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:Pigsonthewing

Pigsonthewing and Leonig Mig had paragraphs on their respective userpages, attacking the other user. User:Vox Humana 8' talked to them, but then asked me to take a look when Pigsonthewing insisted there was no problem. I subsequently talked to them both, and Leonig was entirely reasonable. However, Pigsonthewing was not, claiming that he was perfectly justified in having the message, removing my messages completely unreasonably, and reverting at least seven times. Also relevent is his arbitration case, in which he was told he would be blocked if he excessively reverted. Could an uninvolved admin please take a look, and decide what needs to be done? J Milburn 23:04, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonid is now also reverting his userpage, as well as vandalising Pigsonthewing's with links to page differences showing old personal attacks from Pig to himself himself to Pig. J Milburn 23:15, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I have made no such personal attacks. The personal attack you cite was one of several made by Leonig Me, about me, not vice versa. My name remains Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The personal attack I cited was from you to him, but it was a long time ago. Check the diff. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, as anyone can see, he wrote it, about me, on my talk page. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, you're right. I'll correct that. J Milburn 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Now you've seen, at least in part, why the note is on my user page; and why its justified. That's not the worst he's called me; and he's always been allowed to get away with it, with no community sanction or admin response. My name remains, Andy Mabbett 23:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed there are worse accusations he could have hurled. For example he could have called you a liar and gotten away with it. 86.135.80.68 23:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Then rise above it. There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse. Your case suddenly becomes somewhat weakened when you yourself have behaved in an unreasonable manner. J Milburn 23:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"There is no need to respond to abuse with abuse." - Indeed; and I haven't. Andy Mabbett 23:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not insist that there was no problem. There very much is a problem, as described on my user page. Andy Mabbett 23:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You insisted there was no problem in having the comments on your userpage. J Milburn 23:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop putting words in my mouth. Andy Mabbett 23:28, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

