyed that. There was no "consensus" to delete. This needs to be re-run. Period. FCYTravis (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have never once changed the goalposts. There was a clear consensus to delete. It was established that the article did not meet WP:N. I mean, it was an exceptionally clear consensus. Not one person argued a valid keep argument. It was pointed out by several editors, including myself, that the article lacked secondary sources and no one could find any. That is a clear consensus. --Smashville^BONK! 05:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when was 7-6 a consensus? I'm sorry, but you keep talking about a consensus as if you've established one. Well, no, you haven't. There were a bunch of sockpuppets masquerading as a consensus. Five of them, to be exact. The AfD close is patently invalid, you know it, and you're creating a lot of drama when the easiest way to do this would be to throw the article up on another AfD, let it run, and if there's a real consensus to delete, then it'll show up pretty clearly, won't it? That's all we're asking for - another AfD free from patent trolling, sockpuppetry and bad-faith. If there's a clear consensus to delete there, then I'll shut up. FCYTravis (talk) 05:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when is AfD a vote? There was not one valid keep argument. Don't talk to me about creating drama, as you were the one who restored the article after participating in the AfD and continue to argue against the outcome of it.--Smashville^BONK! 05:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And the issue would be easily (and permanently) settled by a re-run AfD. If you're so confident that the article deserves deletion, why are you so vehemently opposed to re-running it? If you're right, it'll be quickly deleted again, this time without bad faith sockpuppetry and trolling. FCYTravis (talk) 05:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Why are you creating more drama? Take it to deletion review. If it doesn't pass, so be it. If it does pass, so be it. No need to drag this through the mud any further. seicer | talk | contribs 06:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a note from me as the closing admin--I have to admit, I was pretty close to closing this as an unresolvable train wreck and relisting it. But enough established editors had contributed to the discussion that I was able to discount the socks and SPAs and determine there was consensus among them to delete. Blueboy96 18:26, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I've started thinking about this further...and, while I 100% do not agree with FCYTravis restoring this article with no discussion, why wouldn't we consider Subaru's magazine a reliable secondary source? I mean, the organization is about Subaru, but it's not affiliated with them...so how would that be a primary source? I hate to take it to DRV yet again, but I'm starting to lean towards the fact that we do need another discussion on this. I find it hard to believe that one of the world's largest auto clubs would not have any secondary sources...I just don't know that we know where to look. I also know that there are tons of niche magazines that I'm sure don't post all of their articles online...not everyone has made it all the way into the information age. --Smashville^BONK! 18:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Note: I opened a DRV discussion. --Smashville^BONK! 19:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Exceedingly WP:BOLD editor at AFD

Resolved

Calling it resolved. Further comments to my talkpage, if necessary! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Recently User:Dustihowe has apparently taken upon himself to non-admin close a handful of AFDs less than a day after they were opened with very few people participating in the discussion. I full disclosure, on of this closures was one of my noms: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act. I would have left a note on his talk page, but others have already tried discussing the issue with him without any real result. I hate to escalate this when it looks like Dustihowe is just trying to do what he thinks is right, but condoning this type of behavior will quickly make AFD unusable. Burzmali (talk) 20:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Burzmali, this is an overreaction. I am one of the administrators that is working diligently with Dusti. You should have gone to his talkpage first, or to one of the talkpages of another editor before this. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:19, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

