Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

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

User:Punk Boi 8

Because I have been mentoring this user and he recently posted an RfC about me I am requesting a block rather than blocking him myself.

1. User:Punk Boi 8 is under a mentoring agreement with me
2. After I was on a short break, I left Punk Boi a message reiterating that he was to focus on articles, specifically instructing him not to create any new WikiProjects
3. He came back the next day, and on his second edit he created a new WikiProject and requested comments on Template:Announcements & on the Village Pump
4. He created a template for the WikiProject which he added to another WikiProject (removed with request for discussion)
5. He only edited the article space 1 time

In itself this wouldn't be such a big deal, but this user has a history of doing this exact thing. Creating a bunch of stuff that other people have to clean up and trying to screw around with Wikipedia process (whether in ignorance or for his enjoyment).

In my opinion he should be blocked for at least a month for violating the terms of his voluntary probation for at least the 3rd time. I will also be deleting the new WikiProject and template here unless consensus urges otherwise.

Background for those unfamiliar: my original block and discussion on the noticeboard, accepting probation and mentoring, details of original mentor program, previous instruction to focus on articles, RfC filed by Punk Boi about me (deleted - admin access only), User:Punk Boi 8/Mentoring (current status of mentoring), and Special:Contributions/Punk Boi 8 (Note this is only a summary of prior events and is not exhaustive of the inappropriate behavior).--Trödel 19:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I had been thinking of offering to take over the mentoring duties, but some of the user's comments (e.g., "the mentor's been sacked") are highly inappropriate. Support any reasonable measures Trödel suggests. Newyorkbrad 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I support a block. It's obvious that mentoring is failing (or has already failed). The whole RfC thing was way out of line. -- Gogo Dodo 21:00, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I would go further and impose a year-long block. Many users, Trödel especially, have made commendable efforts to counsel the user, but to no avail. I think we need to realise there is only so much we can do; to keep cleaning up after Nathan is not helping the encyclopædia.--cj | talk 01:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and blocked him for a month but I would support some sort of long term community sanction. He has had numerous chances, made promises and broken them all repeatedly. He has proven himself unable or unwilling to follow the mentorship program and I think we've reached the point where enough is enough. I don't think his very limited positive contributions are worth this constant disruption. Maybe when he's older he'll be able to contribute more productively. Sarah 02:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify my comment, I support Cj's proposal for a one year block and I endorse the comments made below by Riana, Chacor and Danny. Sarah 03:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I endorse Sarah's block, all the above comments, however I wouldn't object to extending the block to one year or more. Daniel Bryant 02:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Same as Daniel, wouldn't object to a year-long block. Maybe when he's older, he'll be able to integrate himself into the community better. I hate this sort of ageism, honestly, but we're just not getting across to him. – Riana ^ঋ 02:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Strongly endorse. I'm sorry, but we've given him far too many chances, and he hasn't taken any of them. – Chacor 02:38, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse per all of the above. We've given him so many chances and he's blown them all. It's not necessarily his fault but he just doesn't have what it takes to contribute to Wikipedia in a trouble-free, productive manner. Moment anyone takes his eyes off him he does stuff requiring reversion or intervention. :/ His RfC against Trödel, who has done a fantastic job IMO, was the final straw for me - we can't just let him keep going on abusing process and wasting the time of busy people. Orderinchaos78 10:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Endorse lengthy block (say, a year) for long-term abuser of due process who seems absolutely unable to contribute here without stirring up whopping great wikidrama. It wasn't so long ago we were here and now we're back again with yet more farce more suited to the commedia dell'arte than a serious encyclopedia. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm extending to one year, and making it a community ban for that length of time, per the consensus here. Daniel Bryant 14:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sarah's done the one year already, but there's no doubt this is a community ban per the consensus here. Tagged appropriately. Daniel Bryant 14:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW, community sanctions go to WP:CN for the most part, these days. Just so people know. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 14:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

They don't have to, though. I disagree with the existance of that noticeboard, but that's another fight for another day, I guess... Daniel Bryant 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for all your comments. I also support the year-long ban. --Trödel 15:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I would have gone with an one-month ban, I have no objections to the current one as well. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Incident of questionable content on User:Jeffpw user page.

User:Jeffpw is endorsing a presidential candidate on his user page [1]. Unfortunately, this is not particularly helpful in an encyclopedia WP:NOT#SOAP. Wikipedia is not the right place for his political efforts[2]. --Masterpedia 06:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I've had my issues with Jeffpw, but isn't this "complaint" a bit ludicrous? People can endorse whatever they want--as long as it's not attacking other users--on their userpage. It's not like he started an "Edwards in '08" article. It's his OWN userpage, so what does it matter?K. Scott Bailey 06:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales, Wikipedia co-founder has stated; "libelling people on userpages is a bad idea, and in fact, using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea." --Masterpedia 06:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Many things are bad ideas. Some of them are forbidden; others are not. The difference between "good idea / bad idea" and "permitted / forbidden" is necessary to give people space to breathe. --FOo 07:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think it is more of a full disclosure of an admitted persuasion so that other editors will be more aware of Jeff's stance in a relevant discussion. It is quite similar to have a LGBT banner on talk page or an example of another user page which has boxes saying they support the Republican party and is a moderate conservative. I'm not quite sure what is the point of rehashing essentially the same issue from the Hillary picture. This seems a little like forum/problem fishing. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 06:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I completely concur with your take on it.K. Scott Bailey 06:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • There are some who take a more absolutist view of things, some of which came out in the userbox deletion wars, but Jeffpw is among many many others who harmlessly have this type of thing on their user pages right now. Live and let live. Georgewilliamherbert 06:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This, on the other hand… —xyzzy_n 06:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

xyzzy_n are you comparing the two incidents to each other? --Masterpedia 06:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I think what people are saying is why do you care so much what Jeffpw has on his page? As GWH said, "Live and let live."K. Scott Bailey 06:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I do not care personally what one has on there user page. However; I felt this was a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. --Masterpedia 06:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What incidents? This is ANI, but this particular thread seems devoid of them. My point is that a sufficiently large page will usually contain something that’s mildly controversial but not actually worth investing any effort, much less using admin tools. Just ignore it unless there’s a real problem. —xyzzy_n 06:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

He was correct in bringing this to AN/I, we encourage peaceful community discussion to resolve issues not discourage it. Furthermore, please do not make assumptions on behalf of viewing administrators on what should be considered an "incident". The reporting user felt that the user page may violate policy/guideline, namely WP:UP and WP:NOT. People may disagree with this, but there appears to be no malice in it and hence he was correct in bringing what he felt was a possible violation of userpage guidelines to the attention of administrators. With that said, please do not extend these kinds of comments below this. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 07:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, how is this libel? (As in Masterpedia's second post. )The user supports some possible presidential candidates. I cannot, in any stretching pose of my imagination, figure out how that could be construed as libel. Natalie 07:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• In his quite commendable zeal to become a good Wikipedian, Knowpedia (Masterpedia's actual name, under which he was blocked for homophobic attacks on various articles and members, including me) failed to look further at my page, in which an earlier instance of this same situation was brought to ANI by an admin. It was decided at that time (and quite decisively, I must say) that members could have virtually anything on their userpage, as long as it was not attacking other users. It's good to have you back, Knowpedia, and I hope you used your block productively to study the policies and protocols of Wikipedia. Jeffpw 08:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Someone reported Jeffpw to AIV for this edit summary, claiming it was a death threat. While I don't consider that edit summary a death threat, it certainly reeks of Dev920-like incivility. I'll let the admins decide what warnings or sanctions he should receive.

Conflict of interest disclaimer (lest others assume bad faith, bite me, or worse, accuse me of personal attacks): I have AIV watchlisted, and when I saw him listed at AIV (I know him as a friend of Dev920, destructor of the community and leader of the gay cabal), I curiously clicked the diff link, and decided to report it here (since I have seen personal attacks reported here in the past, and PAIN has been closed). --J.L.W.S. The Special One 13:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't report Jeffpw's conduct as a death threat, I reported it as a personal attack (which it certainly was), in which he threatened bodily harm (which he did, even if only in a hyperbolic way). Additionally, his conduct in that case has no bearing on this case, which is frivolous.K. Scott Bailey 16:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I beg your pardon? I regard describing an editor on Wikipedia as "destructor of the community" one of the more devisive personal attacks that could be made in this context. Please withdraw your attack immediately. WjBscribe 14:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, that is not a credible threat of harm, just irritation - the phrase "death threat" is now worthless around here, sad to say - and quit with the personal attacks on Dev920, Hildanknight. I know you don't like each other, but badmouthing her behind her back at ANI is very bad form, particularly when said badmouthing comes in the form of personal attacks, which is blockable bad form. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 13:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hildaknight, I applaud you for doing your bit to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone! Some might quibble that it is a bit over the top to report something that is already sitting on ANI, and has been dealt with by admins, but I am sure you have the purest of motives. You and Knowpedia both should run for administrator. With your keen sense of priority, you'll have this place organized and humming on no time! Jeffpw 14:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you still consider WP:EA "the community", Hildanknight, you have learned nothing. Also, why on Earth do I keep cropping up in incidents involving my friends that have nothing to do with me? I was attacked on Evrik's RfC as well because two of my friends commented on it. Am I taking collective crap for the gay cabal, or are people too afraid to take me on directly anymore? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

After reading the responses to my complaint, I have decided to withdraw it. I tried removing it, but Seicer reverted me; an IRC-mate advised me to strike everything out instead. Simply stating that I "knew Jeffpw as a friend of Dev920" would be confusing unless I explained how I knew Dev920. Now that I have withdrawn my complaint, let's pretend nothing happened. I should have been a good Singaporean and stayed out of controversial areas, minding my own business. I'm going to drop this and focus on finding reliable references for a new article I am going to write. --J.L.W.S. The Special One 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

These types of threads are ridiculous. Very time editors have attempted to "police" userpage content it has ended it stalemate and a waste of everybody's time and effort. Unless there is something highly inappropriate on someone's userpage its best to least it alone. Oh, and if people do notice something they think may be problematic on a userpage, it should be discussed with the user on their talkpage before being brought here. The first they should hear of the issue is not, a post telling them a thread has been started at WP:ANI as it appears to have been in this case [3]. WjBscribe 14:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with Scribe, worry less about what's on a User page and more about what's on a Wikipedia article. Don't we have enough to do already? Only the most egregious examples of violation of Wikipedia pages, in my opinion, merits discussion. --David Shankbone 15:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I'll say this one more time I am not personally worried about what jeffpw has on his user page. However; I felt this was a violation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. More specifically WP:NOT#SOAP and Wikipedia:User_page. --Masterpedia 15:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't this the same editor who was campaigning on his user page before? I recall him being asked to remove it, and I thought he did. Now it's back. Yep, it's him- he's even got a story on his user page about the first incident. Hmm, pictures of himself, row upon row of userboxes. Jeffpw, myspace is that way. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Friday (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Um, nope. Your memory of what actually happened is faulty. The size of the image was reduced, and the consensus was abundantly clear that it was considered acceptable. It was never removed. Jeffpw has been a consistently fantastic contributor to the, you know, encyclopedia, and accusing him of using it as Myspace is fucking beyond ridiculous. —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 15:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure we all appreciate the good work he does on the encyclopedia. But, his user page is inappropriate. Wikipedia is not a free web host. Friday (talk) 15:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why do people care so much about what's on Jeffpw's userpage? Anyone who knows how he's treated me in the past knows there's no love lost between the two of us, but this is just TRIVIAL. His support for Sen. Clinton in '08 hurts no one, and does not damage the project.K. Scott Bailey 15:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'd give you a quid pro quo about your userpage, but I don't have time and I have decided (after a steep learning curve yesterday) that civility is best. Allow me to say though, that I have both a FA and GA article to my credit, I actively edit articles, revert vandalism, and the pictures of myself on my page are actually used in a serious article about same-sex marriage here on Wikipedia. I feel as if you want me to both apologize for making myself comfortable and enjoying myself here, as well as censoring my userpage until it meets your criteria for appropriateness. Sorry, but that ain't gonna happen. I dfon't get paid for the work I do here, and if you (and by extension the rest of the community) have to put up with a silly--but entirely innocent-- userpage of my creation in the process, so be it. Now I am off to work. I realize saving lives and stopping pain is not as important as putting my nose to the grindstone here, but I do have a mortgage to pay. Jeffpw 16:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You realize that I was not against you in this discussion, right? I think that folks should be able to have anything they want on their userpage, so long as it isn't libelous, and isn't attacking another Wikipedian. Contrary to what you may think of me, I'm a genuinely reasonale person. Your userpage is your business, is basically my position on this whole non-issue.K. Scott Bailey 16:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wikipedians, how is all this bickering an "incident"? It is not Jeffwp's fault that we have no clear policy on what is permissible on user pages. We have many, many political statements scattered over many, many userpages. If you want to get rid of them, look for consensus on Wikipedia:User page. I would support a general "no political campaigning on userpages", but this would have to apply for everybody and will have to be phrased very carefully. This will not happen overnight, there is no point in picking on Jeffwp in particular, if you care about the topic, look for a clearly outlined wiki-wide solution. dab (𒁳) 16:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree about this case, though I don't agree with you on not allowing political campaigning on userpages. I just don't see how it hurts anyone if Jeffpw supports Clinton and I support Obama, McCain, Edwards, or whoever. It's not like the content of a userpage has any effect on the content of articles.K. Scott Bailey 16:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

sure. We need a sane balance between Wikipedians' wish to give a brief account of themselves and their views, and blatant abuse of Wikipedia as a webhost. Jeffpw little "Clinton/Obama" box clearly falls in the former category. My point is that we do need such guidelines, so that we can clamp down on abuse in concert and not according to the personal taste of the person doing the clamping-down. And yes, I do think Jeffwp is overdoing it with the userboxes. I am not interested in Jeffwp's ancestry, IQ, sex life, viral infections, preferred drink or quilting activities any more than in his political alignments. His userboxes may be used as a deterring example in a userbox discussion, but we cannot take away his userboxes before there is a wiki-wide consensus to do away with this sort of nonsense. dab (𒁳) 16:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree with you more. If you don't want to know about his ancestry, IQ, sex life, et al, don't go to his page. I find userpages fascinating and enlightening, and don't think that their content (unless it attacks others) should be a major concern to anyone. Again, if you don't care about the intricacies of that person, don't visit the page. Why should WP pass more guidelines for something that doesn't hurt anyone?K. Scott Bailey 17:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This incident would be unmistakable if there was a company endorsement on a user page. I support Macy's therefore; any macy's info (doesn't hurt anyone) on my user page would be acceptable according to K. Scott. That is elementary rationale. --Masterpedia 18:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would encourage you to worry more about the good of the project (the articles) and less about the political preferences of users you happen to not like, disagree with. Making known one's political preference on a PERSONAL userpage (not in an article) is not the same as advertising a company. Additionally, I believe an argument could be made that the ban on advertising applies more to the creation of pages for non-notable companies run by the creator than the hypothetical you described above. One way or the other, you're wasting everyone's time with this frivolous complaint. I am unwatching this page.K. Scott Bailey 19:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

fwiiw, Scott, you are right, I was exaggerating a little bit to make a point. I do not make a habit of being annoyed at people's userboxes :) dab (𒁳) 19:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann obviously has the sense of this. Jkelly 19:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• K. Scott Bailey I can see you’re on the mend with Jeffpw right now [4] [5]. You should probably recuse yourself from the discussion, your viewpoint could be biased. --Masterpedia 19:37, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And you're not biased, Knowpedia? This is the first communication I have had from you since I had you blocked for vandalising my userpage, along with several other users' pages. I don't think you can call yourself the most objective person on Wikipedia. Jeffpw 19:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's tremendous. Because I'm now on decent terms with Jeffpw, I should recuse myself? That's REALLY funny. I mean in the actual "I laughed out loud when I read it" kind of funny. I guess only people who are fighting with him should be able to comment, is that it? I guess I should expect my userpage to be called into question next. After all, I identify myself as both a moderate-liberal and a Democrat, and I also publicize the fact that I'm a Christian (according to your standards, this could be considered "advertising my faith" I supposed). I encourage you to let it go, sir. You're not accomplishing anything with this thread, except to expose your own apparent agenda. (BTW, the page is rewatched.)K. Scott Bailey 20:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Do not call me sir. I take umbrage to that. --Masterpedia 04:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

A reminder to keep cool for all you guys. Sarcasm and anger does nothing to improve Wikipedia. Unless you are editing the sarcasm or anger page--KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 04:37, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• • "Take umbrage" to whatever you want. Your claim is without merit, and has been demonstrated to be so. And saying "I encourage you to let it go, sir" is hardly a statement to "take umbrage" at. It's a polite way of asking you to stop making unfounded claims. And if you don't want someone to refer to you as "sir", you might want to take a less gender-neutral name. Using "sir" is not pejorative, but respectful, so politely informing me that you were a woman would have been sufficient, given the gender neutrality of your name.K. Scott Bailey 16:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Knowpedia is a woman? I thought ze was taking umbrage at the hierarchy "sir" entails. I haven't met many women who are members of the CVU. Or who advertise their love of guns in their userboxes who that matter. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 16:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Umbrage at the hierarchy "sir" entails. That would be correct. --Masterpedia 15:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JohnHistory

A recently registered user, JohnHistory is resorting to personal attacks on Talk:Manfred von Richthofen, [6]. I have warned the user about his behaviour, to which he responded on his talk page and mine. The user has previously been blocked for 24 hours for continued disruption, after posting this comment and heavily canvassing against user:Clawson's RfA. I have seriously tried to come to terms with him, but it seems like he is not willing to conform to policy. I'm emphasising this because I regard AN/I as a (preliminary) last resort and have not reported here before, but this user has finally managed to exhaust my patience.

Let me carefully add that a mild anti-Semitic bias also seems to come into play, considering [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 10:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would personally endorse an indef ban here, the user seams to be here to cause disruption and I find it very difficult to find a legitimate edit, with my original 24 hour block, I was trying to assume good faith that the user might calm down after it, but obviously not, and after great advice from Kncyu38 which he has disregarded, he has continued his disruption Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

An anon who had (before some personal attacks directed against JH) made several clearly good-faithed edits to the article and talk page made this edit. JohnHistory reacted with this and this. After I asked him to explain his edits on the talk page instead, he replied to me like this. —KNcyu38 (talk • contribs) 19:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

repeated unwarranted warnings being left on my talk page

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please could someone have a word with the user who keeps adding warnings to my talk page. recent example here. She insists on accusing me of removing content, despite my having explained to her repeatedly that this is not the case. I have already raised this on the ettiquette page for comments from other editors, and asked her to stop editing my talk page and explained why the warnings are not warranted but she seems to be ignoring me. Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like she's right. You're converting stubs to redirects, repeatedly. And her thinking on the need for stubs is also strong. I suggest that instead of jsut making redirects, you start to expand the stub. A scientific discipline is far more notable than the 771st pokemon or some such. If you think the article needs attention because it hasn't been edited in a long time, add to it. ThuranX 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I did a quick google, and found a site which I placed on the talk, and which led me to find a couple more articles here at WP to add tothe stub. it's still a stub, but we can probably get some progress by a little effort. ThuranX 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NOT#PAPER for why we can have plenty of stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I have tried so hard to assume good faith. I've tried to assume good faith when I've gone out of my way to on edits other users thought were simple vandalism only to receive a comment in return telling me my edits looked "fraudulent". I've continued to assume good faith while Rebroad brought my edits to ANI and while Rebroad argued over factual items that I cited, and when not having something to argue about would go onto something else. But now, every time I leave the computer for a minute, there's an additional attack, and enough is enough.

After Rebroad's bizarre renaming of Person, I looked through his edits. This is generally what I do when I come across vandalism or other odd editing. Looking at someone's edit history helps me figure out what's going on, and while the edits were very troubling, they all appeared to be in good faith. So I left Rebroad a long and detailed warning where I explained the various problems with his recent moves. I felt that a template warning wouldn't have helped him, and that hopefully this would.

At first Rebroad responded well to my comments (or at least not hostilly)--he left a comment on my talk page, and responded point by point to the comments I had left him.

However the Nephology article has for some reason been a sticking point with Rebroad. Rebroad set up an elaborate moving plan which didn't work, and needed an administrator User:Arthur Rubin to undo the leftovers. After this, Rebroad continued to push for Nephology to be a redirect--after I had listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and so I left him this warning which addressed the specific problems with his edits.

At this point, Rebroad turned hostile, leaving me a warning on my talk page that I was "impersonating someone of authority," and calling me "a Jimbo Wales sockpuppet" etc.

After I replied, Rebroad said that he hadn't read my comment, but that he was giving me a "second warning for stating your opinions as fact. Further continuation of this may result in you getting blocked from editing wikipedia" (somehow without having read my comments, he knew).

He has since left two unsigned template warnings on my talk page for vandalism and not assuming good faith.

He has also edited my comments on his talk page, because he thought they were factually inaccurate, and removed two template warnings I left him: uw3-delete and uw4-delete.

References

• User talk:Miss Mondegreen#reply to your comments - my talk page
• User talk:Rebroad - Rebroad's talk page--edited was highly edited--now also archived
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_expansion#March -- where Rebroad encouraged users not to expand Nephology
• Rebroad's posting about me on Wikiquette alerts
• [12] Rebroad's previous complaint about me on ANI and My comment on Rebroad's talk page about that

I would very much appreciate some intervention at this point. I don't know how much help I can provide an editor who needs to see Wiki policy to prove that disambig page descriptions are based on articles and that articles are not based on disambig page discriptions, or how I can possibly communicate with someone who was/ie under the impression (I didn't even get this until the end) that every statement I made that was not preceded by an "I believe" or an "I think", was my trying to say that that was wiki policy. The communication gulf here was large to begin with, larger than I knew, and now that this user has turned hostile and abusive, there's little I think I can do. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Miss Mondegreen, you have exercised extraordinary restraint and have stretched the limits of AGF beyond all reason. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your patience is remarkable. I think you deserve a Purple Star Award [13] for enduring this abuse, and I'm going to give you one now! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In response to User:Night Gyr, I was going by the Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb policy, which said that if the article is <1K for more than a few months then to merge it into a related article, which is what I was doing. I think the problem here may be that wikipedia is starting to get too many policies which conflict with each other - a bit like statue law in many ways! Which is the overriding policy? --Rebroad 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the guideline says,

If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

Now, this isn't a candidate for Article Creation and improvement, but you could have listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion or worked on it, especially as no information was added to the Cloud article. You didn't go to WikiProject Meteorology either.

And you didn't cite this or just "consider" merging it--you rammed it down people's thoats. When the whole moving shabang was undone and this article was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, you commented there saying that it wasn't appropriate to be expanded and then went and redirected it again (never properly I might add). The steps were being taken to expand the article at this point and you were actively preventing them. WP:Article Size doesn't say anything about that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. Miss Montegreen's comments above seems to prove my point earlier regarding assumpion of bad faith as she now accuses me of being hostile and abusive, which is totally untrue. She is also misquoting me in several places above, which you will all be able to determine for yourselves if you have the time to check my recent contributions regarding these recent events. There does seem to be a communications problem here also, and Miss Montegreen's comments often seem to be those of someone in charge and dictating policy but upon further exploration it appears that they are just her opinions, but for some reason she is reluctant to distinguish between her opinion and policy, so this further compounds the communication problem. I have stated my grounds for my actions above and on the various talk pages that discussion has taken place. If there are any further questions, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them when I am next on-line. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Miss Mondegreen, not Montegreen. And secondly, when you come to my talk page and tell me I have a superiority complex, or excuse me, that that's one possible scenario that could explain my edits--I don't need to assume anything. Those are bad faith edits on your part. You're edits can be called hostile, vandalism, talk page abuse--whatever you want, but I'm talking about the same thing. If it's an issue with the adjective's I'm using, that's fine, choose another, but those edits are still problematic.

In re my reluctance to distinguish between opinion and policy--I have never been relectant. I already write enough--I'm not going to preface each statment with an explanation or disclaimer. When it's policy it's policy. When it isn't, it isn't. When I say that something won't happen with the cloud article--that is a statement based on my beliefs, not policy. I have no idea how you cloud have thought that that statement was policy, but I can't colour code my writing for you. I wiki link policy in most places anyway so that should be a tipoff. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that I will try to avoid responding to Miss Mondegreen directory from now on, as each time I do I end up with several pages of text to read each time, which rarely appear to address the underlying issue. If someone else other than Miss Montegreen could provide some feedback instead, this would be much appreciated. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)The 'rule of thumb' is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT#PAPER is a specific philosophy. Given that the redirect met with opposition, making it 'controversial', Not Paper trumps RoT. leave it there. I've already added a little content, and talk apge'd a springboard for further research. The article CAN be expanded. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)Archiving relevant linked coments on your talk page in the middle of an AN/I you started is a bad practice. Please leave the info in place until the issue is settled in the future. Thank you. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the specific issue of having unwanted discourse added to user talk pages by this user, here is also another comment by a user also asking Miss Mondegreen to please cease and disist, and also referring to her actions as "borderline trolling", which I had also felt was an appropriate analysis, but refrained from saying it thus far. I do think that this user is going out of their to the point of stalking people, despite the justifications she has so far given. --Rebroad 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Miss Mondegreen's behavior, your behavior in this has not been above reproach. It's generally understood that you can be bold, on Wikipedia, until someone complains - but if someone complains, then talk. You seem, frankly, to have trouble dealing with criticism or disagreement with your actions.

Renaming is a frequently contentious thing to be doing on Wikipedia, as you should have been aware. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm fairly sure the various unpleasant things you said to me on my talk page were unwanted. As were the unsigned (did you think I wouldn't know? that they would be more credible) and bizarre warnings.

At the very least, you could stop now. I understand that you didn't like being warned or criticized, but you had and have always had and could still now stop. You could stop assuming bad faith since that always escalates things, you could stop making the kind of comments you've been leaving on my talk page. You've taken this issue here and continued to escalate--I defend myself on one score and suddenly I'm being attacked for something else. This is a lot like trying to discuss wiki policy with you--I respond in terms of one issue and you move on to something else.

And, now that you can see comments other users have left for me, don't you appreciate the fact that I didn't delete comments that reflected badly on me--whether or not the person was right? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has put up on his User Page that he's taking a wikibreak. I suggest that the time he's gone be used to expand the article, and leave this section to scroll out. It can be referenced fron the archives if we need it in a few days to deal with further conflicts. IN the meantime, make the article better, and no one can complain. I notice that I'm the only one who has tried to expand it, whiel you two have kept back and forth'ing. ThuranX 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually ThuranX--I haven't been doing much editing/writing at all. Between this and other Wiki things that required immediate attention, I've been spending my limited time here on those. In fact, it's very hard to be productive when every time I log on I find the work I've just done, undone, and that I have to go around to a half-dozen pages and leave a warning or ask an admin to revert a move or whatnot. Rebroad's probably gotten me to log more wiki hours since I came back from no internet access :). Miss Mondegreen | Talk   20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

i have had problems in the past with this and think only a high level admin. should be allowed to place any form of warning or warning template against any user. This will prevent users using templates in personal attacks and stop user adding them to user simply because they don't like what the user is saying.--Lucy-marie 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've had problems with Rebroad. Miss Mondegreen has previously made a number of good comments spread throughout the discussion here:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Rebroad&curid=9463986&diff=116731704&oldid=116583196

They highlight the problematic nature of User:Rebroad's unilateral name changing of articles. User:Rebroad has been on my radar in the past because of very obtrusive and stubborn failure to listen to other editor's reasoning. He tried to revive an old and obsolete article and deleted a redirect, which was a serious action and created a lot of wasted time for many editors:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Slipped_disc

Rebroad is a particularly uncollaborative and disruptive type of editor, since the types of changes he often makes have far reaching consequences and are an exercise of bad faith disrespectful of the hard work of many other editors who have used the consensus process to bring articles to the point at which Rebroad brashes onto the scene and destroys things. IMO Rebroad needs to be reigned in. Maybe a block on any and all types of editing other than correcting overlinking?....;-) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible to block certain types of editing from a user. When blocked, a user can only edit on his/her own talk page. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I disagree that Rebroad's edits are in bad faith; I think that he or she firmly thinks that his or her contributions are improving the encyclopedia and, in some instances, I agree. Furthermore, since I interpret the information presented here and in Rebroad's contributions as such, I would not support a block outside of normal channels (i.e. 3RR violations, personal attacks, absolutely egregious conduct despite warnings, etc.) and would not support an escalated block for anything other than repeated violations. I have no opinion on a community ban, particularly since I am unaware if dispute resolution have been attempted. --Iamunknown 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Rebroad's actions are in bad faith, but that Miss Mondegreen has exercised extraordinary patience in this situation. Good faith edits can still be performed in very disruptive ways, and this isn't the first time Rebroad has plagued us. Rebroad needs to learn to slow down and listen to other editors. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I have now reworded my comment above to avoid confusion. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(argh, edit conflict) Has any dispute resolution been attempted? I do agree that Miss Mondegreen has a saintly amount of patience, and, to Miss Mondegreen, I commend you. --Iamunknown 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, to all of you. The overall problem isn't so much dispute resolution, though since Rebroad clearly thinks that I am attacking him, it would most likely be best if other users dealt with future issues. If I see something, I can go to another editor, and Rebroad can then still accuse me of something, but if Rebroad is warned, hopefully he'll see that it's not due to my having a personal vendetta or enough free time to stalk wiki-users.

The problem seems to be that Rebroad's views in terms of editing are a gulf apart from the majority of Wikipedians, and when such things are pointed out to him, he won't accept this unless the exact issue is word by word dealt with in a Wiki policy or guideline, and then he often finds another Wiki reason to make his edit wiki justifiable. He's highly defensive, and so I think he may have seen the logic when I pointed out that disambiguation page descriptions were based on the articles they were describing and that the articles were not based on the descriptions on the disambiguation pages, but his back was to a wall and he decided that this idea made no logical sense and was "blinkered", [14] and then I had to find wiki-policy to prove the obvious--that descriptions are based on the thing and not the thing based on the description. If someone describes me as being 6'5", I don't grow, I correct the description.

Rebroad comes to articles with a definitive view, and doesn't often stay long. He doesn't do the necessary research, either on or off Wikipedia to back his edits (specifically moves), he doesn't talk with other editors, and he doesn't see why it's necessary because he knows why it's right. He reads be bold and sees it as saying be bold until a conflict arises. [15]

I do believe that his edits are in good faith, but he's been repeatedly told things and ignored them. What Rebroad needs to understand is that sometimes the Wiki community will say, you are "wrong"--and it doesn't matter if they are wrong--if you cannot convince them then the article or the policy or the whatever will stay "wrong". Everyone thinks that they are right, and you can bring in other editors to try and ask for outside opinions and cite sources and policy, but in the end, your version of right or better may not win. If Rebroad can't deal with that, and decides not to get opinions and cite sources and read talk pages and be a responsible editor, then no matter how much his edits are in good faith--his unwillingness to change his behavoir is not.

Rebroad is taking a break, and we can should hope that he comes back with a renewed willingness to work with others--a lot of his edits needed communication simply because when other people don't know what's going on they do assume the worst. If he comes back and his behavoir doesn't change, then we'll template warn, and he'll either take notice or incur blocks. The only thing we'll have to be vigilant about is that he does have a habit of deleting warnings and editing others' talk page comments. There's no reason to block him now--he didn't break 3RR, and he stopped short of getting a block on removing article content, and he's taking a break anyway. When he comes back, if he continues this behavoir, we'll know that he's been thoroughly warned and that he's aware of proper protocol, and if he needs to be warned again, he should start being warned at bad faith level templates for these types of edits. Hopefully, Rebroad will have a fresh approach to editing when he comes back, and if not--then at least this ANI and whole shebang should keep him from flying under the radar anymore.