And now that I've looked further into this, you have made absolutely no attempt to resolve your obvious difference of opinion with Dusti. I'm not endorsing his early closure, but you didn't even notify him of this post on AN/I. This noticeboard is not the first step. Saying an editor is "on the loose" is not exactly constructive either. I recommend an apology to Dusti, and then we'll work out the issue at hand. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, I find an attempt by another editor to resolve an issue of this kind User_talk:Dustihowe#A Request to be quite concerning. His rationale in his closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Sovereignty Restoration Act and Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Acceleware seems to be based on personal opinion, which would be fine if he'd added it to the discussion, but as it is he seems to be effectively making his opinion the deciding one... ? Incidentally I see he hasn't been notified of this thread, so I have.-- Naerii 20:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I'm not endorsing his closure (s), and said so on his talkpage. I've said so many times on his talkpage. He and I (and Cameron and Fabrictramp and others) are working with him and his closing. His heart's in the right place, these were too fast. All that to say, ANI isn't the right forum, even if it was, it's titled antagonisticly, and it's premature, with no attempts at resolution from the noticeboard poster with the AFD closer. Unnecessary. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, I'm not working with Dustihowe on AFD closings, just on basic editing. My only input to him on AfDs is that I think his time would be better spent participating in the discussions to get a feel for how they go. I'm not a fan of non-admin AfD closings, because in my experience they cause more grief than help. (Nor am I a fan of all the speedy keep and speedy delete closings I've been seeing lately. The vast majority are AfDs that should have run a full five days.)--Fabrictramp (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

And as for the thread on his talk called "A Request", that's from a deletion nominator that doesn't like how the debates have closed. I've looked at both of the debates that Dusti has closed from that particular nominator, and the nominator is making an unreasonable, perhaps even biased, request. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate for non-admins to close AfDs that aren't unanimous, to be quite honest. -- Naerii 20:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I admitted in my comments to Dustihowe that the AfDs probably would have closed the same way, so I'm not sure where you read a bias into this. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 21:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for not notifying him, I got distracted after leaving the original notice. Two people have already voiced disagreement with him over his non-admin closures and his exchange with Delicious carbuncle (talk · contribs) convinced me that I would be wasting electrons disagreeing with him on his talk page. I'm not calling for him to be drawn and quartered, but I don't think closings AFDs after a hour or two because you disagree with the nominator is really a behavior to encourage. Burzmali (talk) 20:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Burzmali for your civil response. Trust me, I'm not encouraging his behavior. If you have 10 minutes, peruse his talk archives. You'll see my name in there about, oh, I don't know, 50 times, working with him on AfD closures. I've gone so far as to tell him to stop. He has been improving greatly as of late; these last couple are out of character for him. I'll say again to Naerii, I'm not endorsing his closures. I think this could be better handled on a talkpage, that's all, and its customary, even if a dispute is a repeated dispute, it's new to you and Dusti. Assuming good faith, at least a single attempt at communicating with him would have been better and perhaps helped bring a faster conclusion. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem, as long as the "powers that be" are aware of the situation, I'm satisfied. Burzmali (talk) 22:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I've left a very nicely-worded warning on his talk page.[162] Repeatedly disrupting the AfD process by arbitrarily deciding when to close things is unacceptable; I'm hoping this can be resolved without a block being used, but I'd definitely consider it an option. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

After reviewing the situation, I have to agree with EVula that this editor has already received plenty of input as to the propriety of his AfD closes. If he choses to disregard this final warning, I would strongly support a block. --Kralizec! (talk) 00:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Not in favor of keep or delete, however the closure of Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Sovereignty_Restoration_Act after 4 hours and only two votes raises questions.--Hu12 (talk) 00:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a grossly improper closure, as is the closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union after only some 22 hours. I've reverted both and restored the AfD notices. They should be allowed to run through to the normal conclusion. If the articles survive AfD, fine, but they should first be reviewed on AfD in the proper way. -- ChrisO (talk) 00:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A further thought: I see from Dustihowe's contributions that he has closed many AfDs lately. Given the poor quality of the closures mentioned above, I suggest it would be worth someone having a look through the other closures to see if there's a systematic problem here or just a one-off. -- ChrisO (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