Actually, thought here: could someone post a link to this discussion once it's archived on his talk page, as talk pages are for communication with the user and about the user? Would that be appropriate, especially given his deletion of warnings? If he caused problems in the future it would let people know not to warn him with a level 1, and if he didn't, no big. Any thoughts? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Hopefully this will be my last words on this matter. I am quite surprised that people have considered Miss Mondegreen's patience to be saintly. Just from this page alone, I feel I have been victimised a number of times:-

1. Referring to my edits as "bizarre" or "odd".
2. Misquoting me, and being selective in her examples of my edits, such as trying to suggest my interpretation of "be bold" is incorrect, but failing to refer to the wikipedia guidelines I have quoted to back this up (such as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).
3. Issuing warnings to me on the asumpion of bad faith, and not allowing for different interpretations of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I believe Miss Mondegreen is interpreting some of the wikipedia policies in ways I had never even thought of. She also fails to see how they can be interpreted any other way, and therefore accuses me of not following them or misquoting them. (Miss Mondegreen seems to go to extremes in her interpretation of policies. When she sees the sentence "consider merging", she interprets that as "think about it, but certainly don't do it", whereas to me it seems pretty obvious that merging is being presented as a valid option.)
4. Accusing me of "elaborate plans" (more bad faith) - I suspect this is more an indication of how Miss Mondegreen thinks, whereas with me, what you see is what you get - no elaborate plans, just a genuine intention to improve wikipedia.
5. Accusing me of being hostile, accusing me of calling her a "Jimbo sockpuppet" (which I only offered her as a joke hypothesis for her recent actions) - I stand by my analysis that she is impersonating someone in authority given that she has so far failed to show why her opinions should be considered more important than mine. This is not being hostile, this is stating fact, IMHO.
6. Accusing me of bad faith due to use of the word "fraudulent". My comment about fraudulent stands as when I renamed Person I genuinely believed it to be uncontroversial, however, Miss Mondegreen went onto labelling it uncontroversial when asking for it to be moved back while at the same time argueing to me that it was controversial!
7. Accusing me of saying she has a superiority complex. I did not say this, I provided it as one of many options for possible explanations of her behaviour, the last option including an apology from me for not manging to understand the reasons for her behaviour.
8. Accusing me of editing her comments on my talk page. This is distortion of the truth, IMHO. I changed only the title of the section to remove word warning as I did not consider it valid (given it was based on her intrepretation of policy wording alone). I did not change any of her comments.
9. Repeatedly accusing me of encouraging users to not expand Nephology. This may be a symantic issue here. I encourage users to expand the subject, but that it should be done within the cloud article until it goes over 1Kb at which point it would deserve an article of its own. (This is based on wikipedia guidelines I stated previously). I think it is bizarre to insist on keeping a one sentence article that has not been touched since 2004.
10. Stalking me. Dispite her rationalisaions, the sole reason Miss Mondegreen is even involved in the Nephology debate is because she targetted it after having seen my involvement with it.
11. Using violent language and attributing it to my actions, such as "rammed it down people's throats". She also says I didn't "consider merging" - claiming to be able to read my mind it seems. This sort of comment also does not help to garner my patience with her.

To respond to some of Miss Mondegreen's points:-

• Regarding the unsigned warnings on her talk page - since these templates are fairly new to me, I hadn't realised they needed to be manually signed, or whether they should be.
• I would not generally have given warnings in those instances, and as I said in the comments on her talk page, they are partly there to demonstrate a point - i.e. anyone can dish out warnings based on their own (possibly distorted) interpretation of the guidelines. Whether this should be done - I would argue that it should not. The guidelines leave much to presonal interpretation, such as saying "do this only if this is important", and the user is left to decide what is meant by "important". Miss Mondegreen and I seem to differ in our opinions on these points. Unless the policies or guidelines can be clarified, then there would appear to be no right or wrong at first glance, and that this would have to be something determined by concensus.
• Speaking of consensus, I would like to point out that it was I who made the effort to get other parties involved. Miss Mondegreen seemed quite happy to continue plastering my talk page with warnings without getting anyone else's opinion on the matter.
• She continues to state disambigaution pages should be based on the articles they refer to rather than the other way around. She states this as fact, and even claims to have found a policy which states this, but has not cited it. (I believe that her continued alternations between stating wikipedia policy in one instance, and then stating her opinions as fact in another are not helping people to understand the issue.) IMHO, disambig pages and their corresponding articles are a symbiosis. They support each other. I agree that in the majority of cases a disambig page is created based on the articles that are related to, but in some instances the disambiguation page can help bring clarity and direction for the articles to which they refer. This seems to have been the case (and others have agreed with me) with the Person article.
• The "communication gulf" to which Miss Mondegreen refers, I believe is primarily a result of her reluctance to distinguish between what she is stating her opinion and when she is stating policy. It makes it appear she is dictating her opinion as policy, which doesn't help to build rapport (certainly not with me anyway). I believe this is why I have seen so many other users infuriated by her comments and requesting ceasation of communcation with her.
• Apologies by the way of mis-spelling Miss Mondegreen. This was not intentional, and you will see that I was already going back and changing the mis-spelling where I noticed it even before she commented on it.
• I didn't respond to Miss Mondegreen's analogy regarding her being described as 6'5" as I felt it was not a fair analogy at all expected most people would agree. So, yes, in this example, I admit that I have ignored some things I've been told, but I am not aware that I have ignored anything I should not have.
• I also dispute that I come to articles with a definitive view, and that I always try to keep an open mind. The only views I tend to be definitive about is that articles should be reported in a NPOV.
• I'm not sure to what Miss Mondegreen is referring when she says she defends herself on one score only to have me attack her on another.
• Regarding "his unwillingness to change his behaviour" - to which behaviour is she referring? Repeatedly told which things? These statements seem to say a lot, but they actually say nothing without the necessary specifics.
• Regarding my being aware of "proper protocol", I do not believe I was ever unaware. Following this discussion, I am not aware that any protocols have been changed, and unless someone can provide the specifics as mentioned in my previous comment, I can't see how my behaviour needs to change.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't responded to many of the points above so far as I felt that by doing so I would be allowing myself to become obsessed with the discussion. As other users have said, they don't have the time to respond to such "ranting", and therefore this will hopefully be my last words on this matter - I have far more important things to get on with (including, sometimes, improving wikipedia). I hope that my comments above in someway help to show that views in terms of editing are not a "gulf apart from the majority of Wikipedians", but it's just that I can't afford to spend all my time explaining myself like this.

To respond to other users comments:-

• Morven, thanks for your comments and for saying I seem to have trouble dealing with criticism. I'd like to think I always welcome criticism, although it does frustrate me when people jump to incorrect conclusions - I don't think I mind so much when they jump to correct ones, although this seems to happen rarely!
• ThuranX, thanks for expanding the article and for being so level headed (this does not imply that everyone else is not - as my friend just pointed out to me!)
• Lucy-marie - I think you have a good point, and hope that admins are careful in analysing all warnings before making a decision to impose a block on anyone.
• Fyslee, I still think there was enough information in the Slipped disc article to warrant its own article, but I was outvoted regarding being against the merge. I accepted the outcome and haven't revisited the article since, so I'm not sure why you are mentioning this. This is an example where I think a merge should not have happened, unlike nephology where I am for a merge. I don't see the justifcation for saying I am uncollaborative and disruptive. As per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I was bold in my initial edit, and then it went to a vote to seek consensus. End of story - I do accept when I am in the minority.
• Iamunknown. Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you can see that I edit in good faith.

Thanks for listening, --Rebroad 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

---

DISAMBIGUATION PAGES AND ARTICLES
Rebroad--you and I have been communicating on multiple pages. If I go to the trouble of tracking down policy and citing it for you in one place, I'm going to assume that you bothered to read my answer, and am not going to keep a list of things Rebroad wants to know/needs proof of. I didn't think it was necessary that I also link every other word I wrote here. I linked you to the disambiguation page policy on your talk page, btw, and policy aside, since I am hoping this is still a misunderstanding at least on this count, let me explain what I mean:

Disambiguation pages are based on articles by their very merit. If there is only one article with the name XYZ--then there is no disambiguation page needed. If there is XYZ, XYZ (album), XYZ (movie), XYZ (the worst song you every heard), then and only then is a disambiguation page created. Articles come first, then disambiguation page. The disambiguation page lists the articles, and then, based on the articles, writes a description of what it is. Often, it's not hard. XYZ, a brand of toilet paper made by WGBY XYZ, an album by the BBB XYZ, a movie starring ____ and ____ released in _____

Now, is what is notable about the movie changes, the article will. Maybe, at the time of release, the stars of the movie were notable, but twenty years later, no one knows who the stars are and the director is famous. The article will most likely be changed to reflect that--the draw at the time was X, but it's a cult-classic now because of director ____. As such, the disambiguation page should change to reflect that as well--generally, it is people who edit the articles who edit the articles entires on disambig pages.

XYZ, a brand of toilet paper made by WGBY XYZ, an album by the BBB XYZ, a cult classic from 2023 by director _______

Now with the Person article, the Person article doesn't change to reflect the world, it changes because we're having writing issues. The Person article currently deals with philosophical and legal personhood, and so issues of splits and renaming and etc have to be sorted out.

The disambig page that said it was a philosophical article was wrong, and renaming the article based on that was wrong. An article name reflects the article, and that name didn't reflect the article, or rather reflected in inaccurately. You may not have liked my 6' analogy, but it's a fairly good one I think. Disambiguation pages are lists--nothing more. They are lists of articles with one line descriptions of the articles. As articles change, the descriptions should too.

I don't understand how an article could be based on a one-line description, or how they could "work together in symbiosis".

I also don't know what you are talking about in re Person. Could you provide a link?

---

Editing comments -- I provided a link. They could see that the edit was minor, but you don't edit a comment or the title of a comment at all. You changed what I wrote on your talk page, and that's a violation of policy, that I linked you to in edit summary.

Nephology -- expanding within Cloud has already been explained to you

Stalking you -- I looked at your edits to see if you were a vandal or a good faith editor. If you would have preferred, I could have reported after the Person move a list of your very problematic moves here instead.

WP:BOLD First, in re the page you linked to--it's an essay not a policy or guideline, and you completely ignored the whole "DO NOT Revert back!" Btw, I was referring to WP:BOLD which I believe I've linked you to before and is an actual guideline.

unsigned warnings I signed the warnings I left on your talk page, and you didn't leave the warnings in the same edit, so you should have seen that the previous one was left unsigned. You also added them haphazardly to various sections. Also, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do. If you go around warning editors for things that they haven't done, the editor should report you and you'll get blocked most likely. Same way you can't just add things you make up just because you can. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Wikipedia is self-correcting and you know that well. You had a problem with me, and took it here, but the problem is is that the things you cite in your defense don't support you. You cite an essay as something official and you did exactly what the essay said not to do anyway. You were told before you commented again here that "The WIkipolicies nad guidelines regarding splitting in no way requires all articles start as sections of others." and yet you bring it up yet again, still unable to listen to others when being told that you are incorrect about something.

proper protocol

You should have been aware before, and now you certainly are, that almost any move you would like to make should be brought up for discussion and should be listed at WP:requests for expansion. In terms of the various very problematic moves you've been making--you've been addressed, at length, by multiple editors and you should know how to go about making these kinds of moves in the future.

consensus I listed the article at Request for expansion, had discussed the issue in re Nephology with two other editors, one an adim, and if you continued, would most certainly have listed you for a 3rr block, or a removal of content block or brought you here. I don't believe that we needed or need mediation--if you don't want to listen to anything that I say, that's fine. I hope that you will avoid this type of behavoir in the future, and if not, and I am the one to catch the behavoir, I will try and get another editor to be the one to talk will you since I know that you think that I am stalking you or some other conspiracy based thing. Also in re consensus, when you specifically violate it and make it impossible for a regular editor to fix that, its not controversial to bring the page back to the last agreed upon version. We had last had consensus on the page being named Person (who knows when we will again), and we don't need to get together a vote or need consensus to undo vandalism or one editor striking out. That's the antithesis of consensus, and since the admins at WP:RM agreed with me, I don't know why you're still bringing this up. Lots of moves listed as non-controversial are moved, because the admins there think that they are controversial. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT/continued harrasment

Resolved

 – --Jersey Devil 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has now admitted that the warnings he placed on my talk page were a to "demonstrate a point - i.e. anyone can dish out warnings based on their own (possibly distorted) interpretation of the guidelines." This is a clear violation of WP:POINT, in addition Rebroad has listed an accusation list and I'm beginning to feel like I can't edit or say anything without adding another point to his list. This is what I meant earlier about defending myself on one score only to be attacked on another, a lot of the things on the list are things I accused him of, where he says I misquoted him or didn't understand that it really was funny when the only possible explanation for my actions was my being a Jimbo sockpuppet or having a superiority complex (or he's all wrong, in which case he apologises). Rebraod had said that he was taking a break, which I don't know whether or not he still is, but if the continued accusations etc., don't stop, because at this point I do consider this to be harrassment I'd appreciate if some sort of action was taken. I'm not entirely sure what Rebroad was/is aiming for with his continued comments here, but it's time for him to cease and desist--this is really getting out of hand. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Quite frankly action should have been taken much sooner. If the behavior continues after this block is over, please contact me. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel like stalking

Rebroad was apparantly searching through ANI archives or something, and yesterday posted this [16] on Geo.plrd's talk page. I'm a little concerned that Rebroad seems to be actively searching out information on me and things to use against me and for a way to "impose sanctions" on me for the warnings I left on his talk page.

I'm also a little concerned and confused by Geo.plrd's reply on Rebroad's talk page (how I found out about all this btw.) During my late involvement in the Runed Chozo issue in February, I apparantly rubbed Geo.plrd the wrong way. (I left, btw a grand total of four comments--I didn't participate in the first two discussions or I think I see a sockpuppet--I left one comment at How RunedChozo was and should be handled & commented three times in the discussion I linked to above.) Two days after [17], he proposed a six month community ban of me, citing that I was trolling, engaging in personal attacks, delusional, and that the community just didn't have time to deal with my ranting. I didn't know about the community ban proposal until Rebroad dug it up.

I clearly rubbed Geo.plrd the wrong way, though I'm not sure how since I've had no interaction with this user, ever AFAIK, but I'm bothered both by the proposal, his reply to Rebroad, Rebroad's behavoir which is coming close to stalking, and his new comments on his talk page, where he accused me of bad faith when I asked to have the block for his suspected sockpuppet SHORTENED. This is getting more and more frustrating even as I try to be more and more careful--if I can't even request the shortening of a block for a potentially innocent party without being accused of bad faith and biting new users, I'm not sure what I can do. Every edit I make seems to inflame the situation, when they should be irrelevant or in the case of the shortening block, cool the situation down. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

141.157.161.15

I request blocking for IP 141.157.161.15 because of vandalism at:

- my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117579941&oldid=117567031

- discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117571121&oldid=117540483

- numerous wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.157.161.15

+ attempted harrassment at the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117580745&oldid=117579718

--Sergey Romanov 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any copyrighted stuff in any of our articles? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my!

Is there anyone who has dealt with any of

• Sergey Romanov (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 141.157.161.15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• links to the websites www.death-camps.org or www.deathcamps.org

previously, and who can nail down what's going on here?

There appear to be at least two editors who have some sort of dispute over which site is authentic or the legitimate copyright owner of the material that appears on both sites.

I've blocked 141.157 for fifteen minutes to get his attention and encourage him to join the discussion here. (He's been leaving a trail of inflammatory edit summaries and legal threats.) I will also notify Sergey, and User:Brian0918 (who seems to have encountered this issue before). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to be in this fight? Why not delete all links to either site from wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

At least some of the links appear to be in footnote references for articles. I wouldn't want to blanket delete them without careful review. Of course, I don't know anything about the quality or accuracy of the site(s), or the history of how the links were added to Wikipedia in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why the links in general should be deleted, they contain quite a lot of usefufl information.

As for 141.whatever, this is the same person who vandalized my user page previously. To quote from my user page:

Some hard wiki-evidence about the above case

If you look at my history:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Sergey_Romanov&action=history

you can see that there is some person (guess who) who tried to vandalize my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383

Notice the change in the URL. You can check out this person's URL, but beware - it is NOT safe for work!

Now click on his IP to see his contributions, and judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.31.156

(Hint: also compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ARC-deathcamps.org)

As you can see by the fake "blog" he created, he is a rather sick person. --Sergey Romanov 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That's kind of personal attack right there. Make sure not to insult the anon when you are defending yourself. --Iamunknown 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. It's just things like that fake blog go far beyond simple "uncivility". But note taken.--Sergey Romanov 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just remember to stay cool; I know, however, that sometimes it is really difficult. --Iamunknown 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I would support putting both on the blacklist. We apparantly don't know anything about editorial control on either site, where their information is coming from, and there seems to be some sort of external dispute that is creating a headache for editors here. Jkelly 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It may be useful to know the difference between the two first — unless it's limited to personalities clash (of respective site owners). El_C 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The most significant difference is the absence of faked materials at death-camps.org and their presence at deathcamps.org (see my user page).--Sergey Romanov 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Can this be verified or do we have to take your word for it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The account on your userpage is lenghty and complicated. Please be brief: "fake" how? El_C 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Briefly: the break-up was because of these fakes, supplied by the current owner of deathcamps.org

They're still there (Muenzberger "statement" and Rum "statement"):

http://deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html

http://deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.html

They're fake because there never was any provenance for them, and because the details contradict known evidence (e.g. the wrong number of gas chambers is mentioned). These materials are not to be found on death-camps.org --Sergey Romanov 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulties parsing that. El_C 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is not clear? I will explain.--Sergey Romanov 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

What is the difference; how is it appreciable? Please cite brief contrasting sentences as examples. El_C 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If you mean the diff. between the sites:

1. death-camps.org simply lacks the page analogous [18] (because the whole page is a forgery).

2. death-camps.org has removed refs to forged "Rum's statement" at [19], otherwise it is analogous to [20] (search for word "Rum" on both pages).

If you need more evidence as to why those are forgeries, it is explained (with sources) at [21] , but briefly - the information in the statements (which have no provenance) doesn't mesh with info from other established sources, such as Treblinka trial judgement and Yitzhak Arad's book.--Sergey Romanov 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I want specific instances of items being forged; the above example is not clear. I don't have the time to review the material to such an extent, so you'll have to do better than that. Aim at clarity & concision. El_C 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid proving forgeries briefly is not easy. OK, one specific example:

1. The Muenzberger "statement" (http://deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html) and the Rum "statement" (fully available at http://static.flickr.com/118/283883256_60f4582b6e_o.jpg - sorry for quality, but that's how it was distributed inside ARC) claim 10 GCs in Treblinka:

"In the corridor the Jews were driven into the chambers by some Ukrainians. There were five chambers on either side." (M.)

"On both sides of the corridor were 5 gas chambers" (Rum)

The verdict of the Duesseldorf Treblinka trial, however, stated:

"Darüber welche Masse wirklich zutreffen, hat die Beweisaufnahme ebensowenig eine eindeutige Klärung ergeben wie über die wirkliche Anzahl der neuen Kammern, die von den Angeklagten übereinstimmend und von Anfang an mit 6, von den jüdischen Zeugen jedoch durchweg mit 10 angegeben werden."

Which means, in English, that the German defendants testified about six gas chambers, not ten, and only Jewish witnesses testified about ten gas chambers. (The verdict is from JuNSV collection, and was available at http://www.idgr.de/texte/dokumente/justiz/treblinka-urteil.php until that site closed; this can be confirmed at http://www.shoa.de/content/view/581/203/ ; I can send the verdict if requested).--Sergey Romanov 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm unable to verify that claim at this time. Perhaps a lawsuit would be best. El_C 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Turok 18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also involved. -- No Guru 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. That's the Solar System vandal seeking attention. El_C 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC Team The Genuine www.deathcamps.org

Admins:

Rather than deal in the "ANECDOTAL" Statements and blog posting by Sergey Romanov lets deal in verifiable facts. Do we all agree that ICANN and WHOIS.net are valid authorities in web site registraion? Also the US & EU laws that govern websites and enclosed materials??

Ok good. Now please Check WHOIS.net for www.deathcamps.org then do the same for www.death-camps.org

Note the dates, 2002 for deathcamps.org and 2006 for the fake death-camps.org

Then go back and look at all the original links here on wiki, all the deathcamps.org links, go back to the very first versions, were they deathcamps.org or the counterfeit death-camps org??

Now, this is all facts validated by legitimate authorities and including wiki's own history.

Against these facts you have wacky blog accusations, hearsay, anecdotal statements, some downright lies, and a blatant smear campaign by Sergey Romanov.

Sergey Romanov can attempt to rebut this all he wishes.

But as admins of what is an ENCYCLOPEDIA should be excercising better judgement.

The Genuine ARC Team

Maybe you should settle this through legal channels and come back to our wiki once the outstanding issues have been resolved. At this point, we are inclined to remove both sites until you (site owners) sort this out. We are not a court. El_C 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The pseudo-"Genuine ARC Team" is trying to pull a fast one: once again, copyrights are not established by WHOIS. As for removing both sites, I don't see why the legitimate site should be removed along with the unreliable one. But that's probably "GAT"'s purpose. --Sergey Romanov 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No you are not a court but Wiki does have a charter and regulations. We are not asking Wiki to take our word for it. There is verifiable evidence on http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=deathcamps&tld=org or ICANN.

This is as straightforward and as simple as it gets.

Copyrights are backed up by valid dates of registration. www.deathcamps.org and all the material contained within are legimately registred copyrights in both the US and the EU.

Sorry Sergey Romanov be we've legally registerd the site, all and all the material we've created there in both geographical regions. Any questions on that please contact the US Copyright office, and the EU registrar.

-The Genuine ARC Team

We are not obliged to feature either website in our entries nor to become involved in this dispute. Any efforts to that effect are strictly voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. El_C 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

EL. Agreed, Wiki has that right. However if you look back to the very first Wiki links for www.deathcamps.org they predate the inception of the fake hyphenated version that appeared in October 2006. Some of them have been here for years without issue. This upstart comes in and begins changing all of our links and now the real website has to suffer for it?

Is there any justice in that??

As explained on my user page, most links have been changed back in the autumn of 2006, because the deathcamps.org site has been down. And, to repeat, deathcamps.org owner is _not_ a copyright holder. Some anonymous' remarks don't change this fact. --Sergey Romanov 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm getting a bit tired of seeing these links flood the #wikipedia-en-spam IRC channel. Can we agree on which site to remove? Personally, I think they should both be removed, they don't seem to contribute that much useful information. Shadow1 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

At least one user who's trying to introduce www.deathcamps.org into the site is vandalizing the Michael Richards article as well. (→Netscott) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Remove both. neither looks "legit". (→Netscott) 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

That's vandal is uninvolved and is trolling (my contributions, I presume). See above. El_C 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how death-camps.org doesn't "seem to contribute that much useful information".It is chockful of useful information on the Holocaust. And is obviously legit. Otherwise, what is your definition of "legit"? --Sergey Romanov 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadow1 I understand your concern. I would ask that the legitimate www.deathcamps.org links be allowed to remain as they have been here for years. These counterfiet links pointing to www.death-camps.org have only started in October of 2006. We are only seeking to retain our status quo as a legitimate website.

The Genuine ARC team

My concern is that the links aren't entirely relevant to the articles, in my opinion. Wikipedia's external links and reliable sources guidelines seem to agree, if I'm reading them right. Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

And since we do not know who owns the true version of the website, we should try to be fair and remove both links instead of featuring one over the other. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

One who owns the true site doesn't need to make false statements, like current deathcamps.org owner does (I've given examples on my user page). Also, someone representing the true pages doesn't need to make fake blogs like the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383 (you can see that this is the same person who writes here as "Genuine ARC Team" by observing the changes he made to wiki articles).--Sergey Romanov 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott no one from the ARC team had anything to do with Michael Richards page... We are only interested in keeping our links point to our site that we started in 2002 and have had links here on Wiki for many years. We have been under constant vandal attacks and link reversion since Oct 2006... why are we being made to suffer with the vandals?

Shadow1 any link that isn't relevant to the article should be removed on any page where it isn't relevant. When we at the www.deathcamps.org began posting and contributing to articles over the years we posted links in good faith.

We only seek to have the promotion of this counterfeit website stopped.

There's no "accrediation" for either site. Deathcamps.org is registered to someone with a yahoo.co.uk e-mail address? That doesn't sound legit to me. (→Netscott) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, what is happening here is a simple case of WP:SPAM, just covered up in legal issues. All these users are doing is changing one site for the other, and I simply don't see the benefit to wikipedia in fighting over what? A link!!!. Leave things the way they were, and engage in discussion before doing any drastic action. (changing one link for the other). Put simply this is getting silly, from all the link swapping I'm seeing on IRC. Talk first, then take action, once there is a consensus on what to do. I will ask, where is the evidence that the other site is not legal? Please discuss rather then remove and swap out links. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

70.153.120.187

I request the ban of this IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.153.120.187 --Sergey Romanov 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Sergey Romanov you are the one promoting the counterfeit Links, we request the ban of Sergey Romanov

We do not ban users without the consensus of the community. However, you both may be looking at temporary blocks for disruption, unless you can contribute civilly and without any name-calling. Shadow1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk first, then take action. Both of you may get blocked for spamming if you don't quit this sillyness.. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Have we ever even banned an IP? I mean, we block many IPs per day, but ban? --Iamunknown 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC just wants to exist in peace

Shadow we apologize for any statements made out of frustation. ARC it's website www.deathcamps.org would simply like to exist free of link vandalism, our links have been here for years, pointing to our website www.deathcamps.org (check wiki history) they have been suffering edit attacks since October 2006 we are asking why we have to suffer these attacks?

Due to "professional differences" they both should be removed. (→Netscott) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The likely reason that they existed in articles for so long is because no one paid any attention to them until this happened. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC Legality

Eagle

ARC was created in 2002. We registered our website in September of 2002. We have maintained our website since that time. We have also registered for formal copyrights in the USA and EU both back in October when the counterfeit website www.death-camps.org first appeared. Both registrations are in process, but the registration process can be verified with the US copy right office and EU registrar.

The fake website is an identical copy of www.deathcamps.org their site was registered in October 2006 the ICANN and WHOIS validate this.

www.death-camps.org is counterfeit and in violation of the geniune ARC www.deathcamps.org copyright.

-The Genuine ARC team

Resolve the legal issues off of wikipedia. Any more link swapping will result in blocks for spamming. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Would someone kindly block both of the parties here...? Thanks. (→Netscott) 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Shadow1 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, prevent this ongoing nonsense. (→Netscott) 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

EAGLE, that's fine with us, all links should remain what they were www.deathcamps.org any swapping from that to www.death-camps.org would be in violation correct?

JFYI, you're not talking to an ARC member. This person, who hides behind anonymity, has left the group at least two years ago. IOW, he cannot represent a (now non-existent) group.--Sergey Romanov 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, what you have stated is in agreement with the ARC team. The links will remain what they FIRST were. Any swapping away from that would be considered spamming? Am I understanding that correctly?

And the opposite. What I'm saying goes both ways. This linkswapping is solely to promote a website, and it needs to stop. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, how about a deletion of the links to an unreliable resource? Will this be according to wiki policy?--Sergey Romanov 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

You can do that, just in this situation please trend lightly till this dies down. Make sure before removing any of these links that they can't be used as a source. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, that works for us. So the orignal date the Link was first posted will be the valid link? That works for us. We will not post any new links nor make any attempt to promote www.deathcamps.org

We simply ask that all of our links be allowed to remain unvandalised.

Many thanks Eagle.

-The Genuine ARC Team

• Just as a kinda related comment, any copyright registration for the title either has already been rejected or will be. Two words are unquestionably not copyrightable. -Amarkov moo! 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me clarify, whatever they are now, leave them be, you need to discuss this on an article by article basis, if you have legal issues with the other website, it needs to be dealt with off wiki. Put simply no more linkswapping either way. Now I'm not saying that we can't possibly remove the links, or disscuss links on a case by case basis, but this mass linkswapping needs to stop. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Amarkov The Website domain is copyrighted. The material contained therein is also copyrighted.

Eagle. We have a lot of links pointing to Deathcamps.org are you saying they can be swapped by this Sergey Romanov to point to a counterfeit website?

Enough Enough Enough. Shut up and go away! I'm going to delete all links to either site. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I told him that if any could be removed he can do so, but needs to be done on a case by case basis. any linkswapping that I see between these two sites I'm going to treat as spam, and deal with accordingly, unless there has been discussion on the article's talk page or elsewhere to another effect. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree. We need to remove them all, and now. (I am in the process of doing so. Please help if you can)Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I'm going to be away for the next 40 minutes or so, but there are others watching the IRC feeds on links added. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good call Theresa Knott, and perhaps add them to spam blacklist for the time being as well. (→Netscott) 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The spam blacklist will not be used, unless there is evidence of spamming past this moment. I don't know if I agree with the link removals, and I think this needs to be done with care, rather then blanket removal. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nescott and Theresa. We are all dialoguing here in a professional manner, Eagle has been handling this situation well. Why all the negative comment. The ARC team are not spammers. Nor are we posting negative links to blogs etc. We are simply trying to prevent our website from being vandalized. How or why you find that to be in bad taste is not clear to us? The Genuine ARC Team

please SIGN your posts. --Fredrick day 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Until this legal nonsense is sorted off-wiki both sites need removing. It is disruptive that "professional differences" are being expressed here on Wikipedia. This is why I support Theresa Knotts' removal of both. (→Netscott) 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to remind everybody that currently there is no such thing as "ARC Team". --Sergey Romanov 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We don't care. All links to both sites should be removed; Wikipedia is not a battleground. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not dealing with Legal Issues, dealing with Link Vandalizing of www.deathcamps.org

Ok Nescott how about we ignore the legal issue of www.death-camps.org being a counterfeit. Lets just deal with the Wiki History of the links.

If they were www.deathcamps.org and someone vandalized them to www.death-camps.org that's a Wiki matter correct? The Genuine ARC Team ARC www.deathcamps.org

You should be blocked right now for starting section after section alone. Stop that now. Sort your legal differences and come back to Wikipedia afterwords. (→Netscott) 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not vandalism because as far as anyone knows they are acting in good faith adding those links, all we care about about is WP:ATT - your ownership problems are ENTIRELY non-wiki. and signing is NOT writting your name, you use ~~~~ to do it. --Fredrick day 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We www.deathcamps.org are the ones who added the links they pointed to our website, we are not the ones changing them to www.death-camps.org. We are only changing the vandalized links back.

If someone changes our links to another URL how is that acting in good faith?

We apologise for the multiple sections. The Genuine ARC Team

Your URL has zero related content. The other one has more than zero related content. It is very possible that someone will, in good faith, change to the site with related content. -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

At this point, the question is not whether they should be changed, but rather why they're included in articles and why we're making such a big fuss over them. Shadow1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC is willing to abide by EAGLE101's ruling. He seems to be the most "leveled headed person in this debate"

The Genuine ARC Team

of course you are. That's because you think he is saying that the link you want must stay on the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

As I stated before, and I will state again, leave the links the way they are, any more mass swapping of links will result in blocks, unless the swap was discussed on the article's talk page. As for removing them, I have no opinion on that. —— Eagle101 ^{Need help?} 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eagle 101. That's probably the best way to solve the edit wars... --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know whether or not I agree, but I certainly removed quite a few links from articles. I thought, like Theresa Knott, that it might calm the ensuing havoc. You can revert me if you like, all my edit summaries said "remove link to disputed site, please do not add back in." --Iamunknown 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a feeling that will cause more "havoc", but that's only my opinion. Just keep it your way, and hopefully, the thing will sort itself out . --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I hope not. --Iamunknown 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

So do I. The thing is - we don't need the links. Hasving then certainly causes trouble. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User pages

Has anyone noticed, or is it just me. Both user pages for User:ARC-deathcamps.org and User:Sergey Romanov seem to violate WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:USER. Would anyone support wholesale deletion of both party's userspaces unless each party changes his or hers page? --Iamunknown 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ... (clarification:) That is, would anyone support an mfd for said user spaces? --Iamunknown 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The userpage of User:ARC-deathcamp.org is removed. And I see no violation on the current userpage for Sergey Romanov. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, now it's okay...it certainly was not earlier. --Iamunknown 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Links all removed

I've removed all the links from both sites from every article. That doesn't include images or talk pages or Wikipedia-space pages, and they may be put back in, but all the current links are removed. Hopefully that will bring calm. --Iamunknown 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Iamunknown. I caught one or two that you missed. (→Netscott) 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Well done. I am still left with an overwhelming "WTF?" about this, though. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Guy, thats becuase you feel the in-justice involved in how this matter was handled. A black mark on Wikipedia for this one.. ARC

Yep, and I found just the right black mark: . —bbatsell ¿? ✍ 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As a side note to this, I've blocked the IP complainant for being disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• There's a further issue that hasn't been raised: "ARC" has placed at least one (and likely many) hidden messages in various article, user, and associated talk pages. See below. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed one of these links was removed from the Porajmos article, and after reading this whole discussion I now understand why the removal happened, and agree with the action. I was wondering, however, if the decision could be summarized somewhere so others like me who edit the many pages linking to these websites can easily understand what has happened. The websites were pretty good sources of information, so it's no small blow to have them removed (though, again, I understand why it was done, and agree with the removal). Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I wish I had thought of that and added the link to my edit summaries. Perhaps, when this discussion is archived (in the next few days), I can make another run and also go back to all of the talk pages and post a brief note directing editors to this discussion and asking that they not post links to either domain. It's unfortunate but the situation is too tricky and should not be dealt with on-wiki. --Iamunknown 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s not just links, unfortunately

Well, it looks like I’m being drug into this mess by the anon styling himself as The Genuine ARC team, and I have three particular complaints: 1) editing a post not by him on my talk page, 2) adding hidden-text spam to same, and 3) making not-so-veiled threats should I not cease and desist – from behavior I have not participated in!