As you asked, I checked through the recent ones and the only one that I thought might be questionable was 1 delete, 2 merges, 1 keep, closed as redirect after 2 hours. There were a bunch of snow keep closes but as they all had 5-6 keeps I'm not too concerned. -- Naerii 02:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Even snow-closes I'm hesitant to have him do, given his established history of questionable closures. About the only one I saw that didn't make my eyebrow raise was one where the nominator withdrew the nomination. EVula // talk // ☯ // 03:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In spite of what he wrote, that wasn't a redirect, but a cut & copy paste merge, here. I'm off to repair that per procedure at Help:Merge. At this point, I tend to agree with EVula that this contributor should stop doing these until he is on more certain footing with them. (As to the case of Sky Soleil, mentioned just below, I don't feel that was a matter of re-closing it just to remove his name; the closure was changed from "keep" to "no consensus", which is a very different result.) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 15:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I’ve been looking at everyone’s comments and observations. I think that Dustihowe my be guilty of being overzealous but I'm sure this can be looked at with less hammer and more guidance. I have not seen enough conversation with Dustihowe to warrant the reaction that I’m seeing. Yes, review his non-admin closures of AfD. Yes he was wrong in a couple of them and that can be fixed. My suggestion to Dustihowe is to relax a bit and take a step back to reflect on the AfD process and the mindset involved with the community. I can understand a frustration with some of the decisions etc, but the whole idea of AfD is discussion. I myself in some of my comments will say “This should not be around for 5 days. Speedy Close” and yet is sticks around. Let’s assume good faith with Dustihowe and show a little more guidance.

In the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sky Soleil I am disappointed. It appears that it was felt to re-open it, and then immediately close it with different comments, etc. I have yet to do a non-admin close and I was about to do it to this one, but Dustihowe got there before me. I get the distinct feeling that this was done to remove Dustihowe’s name from it and to change the comments regarding the closure. It feels… vindictive.--Pmedema (talk) 14:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The only reason I'm mentioning a potential block is because there have been efforts to provide guidance. I'm not a fan of blindly repeating the same act for the sake of doing it; if your tactics prove ineffective, change tactics.

As I've said numerous times, while I'd prefer to resolve this without a block being used, I'm honestly losing faith in the situation. When I told Dusti to flat-out stop closing AfDs, he instead offered to explain his rationales, which is largely irrelevant to the fact that he needs to stop; he's yet to say "okay, I'll stop", instead opting to protest somewhat. He's had one administrator (Keeper) guiding him for AfD closures, but even he has recommended he to stop; that has been met with disregard, and now he's got several other administrators advising him to stop, and one flat-out telling him to stop or he might get blocked for disruption of process. If he chooses to ignore the warnings, he's well within his right to do so; really, whether he gets blocked or not is up to him. EVula // talk // ☯ // 14:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I withdrew my AFD nomination for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Concordia Student Union. While this means that I agree with User:Dustihow's conclusion that the article WAS notable-- I do not agree with the non-admin close in that instance. Closing the AFD early was out of line, but not in bad faith. Therefore, I do not support a block, as long as he knows to chill out with the AFDs for a while. Incidentally, I would not support promoting him to admin for a while--at least until he has demonstrated the restraint required to handle the toold that come with being an admin. --SevernSevern (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

--SevernSevern (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of "moving on"...

Dusti and I have come to a "training" agreement on my talkpage. In the interest of transparency, I would like anyone that has an interest in this recent activity to chime in there on my talk. Yays or nays? Additional input? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 18:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

For those who've read this far: I have made a few non-admin closes today (and previously) and I would welcome any feedback on them. Sheffield Steel^talk_stalk 22:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Mr. Wheely Guy

Resolved

 – ON WHEELS!!!!!

This user page - acceptable or not? Saw it while checking the usages of some commons images of dubious value. First time I've put anything here, I think, so if this is the wrong place, feel free to tell me to take it elsewhere. Brilliantine (talk) 22:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hm, while WP:USERPAGE gives users a whole lot of control over their userpage, wikipedia is not a porn site and I really see no way that this is constructive what so ever. Have you tried asking the user to remove it? Tiptoety ^talk 22:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalised as instructed to.... Ryan Postlethwaite 22:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