My participation in this is very indirect. I responded to a post by another user on jpgordon’s talk page back in January. That user, Rrburke had noted serial changes of links to the dash site to the non-dash to the article Einsatzgruppen and several others. Since I am knowledgeable about the subject of the death camps, I took it upon myself to do what jpgordon had stated he hadn’t the time to do – examine what the difference between the two sites were and to try to figure out what was going on. What I learned and confirmed to Rrburke was that it was indeed as he surmised, inside baseball.

I’d forgotten about it until the ARC guy (as 71.243.84.163) apparently went trolling on 17 March for dash links, found one on my talk page ([[User talk:Askari Mark#deathcamps.org vs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen ]]) – the last exchange Rrburke and I had on the subject, and deleted the dash in the latter link name (making it nonsensical). I reverted it, rebuked the anon, and let Rrburke know this in case he was still following the issue. He had forgotten about it too, and asked me to remind him what it was about.

At this point ARC (now as 141.157.161.15) began chiming, accusing me of promoting fraudulent websites, and also returned to the January posting (the one he’d originally vandalized) and added the following hidden text: [22] which vandalism I also reverted. Ignoring my point-by-point rebuttal of his accusations in the March 17 post, he started a new thread, Promotion of Counterfeit ARC website, which has descended into threats (which Theresa Knott rebuked him on today).

To date I’ve not edited dashes in or out of links to either of these websites in any article. As best I can tell, this anon’s edits are only to redirect links to his website and push his monomania on any editor he comes across to accuse them (in Wikipedia’s name) of promoting copyright violations. I haven’t gone through all his sockpuppets’ contributions, but it looks to me like he has made no other constructive edits. Inasmuch as he seems intent on stirring up more controversy than he’s worth, I wouldn’t mind seeing him banned just so he doesn’t continue to inflict himself on other editors; however, considering how monomaniacal this anon is about his personal issue, I do expect him to continue vandalizing under other IPs as they become available to him (fortunately, his MO is easy to discern). I would also recommend that some admins explore his other edits to remove the hidden text he placed on my talk page, which I suspect he has placed elsewhere. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if they haven't added any hidden text. The edit you referred to above is in plain view. It's just in the middle of the page rather than at the bottom. Or am I being daft? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It did not appear at all in the text where it was located. I only discovered it when I diffed each of the anon's two separate entries in my history. I went back to that place after finding it, surprised that I hadn't seen it (kind of hard to miss), and it still did not show up. Only a blank line appeared where the text had been place. Between the two successive paragraphs there were two blank row lines, with the second being where the text had been inserted. It's only apparent "presence" was as if the hidden text had been a <br/>. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

G2bambino wikistalking

Before going to the meat of the wikistalking accusation, let's put his behavior into context.

• Long diatribe from an IP that has made zero edits which are not posting said diatribe. Does anyone care to actually read through this to verify that it's stupid? -Amarkov moo! 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

For an admin hopeful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls), you're very rude and flip.

• • He did research it well though....for someone who isn't involved in this, according to contribs, though that is highly doubtful. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • It was indeed researched well. Too bad that the research doesn't show much, including such things as a polite request made two years ago. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
    • Okay, so, to be fair, most of the evidence isn't like that. However, there is no evidence of Wikistalking. Following people's contributions, if just intended to keep bad ones out of Wikipedia, is allowed, even if it shouldn't be. -Amarkov moo! 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• FOR THE RECORD: I do not want my discussions with G2bambino used in any way to support this claim.K. Scott Bailey 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
• This IP is currently on a mission to discredit G2bambino in any way possible. This is most likely due to the following sock puppet report Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki and is very likely the user being reported. If anyone can spare a little time and help, feel free to head on over to that report, lay your thoughts in, and see how the user in question is going about this in a pretty uncivil way. Roguegeek (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hardly any admin patrols WP:SSP though...--KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm coaching some editors who might give this a look. Durova^Charge! 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While you're coaching, have your editors examine the rude behavior from Physicq210 who's on a powertrip. He gives admins such a bad name with his flip antagonistic comments and silences.

• Durova, I've had a look through Gbambino, Gbambino6, G2bambino's edits. He's changed usernames a couple times, but seems to have documented these events, and doesn't seem to be hiding anything. The editor seems to be a typical wikignome, generally helpful and productive. He can be mildly snarky at times, [23] [24] [25]. However, the IP accusations at the top of this section don't ring true to me. At most, G2bambino should be reminded about the importance of civility. On the other hand, it seems much more likely to me that the editor who goes by User:Jonawiki may be wikistalking G2bambino. I see Jonawiki has suddenly appeared at Talk:Monarchy in Canada, one of G2bambino's favorite articles. Jonawiki has been making disruptive and pedantic comments that are annoying other editors besides G2bambino.[26] Jonawiki seems like a troublemaker and may need to be warned or possibly blocked for a short time. Jehochman (^Talk/_Contrib) 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• After reviewing the presented evidence and and reading 1000s of characters on either side of the linked passages, I seem to be reminded of the argument between the wise man and the idiot--sometimes, you can't tell which is which. G(x)b does show a long and impressive list of helpful activities and much civility, albeit of strong opinion. At other times, it seems obvious that his response to given stimuli is more than he can deal with, resulting in reactions rather than planned actions. Both sides of the "war" seem to using the same evidence to prove their points. I believe that none of the particpants is really of pure heart and ethically clear in this incident, but I can see no strong evidence that "wikistalking" is taking place. Unfortunately, the current controls allow many folks to have multiple personas, making it nearly impossible to find the truth. Is there such a thing as a "restraining" order?!? "User:Stalker, you must stay 5 edits away from User:Stalkee..."--Lmcelhiney 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag warring at Hippie

Three editors including myself have called attention to the dire need for improvement of the article Hippie at Talk:Hippie on account of its US-centrism in discussing what was and is a phenomenon in many other countries including Europe and Australasia. Unfortunately, all three of us have been "overruled" by a single proprietary editor who insists that because he can't see what the fuss is about, therefore it does not exist -- and for many days now he has been unilaterally removing the <<globalize>> tag as soon as any of us add it, or the <<NPOV>> tag. He or she does not seem to be aware of the policy for disputes, he thinks he alone is authorized to dismiss the other 3 editors' objections out of hand. A 5th editor, Apostle, has tried to find a compromise by agreeing with us that globalization is needed, but siding with the other editor on the need for a tag to that effect. However the purpose of the tag is not as the other editor says, to "push a pov", butactually only to invite more editors to fix the problem that he denies exists, at least in the meantime until the problem IS fixed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This isn't a very rounded view of that discussion.

We have a classic Wikipedia dispute here: the article is slanted to US-centrism because that's the slant of the available sources. Codex and a couple others want to add more about hippies elsewhere in the world, but the sources for their claims aren't terribly good, and so Viriditas is removing the poorly cited material. Add in some accusations of "vandalism" on both sides, a little bit of edit warring, and some gratuitous bold text on the talk page, and you have a mess.

This seems like an excellent candidate for mediation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Old dispute, old problem. See this from six months ago. Seemed WP:OWNish to me back then, although I'd expect verifiable and reliable citations would have been forthcoming by now. Makes me wonder why a problem still simmers. Durova^Charge! 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Its a classic editorial dispute. The article was dreadfully US centric and the problem arose when one editor was uncomfortable with the globalize tag and would remove it, which being the globalize issue was clearly dfisputed was then then replaced with an NPOV tag which the same editor then removed. Its locked and there is discussion on the talk page that may lead to a resolution but the basic problem started because the article read like an American encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot

The bot called "Shadowbot" seems to be doing the same thing as the bot called "Betacommand". It's going around blindly removing all references to imageshack and photbucket and a number of other innocuous external links. Is it supposed to be doing this?--172.167.245.115 00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is. And Betacommand is not a bot. He's a user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

30+ edits per minute...? Quack! --Edokter (Talk) 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

OK lets make a note here shadowbot just reverts users when they add a link. imageshack and photobucket probably should me listed at m:Spam. there is no need to ever link to those sites. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand is notorious for excessive zeal in deleting external links; his opinions do not reflect Wikipedia consensus. Αργυριου (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant here. Unnecessary disparaging remarks, I'm sorry to say. -- Nick ^t 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted the above IP user is a new user who edits under the username Ceoparis (talk · contribs) and who tried to display an externally hosted image on Lee Humphrey. When Shadowbot reverted, the user logged out and reverted Shadowbot before Shadowbot correctly reverted the edit once again. The image was later uploaded to Wikipedia, under Fair Use, but as it's a clear copyright violation claiming the source to be Imageshack, I've deleted it. -- Nick ^t 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:124.185.157.217

User:124.185.157.217 has been making unencyclopedic (but not quite vandalistic) edits to many Harry Potter pages. I can't keep up, and need to get to work. Matchups 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped. I left him/her a note and reverted the edits. - Bobet 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alphaquad

Alphaquad (talk · contribs) has joined us to promote his view of the uses of cannabis for a number of indications, as well as stating that commonly used drugs are poisons. It has been explained that his edits have suffered from WP:NPOV and WP:RS problems. The response has been a long diatribe against myself and User:Colin on his talkpage, containing numerous WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:NPA violations. I'd appreciate some input. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly respect and listen to administrators. But JFW and Colin have only shown the invention of reason to discard my edits, (except for the first edit containing original thought, which I understand now) and a personal agenda due to preconceived notions. I will of course retract anything as directed by the administrators for the sake of the public and this great media.

I have directed the matter to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#what_be_the_opinion_of_this_forum Alphaquad 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is no reason to make personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thug

Dr. Thug (talk · contribs) edits articles connected to Bosnian and Serbian topics, removing parts that he doesn't like and promoting his point of view. After reverts by other users, he still vandalizes those same pages. With no references or whatsoever he is pointing out that Bosniaks lived in medieval Bosnia, that Mehmed-paša Sokolović was not born Serb but "Orthodox Bosniak" etc., and he removes statements which have references but disagree with his POV. Please check out his contributions. --Djordje D. Bozovic 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Raptornet

User:Raptornet has at several occasions over at least the last several weeks been changing "London" to "London, England" with edit comments such as "I added information about what country this is located in" (example at 7 July 2005 London bombings). Superficially benign, this is obviously a completely unnecessary degree of specificity in a case like this. In the process he has removed other, actually useful, specifics on the location of buildings.[27] [28]

He has also done the same for Paris[29], while doing the opposite for Madrid at 2004 Madrid train bombings, commenting "I took out unnecessary information about what country a major world city is located in".[30]. He has done this on several previous occasions.[31] There is obvious no more reason to specify Madrid as being in Spain than London being in England, as both can be assumed to be common knowledge, but this seems like the wrong way to make that point, if that is indeed the purpose.

Raptornet is wasting the time of everyone else who has to revert his edits. (I noticed while preparing this "report" that the issue has been discussed at the WikiProject for London.) Pharamond 16:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This was arguably a worthwhile disambiguation, since there are many "London"s and many "Paris"s. (But there are also many "Madrid"s.) That is, this isn't vandalism, it's a content dispute. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Raptornet has removed actually useful disambiguating information, as when he changed "Central London" or "City of London" to "London, England". He has removed specific information such as when he changed

Somerset House is a large building situated on the south side of the Strand in central London, overlooking the River Thames, just east of Waterloo Bridge.

to:

Somerset House is a large building located in London, England, overlooking the River Thames.

He is adding information which most readers can be assumed to know (that London is a city in a country called England which by the way is in Europe, Earth, the Solar System, etc.) and removing topographical information and distinctions which are much less likely to be known to people not intimately familiar with London or the various administrative or other divisions in the London area. And, as already pointed out, he has made edits concerning Madrid in the opposite direction. As an administrator has now pointed out on his talk page, this makes it difficult to assume good faith for the other edits.

I never used the word "vandalism" above, and I did not realise that this page was only for reporting vandals. The point is that Raptornet's edits in these cases are clearly counterproductive and time-wasting. Nobody is likely to assume that articles about the British Museum or the Eiffel Tower[32] are about things in London, Kentucky or Paris, Idaho, or that the undisambiguated toponyms are about these places or some other random "London" or "Paris" anywhere in the world or the rest of the universe (there is also an asteroid called Paris). If somebody does, I don't see how adding the country is going to to help. How is anyone to know where "England" or "France" is? After all, the article could be talking about England, Arkansas... Pharamond 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dking personal attacks

In January, Dking was warned by two admins for this comment and this one (see User_talk:Dking#Comments_at_Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche.) Recently, his attacks have become more virulent diff [33]. Dking is pushing his POV, using the Poisoning the Well tactic on talk pages and in edit summaries. For the record, I am not a member of the LaRouche organization, nor am I paid by them. My ex-husband had a subscription to their magazine. Others have complained about Dking's violations of NPA, as well. --Tsunami Butler 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While probably incivil, these edits aren't exactly personal attacks. This appears to be mainly grounded in a content dispute. WP:ANI isn't the right forum for this. Please refer to the dispute resolution procedure. Sandstein 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'd say calling an editor a 'spin doctor for human rights-abusing regimes' is rather incivil. Granted, this is not very serious, but Dking should be warned to be more civil - I'll leave him a note.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon James Klingenschmitt admins needed- people outing users

Please see this. we've got a series of VERY hostile editors trying to "out" anonymous editors feverishly. Can we have some people come in here from an administrative standpoint? Sort of outrageous behavior. - Denny 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there. What's the problem? --Iamunknown 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • How about violations of Wikipedia policy which strictly prohibit posting personal information about others? If I'm not mistaken editors can be blocked without warning for violating this policy. Nardman1 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry, when did that happen? --Iamunknown 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Er, Iamunknown, it's all in the post. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your responses. As to the situation, I don't really see a problem in the context of the situation. Certainly nothing that requires administrative action. There is plenty of precedent for subjects editing their own articles, and what is/is not appropriate. This is the discussion that seems to be ongoing. Keep it on the talk page. Teke 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • I'm not "getting at" anything; I'm genuinely confused. Please, can someone just give me a direct answer, and I will immediately act on it: Where in my post did I reveal personal information? I will immediately redact it. I've read the post over a couple of times and I really don't understand how any part of it revealed personal information. --Iamunknown 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
          • In redacting parts of comments, you also redacted the signature, making it appear that you are the author of what remained. This sets you up to be blamed for those comments. Read the present text as if you didn't know who wrote what, and you might be shocked at what "you" wrote. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think I understand now; it was an oversight on my part and it lead to confusion. I've restored their online handles. --Iamunknown 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nickle Lad

User:Nickle Lad and sock User:Nickel Lad, User:Big Sissy, and User:Choccmoo and a variety of ips editing these pages, are using their user space to host personal web pages, and are claiming copyright on what they write, which violates the GFDL. Nardman1 18:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

• Also threaten real world violence to anyone who violates their copyright. Nardman1 18:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

to be fair, the "real world Violence" is entirely of a jokey nature. --Fredrick day 19:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

They do have copyright over what they write. They just need to agree to license it under the GFDL. Whether we want to keep publishing it or not is an entirely separate question. Jkelly 19:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well the answer to that is surely no? I asked them to remove it thus removing the need for community action but the response to that was em.. removal - I guess it's MFD, no? --Fredrick day 19:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the offending paragraph. It was clearly inappropriate.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:14, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling on Talk:Asperger syndrome

I was told to ask here. An anon using IP addresses beginning 80.212.*.* has been persistently trolling on Talk:Asperger syndrome over the past few weeks [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]. They don't discuss the article, but instead make personal comments about the other posters, or about people with AS (which includes many of the other posters), such as that they should all undergo chemical castration. I have been reverting these edits, but I would like to know whether the page can be semi-protected or something. It is a nuisance that they don't have a fixed IP address. The Wednesday Island 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a shot at WP:RFP. I'm not sure if it qualifies because there doesn't appear to be much vandalism in the history in the past few days, and semi-protection is for that. But give it a shot. x42bn6 Talk 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think semiprotection is the way to go. The talk page is very busy, with lots of anon editors who would be caught up in the semiprotection. Reverting plus short term range blocks are perhaps a better way to deal with him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mewtwowimmer - impersonating admin, impersonating another user

Mewtwowimmer (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfas · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks confirmedsuspected)

This is from a helpme request of User:Squirepants101:

Can I remove the Administrator2 userbox from Mewtwowimmer's userpage because he is not an administrator? He did not a request at WP:RFA. He also impersonated another admin by giving himself a barnstar signed by Glen S. I removed the barnstar from his talk page. Is that also okay?

Here is how he impersonated Glen S.. Squirepants101 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

This edit is when the user added the userbox, which I removed already. CMummert · talk 21:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Here's the cherry on top: the user has a userbox claiming that he is 13 years old. CMummert · talk 21:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I left the user a note pointing out that the userbox has been removed and that it should not be re-added and requesting an explanation. (Please note, however, that there is no inconsistency between being 13 years old and being an administrator.) Newyorkbrad 21:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with being a 13-year-old editor, just as long as no harm is done. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My most notable edits are as follows: adding Teletubbies and My Gym Partner's a Monkey to the list of shows broadcast by Jetix. Want to see? Mewtwowimmer 00:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Um... could someone explain to me why pretending to be an admin when you're not is as terrible as this implies? -Amarkov moo! 00:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

All other things aside, it is a bad thing when your user page contains things like this "Most of my changes are so right that I can edit any page to be 100% accurate and no one can change that." and "I created Wikipedia and Arfenhouse." (I'm removing said lines as we speak) ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the user self-identifies as being ADHD and edits wikipedia to keep his "miniscule attention span" (his words) occupied. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Whether we like it or not being an administrator can be seen as or used as a position of authority. Admins are usually pretty experienced users, and being an administrator shows that you have at least some level of trust from the community. Also, admins have certain abilities that other users do not, and thus non-admins approach admins for help. This is problematic if the person approached is also an inexperienced new user or, even worse, a user with malicious intentions. Lastly, less experienced users frequently do things like posting block messages or protection templates when those tools can not be used. A less experienced user, not knowing where logs are or how to read them, may just take those templates at their word, which isn't good. Natalie 00:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, especially given edits like this: [40] in which the edit sum is "I am the new administrator". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem with pretending to be an administrator is that people may come to you for help that you cannot provide. This user also faked a barnstar gift from another user, which I find more troubling. CMummert · talk 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The users just created an Rfa for themselves with a few personal attacks in (calling other users trolls), on top of claiming to be an admin would anyone support a 24 hour cool down period? There are some good faith edits Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 00:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd support it. I just gave him a "final warning". ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Mewtwowimmer recently added questionable content on Jetix (Germany). He claims that Popeye airs on Jetix (In the United States, it doesn't, it airs on Boomerang. In Germany, Boomerang is available on Pay-TV). Squirepants101 01:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah he also changed the country codes on the list of Jetix shows, and changed what countries air what. He changed the abbreviation for Scandinavia from SC to NU, so pretty clearly unconstructive. He needs to take his ADHD elsewhere.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User Replay7 identifies himself as 10 years old.

According to Replay7's userpage, he is 10 years old. His edits seem to reflect that. What should be done about this? — Kieff | Talk 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain how "his edits seem to reflect" that he is 10 years old. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's see... his areas of interest are consistent with someone who grew up in the late 1990s and early 2000s? —ptk✰fgs 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Any issues with excessive personal info being given out on the userpage, which was a problem, have been sorted. Moreschi ^{Request a recording?} 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

So is he doing anything wrong? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

...other than moving his user and user talk page out of his userspace... —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

He's violated WP:3RR, WP:PROFANITY, WP:OR, and WP:PA. mrholybrain's talk 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Was about to retract my comments after seeing his track record. I say we block him on next violation...but for how long? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Diffs, please. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[41], [42], [43], [44], [45], to name a few. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me try leaving him a note asking him to slow down, read up on policies, etc. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That didn't work, since he reverted all of your changes. So I reverted back and protected the userpage from editing. Will unlock once we get an assurance he will stop editing it to add personal information. If he continues, then block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, he immediately went to RFPP and requested unprotection. I'm suspecting I've been successfully trolled here. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about it, let's just deal with this issue now. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I guess that means decline the unprotection with a paraphrase of WP:CHILD, and tell him to edit something. Note his response to my welcome message; it's also possible he's just in over his head. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Well he stated he's leaving and getting a new account, so I'm don't think there's much else to do. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Landau7 -- Request for Community Ban, Along With Several Sockpuppets

I have already written a sock puppet report on this individual at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Landau7 but was recommended by an admin to bring it to WP:ANI because the sockpuppet page isn't monitored enough. This seemed the most appropriate category to post it under.

I would recommend that the report itself be checked out, where the majority of my arguments are listed. Actually, someone in the family of one of the sock puppets admitted to me in private e-mail (of their own volition) that this was indeed going on, but I would like to ask their permission before I quote them as a source.

I myself am a biased source for the article in question (Mishpachah Lev-Tsiyon) so stopped editing it. I have likewise ceased contributing to the talk page until this issue gets resolved. While I made a mistake of classifying one of the user's as the group's leader (this mistake came about when I noticed the group's compound's IP making most of the heavy edits and I assumed they were the same due to similar phraseology -- I later apologized when I discovered they had a similar editing history), it would seem the group's leader (the one behind the "anon" IP) tried to contextually pose as an admin and then continued to character assassinate me on the talk page. I only noted his IP because of his own bias.

Anyway, please feel free to check the report I filed above (I will be updating there instead of here unless this poses a problem). It goes into better detail than I can on here. Thanks! Drumpler 23:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Curious

I was wondering if I should move the discussion on the report page mentioned above to this page? Which would be easier for the admins? Drumpler 05:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team tag deletion problem

Resolved

I'm experiencing a problem with a number of editors repeatedly removing a {{Notability}} tag from an article. Several editors, including myself, have some serious concerns about the notability of the article Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); these are summarised at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions. However, only one person has provided a substantive reply and he also thinks the article's subject isn't notable. Other editors have argued that the subject is notable, but they have mostly declined to explain why, other than appealing to the number of Google hits (e.g. [46]).

Unfortunately, several editors acting in a tag-team have now taken to repeatedly deleting the {{Notability}} tag as a means of shutting down a debate which they apparently don't want to have ([47], [48], [49]). I'd appreciate it if someone could intervene to prevent this tag-removing-tag-team-edit-warring and have a word with the editors involved (Leifern (talk · contribs · count), PinchasC (talk · contribs · count) and Jaakobou (talk · contribs · count)). (Disclaimer: I'm an admin myself, but rather than going through back channels I prefer to deal with this on the record.) -- ChrisO 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've waddled into the debate and told them not to remove the tag until discussion is complete, and not during or after because it is in good faith. I don't think it needs any more attention other than a few more comments - which can be done via a request for comment. x42bn6 Talk 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, an RfC is the next step given the lack of responsiveness. As for the tag, I can't restore it due to 3RR - could you sort it out? -- ChrisO 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have restored the tag and shall block any users who attempt to tag-team remove it for edit waring (until talkpage discussion is complete). Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. It's regrettable, but unfortunately not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I've flagged this as resolved (hopefully). -- ChrisO 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems like (Catchpole (talk · contribs · count) and (ChrisO (talk · contribs · count) are tag teaming by repeatedly adding the notability tag. This has recently gone thru AFD and that is enough to keep the tag off the page. Adding the tag seems to be a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, the reverting by Betacommand to ChrisO's version and then threatening to block anyone that disagrees with him does not seem too neutral. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the notability questions were a followup to the AfD. The very first two sentences of Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions make this clear: "I'd like to return to an issue that came up during the recent AfD discussion: the question of notability. Several of the contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject of the article was notable, but without explaining why." The questions are significant, substantiated and asked in good faith; as x42bn6 says on the talk page, "This is a legitimate concern with a legitimate policy." An AfD does not end debate on a question like this, particularly when the AfD results in no consensus. I'm trying to find a consensus on the notability issue, following the inconclusive AfD. Personally I think it's very significant that those asserting notability have avoided answering the questions, as that goes right to the heart of whether we should have the article in the first place. -- ChrisO 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, ChrisO, if you're going to lodge a complaint against me on the Administrators' noticeboard, I think it would be courteous to notify me of this action on my Talk page. Secondly, the tagging is, as I pointed out on the article's Talk page, without merit. It hinges entirely on the premise that the article is about a term. This premise has been thoroughly rejected - the article is about the phenomenon the term describes. In fact, ChrisO and other editors have made several efforts to delete or gut this article, all of which have failed, and this is but the most recent, namely which is to reduce the scope of the article to the point that it's meaningless and then question its notability. I'm not going to run afoul with the admin noticeboard by removing the tag, but I want to put on record a strong objection against this sort of behavior. --Leifern 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Heather Wilson

DailyKos.com dug up a 14-year-old child molesting allegation against Jay Hone, the husband of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), three weeks before an election. As secretary of the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson moved the investigative file from one location to another within the department. Political enemies have been trying to get mileage out of it ever since, and DailyKos.org dug it up three weeks before the election.

Despite these smear tactics, Wilson won re-election and now a Wikipedia editor wants to reward their efforts by permanently enshrining them in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Hone was never arrested or charged with any crime and the county prosecutor, a Democrat, admitted in a 1996 interview that Wilson broke no law by moving the file.

My efforts to enforce WP:BLP have been met with accusations of vandalism. Please help. Kzq9599 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the article talk page. Some of the Wilson material is problematic (though comments about a current, unrelated investigation seem to be more reasonable). My view is that the reports of the allegations against Mr. Hone, who is not asserted to be a public figure, raise very serious BLP issues and should not stay in the article. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

DailyKos is a reputable blog. Further, since there was an interview, the allegation is verifiable. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A reputable blog? I do enjoy blogs, but none are universally acknowledged as "reputable;" Daily Kos, a font of overtly partisan agitation, is far from an exception.Proabivouac 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blogs are not reliable sources. As Atrios would say, a simple answer to a simple question. ;-) -- ChrisO 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect according to WP:RS: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Considering the field on Daily Kos is politics, and its contributors include John Kerry, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, and about a hundred more senators, congressmen, major presidential candidates, etc....I'd say that burden is met. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Did Barack Obama author the allegations against Heather Wilson, or was it one of hundreds of unsourced anonymous people writing for Daily Kos whose credibility is indeterminate? -- TedFrank 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has said anything about who authored them. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

A reputable allegation on Daily Kos will be repeated in a reliable source. A smear from an anonymous poster that can't be confirmed will not. This isn't like Josh Marshall posted this on Talking Points Memo and vouched for his reporting. If there isn't a name to place to the source, then it might as well be lonelygirl16, and equally unreliable. -- TedFrank 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a side comment, that really cracked me up; I got one of those lonelygirl spams about 5 minutes ago. Made the example rather vivid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See below. There are multiple sources.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

CNN is not universally acknowledged to be "reputable" either. As for notability, Daily Kos has an article entry, which states "Daily Kos has an average weekday traffic of about 600,000 visits,[1] and has between 14 million and 24 million visits per month". The list of contributors on the page is equally impressive. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 00:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The difference between CNN and Daily Kos is well described at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - basically it boils down to the fact that the mainstream media operate with editorial oversight by professional journalists. It doesn't mean that the output will be to everybody's liking, but the fact is that bloggers aren't generally regarded as authoritative in anything like the same way that the media is. -- ChrisO 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say they were the same. I said that the argument that it's not "reputable" is conjecture.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The pertinent argument is that it's not reliable, rather than not reputable. Reputability is in the eye of the beholder. Reliability is something we have an entire policy on. And that policy is quite clear that Daily Kos (and Red State and all the other political blogs) are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Except as I noted above, when it's published by a notable expert in the field.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, we don't have to worry about settling that debate here; the reliable sources in question are the Albuquerque Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, KOAT TV, and other established news organizations that picked up the story from places like Daily Kos and did their own verification. Is anyone questioning those organizations' status as reliable sources? -Pete 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't. If the established newsies are reporting it, go right ahead. -- ChrisO 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The established newsies are also saying that District Attorney Bob Schwartz, a Democrat, says no laws were broken; that the DailyKos "resurfacing" of these allegations three weeks before the election resulted in some astroturfing phone calls to the Albuquerque Tribune; and that the police report about Jay Hone has been a public record at the Albuquerque Police Department for 14 years. The mainstream media have reacted responsibly to DailyKos political chicanery. Kzq9599 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why current editors of the page in question, including you and me, are basing the current revision more closely on what's reported in the mainstream media, and why citations of DailyKos have been removed. The process you set in place is working; let's let this request for admin intervention go, and focus on the content. -Pete 03:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. I suggest that editors review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Thatcher131 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Milk (restored as ongoing)

Repeated addition of the same, off-topic and, I believe, trolling question to Talk:Milk. Andy Mabbett 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and will notify the user. Even if the question is real, it is off-topic. Wikipedia is not a help desk. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

On-going, wth fake replies [50]. Andy Mabbett

I had the same odd request some time ago: diff. Prodego took care of this sock according to the block log.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry it seems there were two talk page trolls at Talk:Milk...another story I guess.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And I thought milk was so innocent and nutritious. :) Prodego ^talk 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To quote from the previous link:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

At SSP

A user, Dereks1x (talk · contribs), is not very happy that I have opened a suspected sock puppet case about him. Not only has the user attempted to obscure[51] [52] the evidence presented (despite a warning that comments on the evidence should be placed in the comments section), but he has now blanked a comment by a third party.[53] I started the SSP case, thus the advice or action of an uninvolved admin would be helpful here, as I believe Dereks1x is becoming disruptive. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the user just left this comment at my talk page as an explanation for the comment blanking. · j e r s y k o talk · 01:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you're pretty sure, take it to WP:RFCU. Given all the wikilawyering Derek is engaging in, I don't think anything but checkuser will end this. Natalie 01:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Got a second recommendation to do the same. Will do now. Thanks. · j e r s y k o talk · 02:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredia Gibbs= Martial Arts Expert, ISKA Kickboxing Champion & 2 xMauy Thai

To whom this may concern:

I need your help i am a representative of fredia gibbs we added her biography and fighting history and it was deleted in error. How may when add the above background acheievements for my clients? Please advise

Thank You, Team Gibbs

Please feel free to reply at cheetasden AT msn DOT com

There is no deleted history for Fredia Gibbs, Freida Gibbs, or Fredia gibbs. Under what title did you create the article you want us to re-evaluate? Jkelly 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this edit is the one in question. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yet More Sockpuppets

user:Serafin has yet again created more sockpuppets which he has been using to vandalize the recovered territories article. Numerous admins (I know of atleast 4) have blocked him previously, can something more permanent not be set up?

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

--Jadger 02:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Garnekk blocked, fits his naming pattern.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  02:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

what of the IP address? why wasnt it blocked also? using random IPs seems to also be his style, and should be blocked also.