How could I resist? I moved it to User:Mr. Wheely Guy ON WHEELS!!!!. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem the original user added it himself but a rather perverted vandal instead.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Just so you know- mr wheely just put "you are all free to vandalise, ' and a User:Morecomes added the porn, someone else the cow. Looks a bit chan-ish, but might just be genuine wiki-ers having a laugh. special, random, Merkinsmum 22:47, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Do not think there is anything that says they can not request users to vanalize their page, and honestly I know a bunch of other users who have pages just like that. Tiptoety ^talk 22:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - User:UBX/hornysonofabitch, User:Ewlyahoocom/WikiPr0n, User:Cyde/Weird pictures are a few examples. They should all be MFD'd and deleted, but too many people enjoy Wikipedia providing them with GFDL porn galleries. Neıl ☎ 22:53, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all in the censoring wikipedia camp, but maybe there should be some kind of guideline on this. Or maybe not. Are all or any of them on the bad image list? Might be a good idea to place the there if not. Brilliantine (talk) 23:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue here is more about user inviting others to vandalize their userpage. Tiptoety ^talk 23:57, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It's all about the wording... I mean, the line between good faith edits and vandalism is blurred at the best of times, and even Jimbo encourages others to edit his page, just in slightly more guarded terms. There is precedent for images such as this to be placed on the bad image list in any case, to avoid their placement where their presence would be likely to be unwelcome. In any case, the bad image list is in need of an overhaul in general, containing as it does a large number of deleted images. Brilliantine (talk) 00:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I took him up on the offer also. KnightLago (talk) 00:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandals taking time on my page will take time away from them vandalizing real articles. So everyone is free to screw around with my user page all they want. And of course if you don't like what someone (such as that porn guy) puts on my page then anyone is free to revert it. Mr. Wheely Guy (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Resolved? Tiptoety ^talk 03:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah. Neıl ☎ 12:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Death threat

Resolved

 – Resolvedresolvedresolvedresolved. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 10:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

See Appleappleappleapple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Corvus cornix_talk 02:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Blockedblockedblockedblocked. Thatcher 02:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

User:DrHeLpErZx

Resolved

Continually deletes the AfD tag from the article he wrote about himself: DrHeLpErZx. This is despite being warned by another editor on user talk page: [163]. Can we get him blocked for a while, at least while the AfD has a chance to run through? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 05:16, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

That revision was not the proper warning to place. I replaced it with the L2 AfD tag removal warning, and gave an explanation why other editors frown on such actions. DarkAudit (talk) 05:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD snow-closed, placed on watchlist; will salt if recreated. Black Kite 10:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/130.113.111.210

Resolved

User:130.113.111.210 persistently adds unverifiable information on Peter J George article in which the nickname "Ruddiger" is added. It is explained to this user many times that sources have to be verified online to be valid but ignores it and just insists it can be found in the 2003 academic calendar which is only available in paperback form. 218.102.179.31 (talk) 05:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

What gave you the idea "that sources have to be verified online to be valid"? It's not true; never has been. --Orange Mike | Talk 05:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, what is this "academic calendar" and is it a reliable source? --Orange Mike | Talk 05:29, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

An academic calendar, in Canada (not sure about elsewhere, but I presume not in the States, since you're unfamiliar with it) is an annual university publication that lists university regulations, courses offered, etc. In general, I think it would be a reliable (albeit self-published) source, but I'm a little confused as to why it allegedly includes a professor's nickname. That certainly isn't true of any university calendar I've ever read (not that I've read all that many). Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:09, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah! In the States, they're usually called "catalogs" and have gone (mostly) biennial or online-only, due to the cost of printing. I used to maintain a library of those for a state educational agency. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:53, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the calendar in question *is* available online, here. I'll try to find the referred to information. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I haven't been able to find the information in question. In any event, I've left a note on the article talk page explaining policy and asking for assistance in locating the actual cite. I don't think any admin action is required here. Marking resolved. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 06:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The so called claimed "trivia" section cannot be found online. On the other hand, if sources cannot be verified online how can you make sure whether the user is posting rubbish or not. Do you really expect anyone to go through the trouble to verify his source. If it were anymore, it should be the original poster to do that 203.218.143.38 (talk) 06:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming good faith includes an assumption that a cite to a non-online publication is legitimate. --Orange Mike | Talk 13:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Iolani School- 204.130.130.185