--Jadger 02:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Flojo2008 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

Made a fairly egregious personal attack/vandalism to a user's page, and have a history of vandalism, so I've given them a 48 hour block. That sound about right? Here's] the attack, and there's a string of warnings on their user page. They don't seem to have been blocked before, and have some good edits, so I didn't want to go any further than 48 hours. Sound about right? Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sardonicone

After this user remooved the {{sprotected}} tag from Candy (s/he is not an admin), several users politely told him/her about it. Said discussion seemed to go nowhere, so I left him/her a warning to be on the safe side. Now, s/he is removing warnings from his/her own talk page. Is that allowed? Anthony Rupert 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings is generally allowed. One can assume that the user has thus seen the warning. Natalie 02:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How to go about a userpage violation

Willren (talk · contribs) has done naught else than leave personal messages on their talkpage. I've already warned them, and they went ahead and did it again. Judging by the history, I suspect it is an account shared by a couple. I don't think they realize that their dialogue is public. So....what does one do now? Another warning? An MFD? Or should it just be speedied? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy it under nonsense or something. And report the user to WP:AIV. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• It is inappropriate, but it doesn't fit the nonsense bill or the definition of vandalism. Either MFD or speedy deletion for violation of the userpage policy. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Use of admin tools in content dispute

An administrator, ChrisO, has protected an image after twice reverting changes ([54],[55]). I don't think it is either fair or in line with policy for him to use his tools to enforce a specific position in a content dispute to which he is party, and I was hoping that the image could be unprotected and ChrisO reminded of the limitations and responsibilities that he was entrusted with. If I am in error about this, please let me know. Tewfik^Talk 05:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly a violation of policy which states "admins should not protect pages when they are involved as a party to the dispute, except in the case of simple vandalism or libel issues against living people." - and not the first time that this admin has abused this admin tool - see for example this - moved a page name to his favored version, after previously editing the article as a party to the name dispute, and then protecting the page on his favored version. Isarig 05:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is a map of both Israeli and Palestinian territories (to my eyes), the use of his tools in this way seems inappropriate. He was personally involved in the edit war and should have asked for a mediator to take a look at things. You are in the right. Philip Gronowski ^Contribs 05:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Clear abuse of administrator tools. He protected right after reverting to his explicitly stated preferred version.--Jersey Devil 05:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have informed ChrisO that this discussion is in progress so he can explain his actions. For my part, I agree with others here that this protection was inappropriate given that the user was in a dispute on the page in question. Heimstern Läufer 05:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I can understand why ChrisO protected it himself rather than go through the time involved in going through the normal process. Tewfik and others were repeatedly removing maps from several map categories, and then putting speedy-delete notices on them. Discussion was futile. Tewfik never accepted the reasons for the existence of the map categories. These are the same map category names as are used in wikimedia commons. All Tewfik's questions were answered, yet he and others continued to delete all images in a couple categories and put them up for speedy deletes. The categories in question were Category:Maps of the Palestinian territories and Category:Maps of the history of the Palestinian territories. Admin tools were being incorrectly used in speedy deleting these categories. Because the categories still contain subcategories even when all the images are removed. See WP:CSD#Categories. It states: "Empty categories (no articles or subcategories for at least four days) whose only content has consisted of links to parent categories." See the image and category talk pages for more info and discussion: Image talk:Israel.png. See also my user talk page. So there may be multiple levels of admin problems. I think the more serious is the incorrect speedy-deleting of the categories. There were additional links I had to rebuild from scratch when recreating the categories. I really don't care what the name of the map category is. I just wish this constant name changing, category deletion, and image category reclassification would end. I now find out today that some people object to the name Palestinian territories. See Category talk:Maps of the Palestinian territories# Criteria for inclusion in this category. A comment excerpt: "Not to mention that 'Palestinian territories' is a POV term anyway, particularly if it is connected to a map that shows all of the West Bank and part of Jerusalem as 'Palestinian territories'." Are we going to delete this wikipedia page: Palestinian territories? If "Palestinian territories" is not correct, then tell me the official wikipedia names to be used. Don't the UN and wikipedia and the most of the world use the phrase "Palestinian territories"? We have map categories for Hawaii, the Bahamas, etc.. They are all the most common names in English for these land groupings. So why not the Palestinian territories? -Timeshifter 07:22, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see that any of this justifies protecting a page on which one was invloved in a content dispute. If ChrisO felt it needed to be protected, he should have listed it on WP:RFPP and let an uninvolved admin do the protecting. Heimstern Läufer 07:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

As the creator and original categoriser of the image (which is actually on the Commons - this dispute is over its categorisation on the English Wikipedia) I was surprised and frustrated to see it becoming a battleground for other editors, particularly some who I've seen being involved in POV edit wars in the past. I hadn't been involved in Timeshifter's categorisation project in the English Wikipedia, so I regarded myself as an outside party in his dispute with Tewfik; it was in that capacity that I protected the article to stop a futile edit war so that the matter could be discussed on the talk page. If I misinterpreted my status in the dispute I apologise - I've unprotected the image. But I strongly advise that Tewfik shouldn't remove the tag again - I've explained on the talk page my criteria for categorising it as I did on the Commons [56]. -- ChrisO 08:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If you are were an 'outside party', then how could you characterise as a "a futile edit war" the reversion of three established editors by one other editor (Timeshifter)? Just be more careful in the future. Tewfik^Talk 14:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I find it somewhat hard to believe that you could have considered yourself completely uninvolved in the dispute.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

You can believe what you like. I've stated the facts as I saw them. -- ChrisO 08:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, ChrisO, that helps. Heimstern Läufer 08:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem, always happy to clarify. Admins make mistakes - we all do - and we're accountable to the community for our actions. I think the most important thing is how we respond when we're held accountable. In this instance, I've promptly acknowledged making an error; I've apologised to the community; and I've reversed the action. I don't think there's anything else I can add to the discussion. -- ChrisO 11:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, I hope that you can add a bit more to the discussion. Yes, mistakes do happen. However, I have difficulty with the idea that you believe you can be in any way an “outside party” when protecting an image you created; also, protecting immediately after reverting the image to the "right" version has been more than frowned upon (to say the least) in these pages again and again, as I’m sure you’re aware. What you’ve done strikes me as being a clear and deliberate violation, yet you've responded with "If I misinterpreted my status in the dispute I apologise". Perhaps you could just go back and strike out the "If," and promise to be more careful in the future. Is that reasonable? IronDuke 15:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ChrisO did the same thing at Talk:Gibraltar, locking a talk page over 3 weeks ago after being party to a dispute so this is nothiong knew from this admin and one wonders if he is acting with the interests of wikipedia as his proiiority, SqueakBox 15:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree on that, he was determined to enforce a point of view that Gibraltar should form part of Wikipedia project Spain, which is strongly disputed, and went as far as creating a 'Wikipedia project Gibraltar' which nobody really wanted and which had no support. There was no discussion, just his POV imposed by force. --Gibnews 16:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Troll, sockpuppetry, attacks, vandalism, and threatening another user.

Hello. A friend (No longer, see why) of mine recently pointed out a page he had made on wikipedia, Xenoharbingers, over MSN. While I had known he vandalised wikipedia, I did not know his account, and I didn't much care. When he pointed this out, I noticed it already had an AFD tag on it, so I put a speedy delete comment on the AFD informing them of what had happened. Sometime afterwards, using sockpuppetry, and possibly proxies and meatpuppetry, he made edits to try to make a claim of validity, using 89.220.75.184 (talk · contribs) Adonaii (talk · contribs)Kendra Ardnek (talk · contribs)206.255.19.22 (talk · contribs)69.76.159.94 (talk · contribs), and possibly other accounts as well. While this was annoying, I just added another comment on his sockpuppetry, and left it at that.

Though I was planning on just letting wikipedia run it's AFD course to prove to him it would get deleted, as he has expressed contempt for Wikipedia before and this is not the first page he has created about himself, a few minutes ago he logged on to MSN, and the following conversation ensused:

(names censored)

01:47:36AM>> [Him] Listen the fuck up, kid.

01:47:45AM>> [Him] You're wearing my patience very, fucking thin.

01:47:46AM>> [Him] I Am this far from getting you defcon'd.

<...>

01:51:14AM>> [Him] I'm an officer in defcon.

<...>

01:52:11AM>> [Me] And you think this will harm me, how?

01:52:17AM>> [Him] <...> Well first off, How would your mum like if you got a /b/omb when she's watching, opening random /b/ pages?

What about formatting your harddrive? or DDoSing your connection down every 2 minutes with a script?

<...>

01:53:50AM>> [Him] I'm sure you value your internets connection too

(I commented on the fact that even if he did format my HDD, it wouldn't matter as i'm getting a new PC soon)<...>

01:54:12AM>> [Him] Don't want to get your new PC fucked up then do you?

01:56:22AM>> [Him] I'll get destroy your FFXI account. If i ever see you on my wiki page again. You're fucked. Bye now, "friend". Just a friendly warning. Don't let me see it again.

While i'm not terribly concerned over his threats, blatently harassing another wikipedia user and theatening to damage their personal property is still very serious, and he needs to learn that the world doesn't revolve around him, and that wikipedia will not put up with his nonsense... And neither will I. -- feb^talk 07:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty serious...I don't see anything that can be done for his physical threats. If he's vandalising pages and threatening you on wikipedia, just ignore it and get a admin to block his account and ip indefin. from wikipedia. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 07:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He can't actually physically damage your harddrive, by the way. Just another b-tard with delusions of grandeur. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 16:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, sounds like a trollish teen, a common enough occurence. WP:DFTT = ignore him, other than clean up his vandalism; if he pesters you on Wiki, we will continue to block him until he gets borded and goes away. If he pesters you elsewhere, block his MSN/email/etc. Also, one thing you could do if this gets more annoying is to contact his ISP provider with the above information; a threat to cut of his net access should quiet him down.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  17:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Bad faith AfD

Remember this? Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive217#Banned User:Israelbeach mounting concerted AfD POV-push? Well, now this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Jazeera. Of course, User:Kinnernetgal was already listed as a suspected sockpuppet of Israelbeach Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Israelbeach#Suspected Sockpuppets#Not blocked. --woggly 07:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy closed; blocked indefinitely. El_C 07:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet case, request for block

As per [57], it has been confirmed that User:Artaxerex and User:Faranbazu have resorted to sockpuppetry and have violated 3RR in this manner. As the violation is now confirmed I'd like to ask an administrator to please block these accounts if that is deemed appropriate. Shervink 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Artaxerex blocked for 48 hours. Faranbazu blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. Heimstern Läufer 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Parrotman

I found this user's talkpage as a result of a user category which the user created, to notify its speedy deletion due to G10. The user's page and talk page is filled with civility warnings, and looking through the user's contributions list, I see more of the same in edit summaries. I've not been in direct discussion with this user as of yet, so I thought I'd bring it before you all. After myriad warnings, perhaps a block is in order? Or at least a clearly worded warning making it clear that blocking or banning may be around the corner? - jc37 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 09:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, beyond the users vandalism, I deleted his user page because it was filled with userboxes with text like "This user does not care about black people" and "This user believes that women shouldn't vote". Vandal and nonsense only account. IrishGuy ^talk 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Disruption vs vandalism

At what point does persistent disruptive editing, after many warnings, become vanadalism? Does it ever do so? Can a block be imposed, or do we just have to put up with it? I'm not clear on any of these questions, partly because I've seen them answered in different ways at diferent times and on different Talk pages.

For example User:Charoog10 has for weeks (probably much longer) been reverting articles to his own notions of correct format (everything from capitalising all words in headers to turning standard lists in to ornate tables), removing templates like {{unreferenced}} without explanation, moving articles from correct to incorrect titles (without correcting double redirects or editing the article in line with the new name), etc. He simply ignores all advice, explanation, and warnings from various editors and admins.

Now, do we all just keep clearing up after him, leaving comments at his Talk page for him to ignore, or is there a point at which we apply a block in the hope that the enforeced rest from misbehaving will make him think again? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 09:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this particular user, so this is just a general comment in response to your opening questions. Edits don't have to be defined as vandalism to be blockable. The blocking policy very clearly allows for blocks for disruption. Sarah 10:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

True — but if one is involved, or not an admin, then is it OK to list disruption at WP:AIV? --Mel Etitis (Talk) 10:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd think here is probably a better place, post a few diffs of the disruptive behavior and attempts to reason with the user, etc. AIV is more just for simple cases of blatant vandalism, something more complex would probably require more explanation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Then perhaps I could use this opportunity to ask for another pair of eyes on Charoog10 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? I'll come here first in future. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That's vandalism, not just disruption. Take Image:Headstrong at.jpg, an album cover which has been edited to make Ashley Tisdale look at least 100 lbs. heavier. ShadowHalo 12:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I've deleted it under CSD criteria G10. I'd also note that the real image was deleted by me a day or two ago as having no fair use rationale for however many days. It was reuploaded again with no rationale and again deleted. It was being added to the artists article as part of a gallery (as well as the albums article), which is outside of fair use anyway as it involves no critical commentary. --pgk 13:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for three days. Looking at his userpage, talk page and through his contributions, he looks frighteningly like another User:Nathannoblet and I think we might want to nip it in the bud asap. I was going to block him for a shorter period but he had previously been blocked for 24 hours for refusing to respond to talk messages (something that appears to still be a problem) and that didn't seem to touch the sides, so hopefully a bit longer will help get the message through. Sarah 13:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks all. I hadn't seen the Image:Headstrong at.jpg issue... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need sanity check on BLP concern

I believe that the following information [58] placed into the Every Nation article is rather inappropriate-it reveals a couple of people's personal finances, and appears to be largely original research "sourced" to a PDF of a tax document uploaded to a filesharing site. At any rate, it doesn't seem terribly appropriate to discuss people's personal finances in an article about their organization. However, as I've been involved with this page before, I would appreciate if someone involved could please review my reasoning, and if appropriate ask Osakadan not to re-add it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• See Talk:Every Nation. Uncle G 12:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Qxz

I have concerns regarding the userpage of this editor. Apparently, he's putting insults on his userpage, saying Wikipedia's a waste of time. Seriously I have no idea what to do. --KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have concerns too. He's db-usered his entire userspace, opposed every RfA running, and was blocked in an attempt to make them calm down. I'm also concerned at the length of time the editor in question spent editing Wikipedia: after 24 straight hours of edits (with breaks no longer than 2 hours) within the last 2 days, I'd suggest that the cause for the behaviour may be that the editor in question is short on sleep. --ais523 10:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there must be a deeper reason than that. Some people even say he's quitting wikipedia. Maybe something happened on an IRC channel...--KZ ^{Talk • Vandal • Contrib} 10:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He got booted from a channel fyi, but seriously, I think he needs a break. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 10:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

←There is still some activity on the talk page. Doesn't appear that he is gone, more like waiting for people to comment so they can blank the page again. I think this may be exacerbating the situation somewhat. Bubba hotep 12:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think he needs to give himself a break, and needs everyone else to give him a break. Certainly his posts have been increasingly irritable over the past few days (he really bit someone's head off a few days ago when they asked him about adminship). Everyone just give him a rest. – Riana ^talk 13:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

3RR and WP:NPA violation by User:Deathrocker

Reposting thread originally lodged on WP:AN/3RR on advice of admin who commented This isn't a simple case of 3RR... I suggest talking it to WP:ANI.

• Begin 3rr thread

User:Deathrocker is currently on 3rr probation, which he has just violated on Heavy metal music. Diffs: one, two. Personal attacks included in edit summarys. Editor was recently blocked for similar behaviour on the same page. Ceoil 11:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I removed simple vandalism by user:Ceoil who purposly attacked my edits to the article[59], blanking information which has seven sources, including ones from Allmusic.com and Rolling Stone. Ceoil stalked me to this article and defaced my work, because he has a grudge against me, as I corrected templates on some images he uploaded a few weeks back. (for example) I find his obsesive behaviour in regards to sitting around refreshing my contributions page every minute of the day, rather worrying... since leaving this message, Ceoil has now followed me to other users pages I left a message on. Scary. - Deathrocker 11:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

My edits to the article predate his template corrections. Re:"stalked me", the user has now made four WP:PA in the last half hour. Deathrocker's habit is to go through the log files of users he has a content dispute with, and dispute templates. Ceoil 11:37, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The diffs show otherwise, you commited the above simple vandalism/blanking against my work today, and violated WP:Harassment. The image template correction date is 4 March 2007.[60] - Deathrocker 12:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a simple case of 3RR... I suggest talking it to WP:ANI. --Deskana (talk) 11:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• End 3rr thread Ceoil 11:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Further revert here . Ceoil 12:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

No comment about content, you two are splitting hairs far too finely for someone not a Metal expert to have an opinion about. Personally, I can't tell the difference between your two preferred versions. However, Deathrocker, you are not on an even footing here, which you really should know. Due to the arbcom ruling, you can't revert war at all. It's a bad idea for everyone, but for you, it's a blockable offense. Sorry, but you really should be aware of this, you've got half a dozen blocks listed on that arbitration case. Please try to settle it by discussion, rather than edit warring. In fact, that's how you have to settle it. The arbcom restriction clearly means any edit war, you will lose. Your good behaviour needs to be enforced.

By the way "reverting vandalism" isn't an excuse here, Wikipedia: Vandalism needs to be pretty clear, someone inserting gibberish, blanking swathes of the page, that sort of thing. This is just moving information around, reformatting, and changing cites - both versions have cites. This is clearly a content dispute, and not vandalism. I hate to do this for so long, for a well meaning editor, but your last block was for 72 hours earlier this month. Looks like it needs to be a week this time. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree. The edits aren't so blatantly vandalism that I think an exception can be made here, given that you've had problems in this area in the past. Natalie 15:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Accountready

Why has this persistent vandal been blocked for a week only? He came off his block and immediately vandalized many pages, including his talk page, violating a warning I had given him to cease and desist blanking the warnings from his page. Nardman1 12:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that this was a standard block escalation, first one day, then one week ... but something about his contributions looked familiar. He reminded me a lot of a sock puppet case I closed: Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Enlighter1. So I dug a bit, and noticed his very first contribution was a request to unblock him. Very strange. Seems he was autoblocked per User talk:84.114.131.26 ... which is an IP address never to be unblocked because it is used by, guess who, Enlighter1. Bang. That's conclusive enough for me. Indefinite block. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good, I'm glad someone recognized this. Great job. Natalie 15:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Nardman, please understand that currently there is no consensus supporting the idea that deleting warnings from your own talk page is vandalism. Your warning: "Do not blank warnings from your talk page, as you did today. It will lead to your immediate block," is quite empty because it is not backed up by policy or community consensus. Sarah 15:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Straight Newberry

User:Straight Newberry - personal and obscene attacks on User:Stirling Newberry at Talk:Contemporary art

Diffs:

• First
• Second

Account appears to be created for the sole purpose of making personal attacks. --sparkit^TALK 12:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user indefinitely for personal attacks (come on, even the account name is just to attack Stirling). Open to inspection from other users. – Riana ^talk 13:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good block. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

124.168.243.82 vandalized Tom Russell page

All these edits on the Russell article were cause by the user of this IP address 124.168.243.82 last night. Not a single useful edit, just destryoing information other had compiled.--VeronikaMM 13:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this is too stale to block, given when their vandalism stopped. The IP address has probably changed by now and anyway, blocking is intended to prevent disruption. Natalie 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, understand. Thanks, anyway. --VeronikaMM 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Users Ripman and Burori

Resolved

 – blocked

I'm not clear on what's going on with these users, but Ripman and Burori each are fond of blanking their talk pages to remove vandal warnings and might be engaging in sock puppetry. In any case, Ripman is a sophisticated vandal who's managed to engage in hit and run vandalism since December without getting blocked. I'm almost ready to report them for vandalism and they certainly bear watching. Rickterp 13:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Look like vandalism-only accounts that have escaped attention until now. What's to watch and why wait? I can see trolling, attacks on other edits, and vandalism. An indefinite block seems the obvious answer, but I'm sure they'll be back. Burori managed to find his way to AIV, which suggests a certain familiarity with Wikipedia. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked, but Angus is may be right that they'll be back. Sigh. Natalie 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Main page unprotected?!

Check the history... the main page was recently deleted (?!?!) and then recreated without being protected. I managed to get one revert of a vandal in before it was reprotected about 5 minutes later... but what happened? —Dark•Shikari^[T] 15:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently a mistake. [61] Trebor 15:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Everything should be restored and reprotected now. Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to be one of those things. I saw a sysop block himself indefinitely once (and someone once accidentally blocked Jimbo). These things happen. Mackensen (talk) 15:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How could an ip address edit the page twice? is the question that begs [62] and [63], SqueakBox 15:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The protection lapsed upon restore, it's fixed now. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Like Mackensen says, one of those things. Those buttons are really close together, and when the page is loading, sometimes they move! I don't want to start a whole anecdote thread here, but I've accidentally been blocked indefinitely by a totally able admin. I don't hold it against him... Until I really need to :) Bubba hotep 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[conflict, conflict, conflict]

See log and history. The Main Page was deleted (accidentally) at 15:15; restored (unprotected) at 15:18; vandalised twice, at 15:19 and 15:20; and then protected, once at 15:21 and twice at 15:22.

Move along, now, citizen - there is nothing to see here. -- ALoan (Talk) 15:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Except to point out in 1 min one user discovered it was unlocked and made an obvious vandalism. Phew! SqueakBox 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandals are quick; I wish they put that sort of efficiency into constructive editing. Acalamari 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked myself for vandalism before, totally by accident. These things happen. No big deal. --Deskana (talk) 18:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Navdeep Bains and a Canadian House of Commons IP

It looks like an IP from the Canadian House of Commons is blanking a "controversy" section on Navdeep Bains (possibly Bains himself). Here's the crosspost from WP:AIV

• 192.197.82.203 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - Vandalism on Navdeep Bains (diff) after final warning. - Denny 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• Note: This IP matches the mask (192.197.80.0/22) in my special IP list which is marked as: "Government of Canada - See Wikipedia:Sensitive IP addresses for important information before blocking" HBC AIV helperbot 15:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked them for 3 hours explaining that they were removing content from Navdeep Bains. I'll post on comcom. alphachimp 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Alright, thanks--Wafulz 15:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, what's comcom? Excuse my ig'nance. Natalie 15:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikimedia foundation communications committee. We're supposed to contact them when blocking IP addresses with pr implications. alphachimp 15:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Check. Natalie 15:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• If I recall, this particular IP (which has from time to time in the past been a source of both trouble and up-to-date information) is the one for the Parliamentary Press room (where reporters have shared space and computer access). Bucketsofg 16:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• • I've emailed ComCom informing them of this block. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 16:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Invalid page moves on User:Luna Santin

User:NeutralObserver has gone around moving Luna Santin's userpage from place to place (he's now indef blocked), I've attempted to fix it, but it's got me confused so could someone else try and restore Luna's page? Cheers Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It seems to have been fixed by User:Misza13. Natalie 16:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

ah yes, cheers for looking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Socks of banned User:Ararat arev

Could someone please do something about Ararat arev's sockpuppets on Armenia. The page is semi-protected, he just has a large supply of sockpuppets (or so he would have us believe) and there aren't enough people to just keep reverting him indefinitely and stay within 3RR at the same time. See the history of the article to grasp the extent of the problem.--Domitius 16:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Report obvious socks to WP:AIV. Reversion of a banned user's edits is not subject to 3RR. Technically, Ararat arev is blocked indef, not banned, but I sure wouldn't block anyone on 3RR with as obvious of disruption as he's causing. Maybe it's about time to discuss an actual ban on this guy? Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Another absurd sock accusation from Curious Gregor

In response to SSP against him: first this, now this. Disruptive, bad-faith accusations,request block. Pete.Hurd 16:31, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for disruption, any more stunts like that and the next one will be a lot longer. I'm tempted to delete the pages as G10's. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

SSP case closed as a frivolous filing. Newyorkbrad 16:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have deleted the cases myself. They were completely and utterly retaliatory.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand questionable blocking

Pallywood has been subject to vigorous debate about its existence, its notability as a topic, its scope and subject matter, etc. Anyone who reads the Talk page and related pages will quickly find that one group of editors wants the article gutted or deleted; another wants to keep it. After these various discussions, one editor chose to slap a Notability tag on the article, though it was clearly established through the AFD and other discussions that the article and its topic is indeed notable. Betacommand has taken it upon himself to enforce this POV edit by threatening anyone who removes this tag with immediate blocking, and has followed through on that threat[64]. While there clearly continue to be content disputes on this topic, admin sanctions are inappropriate here. I would ask that Betacommand be directed to mediate on a more constructive and less partisan basis, and that Jaakobou's block be lifted immediately. --Leifern 16:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I find Betacommand's actions here very troubling. I'm hoping that Betacommand realizes his actions have over-stepped his authority, and that other admins won't have to unblock for him. It would be much better if Betacommand did so himself. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ill tell you why I blocked the user. plain and simple edit waring. I left a note on the talk page yesterday clearly stating that until issues were resolved on the talk page there was to be no edit war removal of the tag. I also stated that anyone who does remove it before the discussion was finished would be blocked for edit waring see WP:NOT. I dont care one way or another about the tag. it was edit waring. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 16:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

But User:Jaakobou has only made 3 edits in the past 4 days to it, am I missing something? Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

(ec) That's not the kind of ultimatum we should be making. Betacommand, I suggest 'again that you refrain from blocking other editors- period. Your judgment on when it's appropriate to do so has been questioned many times, and you have shown no sign of being more conservative in your actions. Friday (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I strongly question your judgement here, Betacommand. Please unblock the editor in question, and recuse yourself from "policing" this article. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There are a group of users who are in the middle of a content dispute on that tag. I wanted to stop the edit war and left a note on the talk page hoping to stop the war and promote discussion, Instead Jaakobou ignores the issue and continues the dispute. that is why I blocked Jaakobou. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)}

There are several users warring over this tag. It hardly seems equitable to block only Jaakobou. Allow me to add my voice to those calling for this block to be lifted and for Betacommand to use more restraint with the block button. Heimstern Läufer 17:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand, you're one of the users who is taking part in the dispute; you've restored the tag twice yourself. You therefore can't block any of the other disputants. Please unblock Jaakobou. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support the unblock (that should be done by Betacommand himself), as per Friday and Jayjg' comments. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 17:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support unblock per above. Seems another example of v poor judgment to have blocked only one side. WjBscribe 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

He shouldn't have blocked either side. :-) He's involved in the dispute. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Support an unblock as well. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Now unblocked Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a message at Betacommand's Talk page making similar points. My own feeling is that he ought to be blocked, and Jaakobou unblocked; he clearly isn't going to acknowledge his error [I was wrong about part of that; he's not admitting his error, but he has unblocked Jaakobou]. Looking at Betacommand's history, I don't really see how he can be held to be a safe pair of hands for admins' tools. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 17:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

• There have been many incursions recently, and historically. Look at his block log, he has been blocked multiple time for unathorized bot use, and has not learned. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would have blocked any user who continued to edit war regardless of the side. I have unblocked Jaakobou but someone needs to stop the edit war on that page. I don't care about that page except to stop the edit waring. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was contintuous close to 3RR infringements by a user over a number of days I could have understood, but this was nothing of the sort, protection may have been the answer but not blocking Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

←Looking at it, protection did not even seem too appropriate. Over the last week, there were generally 5 or less edits per day with one day having 1 edit. May be a dispute but not hardcore edit warring. I would have had to see alot more action to protect there and have a valid WP:3RR violation to block. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Some background is needed here. Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) recently went through an inconclusive AfD discussion, which resulted in no consensus. Several of the editors who voted to keep it asserted that it was "notable", without explaining why. Following the AfD closure, I asked four key questions on notability on the article's talk page at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions. Two other users have also raised notability concerns. One of them, Catchpole, added the {{Notability}} tag to the article to flag these concerns ([65]). Three editors including Jaakobou then acted in a tag-team to repeatedly delete the {{Notability}} tag as a means of shutting down the debate ([66], [67], [68]). To date, none of the editors who argued that the article is notable have bothered answering any of the questions, other than appealing to the number of Google hits (e.g. [69]) or arguing in effect that "it's notable because I say it is". This is in fact the third time that Jaakobou has done this; Betacommand's action was undertaken to stop Jaakobou continuing a tag-team edit war which he started.

The notability questions haven't gone away, and I invite people to look at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions to judge for themselves whether they're justified. To put it bluntly, a number of editors apparently don't want to address these questions and are bent on ignoring it and shutting it down. I suggest that this isn't the kind of behaviour that we want to encourage. -- ChrisO 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there are recurring issues

Someone else already mentioned the subject, so since it's out there.. I believe there's a general lack of confidence in Betacommand's use of the admin tools. I know there's no "official" process for this, but realistically, if crat asked a steward to change someone's permissions, it's likely it would get done, right? What would it take to convince a crat that there's consensus for a removal of sysop permissions? Friday (talk) 17:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would have to go to arbcom, we couldn't just ask a stweard to do it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, an RFC for starters ... Cyde Weys 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

There alreast is one Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

To add, it can be found here Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

That is a process that I am not too familiar with. However, with the large amount of seriously controversial activity recently, what would need to happen to start that process. He has been confronted many times and may temporarily stop but shortly after begins. In all honsety, I really hate to say this but I do not think he has shown recently that he has the capability to use the tools responsibily. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I shall say this the current RFC is moot that issue was settled before there a need for it. I attempted to step in an stop an edit war. the issue was over a tag and thus I saw no need for protection, instead I left a note on the talk page warning users not to engage in the edit war and to discuss it on the talk page. Less than 24 hours later there was another edit as part of the issue. Like I said before I have no POV on the page. I dont care if it gets deleted or becomes a FA. I was just attempting to stop an edit war. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

If it's to be RFC, I'd suggest a new one specifically aimed at this question rather than tacking onto the old one. But, I don't see the point in RFC unless we believe a crat would consider it actionable. Friday (talk) 17:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I personally feel the bst move would be arbitration, the RFC has already been filed for another issue regarding trigger happy blocking, another RFC seams pointless when beta isn't going to change his ways, and for an involuntary desysopping it must be arbcom enforced or by Jimbo Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

By the way, take a look through hsi last 200 or so blocks. It appears that th eusername block issue is not completly resolved. I am perusing it and have a.) found several blocks fired rapid fire (10+ a minutes or so) and blocks of usernames such as User:Marri+jake, User:Dldnjstjr (which may be random but is short enough could have gone to WP:RFCN and other ones that would have been better at a request for comment username. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:42, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Friday, I'm not sure it's really up to a 'crat if it's actionable. Majorly _{(o rly?)} 17:45, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't like the idea that a single bureaucrat could decide to desysop anyone. What's wrong with arbitration? --Conti|✉ 17:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry for getting involved in this mess. I attempted to stop an edit war an get killed over it. I havent even read the dam article. I was just attempting to stop an edit war. Please forgive me for attempting to do the right thing. Betacommand ^{(talk • contribs • Bot)} 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

While some accounts have been deadminned on an emergency basis (such as suspicion that the account has been compromised) there is no precedent for stewards to desysop admins based on administrative performance. Unless Betacommand voluntarily gives up his sysop rights, desysopping will require arbitration. Thatcher131 17:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I just don't know if arbcom has ever expressed a willingness to do this due to community consensus. They usually prefer a smoking gun, don't they? I don't know that there is one here, it's more about the cumulative effect of many incidents. Friday (talk) 17:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's anything wrong with ArbCom except that it's decision cycle is so long. I'm not sure if it matters in this case, there's isn't an emergencv here. I agree with all the others that some action needs to be taken. Maybe Beta would undergo a voluntary RFA and abide by the results. Otherwise ArbCom would be the next step if there was a action (de-sysop) in mind. Maybe it's time to discuss a community de-sysop process along the lines of a community ban. RxS 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Continued abuse of sysop privaliges, I don't know whether they would accept or not, but if there is a repeated pattern, and efforts to try and stop the abuse with dispute resolution there is a high possibility Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 17:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the specific situation here (indeed, I haven't even looked into it yet), but if there is a clear pattern of misuse of adminstrative rights and an Arbitration case is brought, it is likely that we will take any and all appropriate measures, including de-sysopping when necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 18:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Would everyone support a request for arbitration then? I don't want to jump in with my feet first if the community doesn't feel that this is an appropriate measure, but I really feel this matter merits them taking a look at it Ryanpostlethwaite contribs/talk 18:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I've just unblocked Karenlister1 (talk · contribs) — no reason was givem no notice at the Talk page, just a vague wave in the direction of Username policy in the block summary. At WP:RFCN we can't see what's going on here. I'm blocking Betacommand for an unjustified and unexplained block, unless anyone objects. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 18:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth, m:Requests_for_permissions#Removal_of_access sure makes it sound like the stewards are willing to honor consensus decisions. It's true that we have no established local process for this, but then again, such things become "established" by actually being used. Friday (talk) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Beta commands username blocks (again)

Please take a look at WP:RFCN where I am requesting that many editors, blocked by betacommand for username violations, be unblocked due to lack of policy violation. This issue has been brought up before and was the reason for the originial request for comment. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

These aren't recent blocks though, by all means, overturn them if you think they're not appropriate but do we need all this drama over something from February ? -- Nick ^t 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, will do. Thanks! I just like to make sure before I do something like that. (I.E., I would rather have a second opinion). -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

More sockpuppeteering from User:JJonathan, plus a more serious long term problem

In the past couple of days, User:JJonathan has twice tried to evade his block by using blatant sockpuppets (which have earned him an extended ban) - User:Jon89 yesterday, User:JJoseph89 today. Whilst searching for any others that may still be active, I discovered User:Js2Jo. It seems that this is the same person, based on the talk page and editing style (a mix of minor style edits and addition of subtle factual errors to various celebrity articles). User:Js2Jo was blocked indefinitely in September last year.

Seems like this has been going on for a lot longer than I thought. Considering that blocking hasn't stopped him from doing his thing, it's possible that he has caused an enormous amount of unnoticed damage in the meantime. This may only be the tip of the iceberg. Anyone able to take a closer look? Thanks. --Kurt Shaped Box 16:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)