Resolved

I believe that this IP address should be permanently blocked. I also attend this school, and I have noticed vandalism levels going way too high. I am currently working with school administrators on this problem, but until further notice, 204.130.130.185 should be blocked from editing Wikipedia because whoever did this is still on the loose causing trouble elsewhere and will not stop. In addition, the problem still resides on new people to the school and others who are new to Wikipedia. There are multiple vandals at Iolani, and I think should not be overlooked. Once again, I am still working with school administrators, but this means the vandals are still free to do whatsoever they want, so until further notice i would like to request ip address 204.130.130.185 be blocked permanently or until further notice. Look at the user contributions of this address if you don't know what I mean.
Thanks, and I hope we can track-down and destroy this vandal!
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

In addition, I have reviewed the User talk for this IP Address, and I do confirm this is vandalism. Also, there are a few edits that are legitimately not vandalism. These edits were done by my friend Midorihana and she agrees to making compromises at school to make Wikipedia a better source for information. If you are ready to "pull the trigger" you may when you get this message.
---->B4lyphe<---- (talk) 08:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Already taken care of: {{schoolblock}} applied 23:22, 7 April 2008 by Blueboy96 for 6 months. Bencherlite^Talk 10:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Opportunity to nip conflict in the bud

A recent ArbCom ruling emphasized "the need to reduce edit-warring and misuse of Wikipedia as a battleground" on 9/11-related issues "so as to create an acceptable collaborative editing environment even on our most contentious articles". I regret to report that there seems already to eb an opportunity for an uninvolved admin to implement this ruling now. A discussion is developing here. Two editors have already taken it upon themselves to identify my suggestion (to keep the article as it has been for more than four months) with conspiracy theorising and POV-pushing. If those accusations are justified, I should of course warned not to pursue this discussion (in line with discretionary sanctions). If they are not justified, MONGO and DHeyward should be warned to stop throwing labels around and discuss the question in a civil manner.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 10:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Add "trolling" to the list of insults.--Thomas Basboll (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

The ruling applies to conspiracy theory POV pushers regarding the 9/11 articles. Basboll is one of those persons that baits and disrupts these pages making them almost impossible to improve. He and I have already tried to take each other to arbitration but the recent ruling nullifies any further need to tolerate ongoing mischaracterizatiobns and allegations by Basboll...he needs to be topic banned as a single purpose account who has incessantly tried to promote fringe theories as facts.--MONGO 10:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I also request an admin for two reasons. 1.) Thomas objected to the mass deletion of a long standing section without discusion and is immediately accused of POV pushing. 2.) It appears from this, this and MONGO's statement above that some believe the findings of the 911 arbitration only apply to conspiracy supporters. It should be made clear that problematic behaviour by anyone will not be tolerated. Wayne (talk) 13:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I've examined the article history and talk page and all I can see is someone boldly removing a section, someone else reverting it and it then being civilly discussed on the talk page. This is entirely the correct procedure for editing articles. MONGO's description of Thomas' notification of the discussion on the talk page as "trolling" is entirely unjustified an inappropriate. Whether Thomas has previously behaved as a troll or SPA account is beside the point (I have not investigated thoroughly enough to determine that), the edit in question was certainly not trolling. MONGO, you are hereby warned to remain civil at all times and to assume good faith, especially in relation to September 11 (this warning will be repeated on your talk page to ensure you see it). --Tango (talk) 14:57, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• IMO, MONGO is excessively harsh to Thomas, but Thomas is inclined to keep asking until he gets the answer he wants (as indeed are many of those who espouse the various Truther theories). It will be interesting to see if the arbitration ruling genuinely can restrict to a meaningful degree the endless querulousness of those who assert parity between Truther theories and the mainstream view. I'm not sure Thomas would be the best test case, though. Guy (Help!) 17:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Tango. I actually reverted after I posted above as Thomas was "too scared" to do so himself considering the reaction he got for critisizing the deletion. I point out to Guy that while I have the same hope, the ruling is also meant to restrict the endless querulousness of those who attempt to prevent "truther theories" being given their due weight. Wayne (talk) 05:44, 11 April 2008 (UTC)