We have more than a million articles and four million users. Would all the litigants please go off and do something else for a while and stop complaining, stop insulting each other and stop posting notes here, there or anywhere. That's a very simple solution that will end this dispute. You're fighting about nothing! Jehochman ^Talk 00:20, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Jehochman, I don't see how multiple WP:NPA and 3RR violations as well as a probable violation of Arb Comm rulings can be reasonably described as "nothing". Unfortunately, this is yet another example of Pigsonthewing's stubbornness and refusal to compromise and the frustration his behaviour engenders in other editors - several of whom feel that he is, if not "stalking" them, then certainly monitoring and reverting their edits more closely than is normal (hence the reason I'm not logged in to post these comments). -- 86.144.101.215 07:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sockpuppetry. Andy Mabbett 07:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Whether that user is a sock-puppet or not, what they say is entirely accurate. J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask why nothing has been done about this? This is a blatant violation of no personal attacks and the three revert rule, not to mention going against an ArbCom ruling. Why then, do I post this here, leave it overnight, and only get someone suggesting that posting here was an immature action? This is actually rather ridiculous. Why do we have this board, if not for situations like this? J Milburn 09:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm I notice that the reverts were in his own user space where the three revert rule is restricted and that at least one administrator was making the same reverts as he was. Whilst I am one of several people irritated by Andy's posts in projects where I belong and I sarted watching this thread as I initially hoped he might be made to shut up at last, I now have come to believe that your posts here are on a similar level to his posts on his page re Leonard Mig that you tried to remove. Can further posts here be restricted to uninterested parties (sock puppets need not apply) or to responses to specific accusations by the person accused. --Peter cohen 11:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I actually find that rather offensive. I was originally asked to look into this matter as an uninvolved administrator, and now I am being shufted to one side as if I am 'trying to get one over' on an 'enemy' of mine. I got involved, find myself to be somewhat in over my head due to the excessive amount of reverting done, and obviously I have no interest in breaching the three revert rule myself. I am honestly not sure why Ryulong made that revert- I can only assume it was a mistake, or he was reverting the actions of an obvious sock puppet. I am not quite sure why 'uninterested parties' would ever post; perhaps you mean 'uninvolved parties'? That's what I was originally. And, in completely good faith, no offense meant- who in hell are you to say who is and who isn't allowed to post here? The only reason I have continued to post is because no one has responded here. This is a CLEAR case of disruption, why is everyone so unwilling to do anything about it? J Milburn 12:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The message is now back on Pigsonthewing's userpage. Could an uninvolved admin please do something about this? As Peter cohen so politely told me, my opinion no longer seems to be valid, and it is not like Pigsonthewing has any respect for the removal, simply reverting without explanation. This is disruptive, and is causing considerable friction. J Milburn 12:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Also regardless of whether his revert parole applies to his own userpage, he made two reverts to another editor's userpage, which is in breach of his revert parole. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to block anyone for deleting shit like that. Not even Pigs. Guy (Help!) 13:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My point was that if you look here various uninvolved editors are attempting to get the information off both userpages, yet Pigs persists in reinstating the information on his page while removing it from Leonig Mig's page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It does appear hypocritical, although justifiable when using a particular logic and interpretation. I strongly suggest that the sections be removed from both user pages, but I would also suggest that arguing about it (and blocks) will cause more trouble than the original problem. JPD (talk) 13:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• The evidence presented here is strongly compelling that PoTW should be blocked for the behavior he has shown. In particular I first point out that conducting 7 reverts in a single day on his own userpage while not violating the letter of the law with regards to WP:3RR, when taken in the context of removing personal attacks and his parole for reverts is still in effect is very convincing by itself. Second, that PoTW twice attempted to remove similar personal attacks from the userpage of the person with whom he is in disagreement is an unequivocal violation of the same parole. That PoTW insists on behaving in this manner despite multiple people requesting him to stop, despite the prior ArbCom ruling against him for this behavior shows his inability to function appropriately within the confines of a community based project. This user is severely trying the patience of Wikipedia in general. Taking into account his block log, I am hard pressed to understand why this abusive user is being treated with kitten paws. I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted for taking action because they are so embroiled. This effectively undermines the ability of administrators to take action in this case. This has gone on far too long. A block, and a long one at that, is entirely appropriate and should be placed immediately. --Durin 13:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one find Andy's entire attitude to discussions on Wikipedia unhelpful and wrong. This is not the only incident where he has wasted hours of editors' time trying to push his point. Even if he's the only one who believes as such, he will still claim lack of consensus (ie. I don't agree = no consensus). He will remove comments for no reason (sometimes the token WP:NPA, which in his eyes is anything remotely critical of him) and refuses ever to compromise. For all the helpful edits he makes, he makes far more unhelpful edits and his stubbornness on many issues means that arguments such as this can drag on for weeks wasting everybody else's time. If he is blocked for breaking revert parole, I support the block. He needs time off to learn humility. Centy – – 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your disingenuous reference is to the debate about infoboxes on the Composer and Opera project's talk pages, where I have demonstrated that there are around a dozen or more editors speaking against the supposed consensus. Your "I don't agree" statement is therefore dishonest. Andy Mabbett 13:27, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I haven't noticed a dozen or more editors putting the boxes back. I haven't even noticed that number commenting. Oh, and off-topic trollfests get archived. Moreschi ^Talk 13:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you noticed people stating that they're leaving the project because of the hostility shown to them? I have; just as I've seen you censoring discussion by archiving it within minutes of being posted. Andy Mabbett 13:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, so archiving a discussion that drifted completely off-topic into outright trolling is censorship, with productive discussion finished long ago? Moreschi ^Talk 13:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I've no idea, but archiving relevant, on-topic discussion, just because you disagree with the point being made, two minutes aftrr it was made, as you did in the case in question, is censorship. Andy Mabbett 19:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This really is an unusual case: a Pigsonthewing ANI which doesn't involve microformats. Mabbett's campaign to push through microformats in the face of any opposition has caused untold friction around Wikipedia and has been the origin of many incidents appearing on this page, including the classical music infobox debates. This editor is clearly a disruptive influence on Wikipedia and something should be done about him. --Folantin 14:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Your continued ad hominem does you no credit; it merely suggests you cannot support your arguments otherwise. Andy Mabbett 14:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I'd like to further point out the rapid accumulation of evidence in support of what I said above, where I said "I am further troubled that when uninvolved parties try to intervene, they are quickly embroiled in the debate and assaulted". Since my above posting, three other editors have commented in regards to PoTW's behavior. Results: User:CenturionZ accused of being dishonest, User:Moreschi accused of censoring him, and User:Folantin accused of ad hominen attacks. It seems blatantly evident that PoTW refuses to learn lessons from prior sanctions against him and remains a highly disruptive presence on the project. --Durin 14:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaking cause and effect. There is no evidence to support your claim. Andy Mabbett 14:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• I recognize and fully expected you to disagree with me. I'm not interested in whether you disagree or not. It's a given that you would. I have no interest in discussing this matter with you because your past and current behavior has shown you incapable of working within a community. I've been providing the above commentary to show to others why you should be blocked, not for your edification. --Durin 14:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

And I suppose you'll want to blame me for your ad hominem outburst as well? Andy Mabbett 14:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I think you've just proved the point, Mabbett. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

In other news this week, Pigsonthewings has again put back the offending material after Newyorkbrad took it out. He's also made a right royal nuisance of himself by disrupting Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Opera: after his off-topic ranting gets archived, he immediately shouts that he's being censored. I cannot take action myself, due to personal involvment, but I would suggest that someone does. Moreschi ^Talk 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Pigs has continued to revert. Could someone please take action? J Milburn 18:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Like Peter cohen, I'm finding J Milburn's campaign here a little shrill. Andy's message does not appear to me to be an attack, but merely a statement drawing attention to the dispute. (Although I question the word "abusive" in the first sentence - Leonig's admission that he is stalking does not appear to be abusive, although stalking might be abusive. Ah, I see Andy's point on abusive. My bad.) Attempts to shape Andy to your conceptions of wikiquette, J Milburn, are bound to fail, border on pointless, and are as likely as not to make matters worse. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Yes, because it is only me who thinks this is disruptive. (And they aren't the only people...) He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. He refuses to remove these, continues to revert several established editors and administrators without discussion, breaching the 3RR massively, despite previous ArbCom rulings. I see no doubt that he should be blocked, and the only people speaking in support of him appear to be people such as yourself who see the matter, think it is minor, and disregard it. It was minor, until he insisted that there was nothing wrong with him having those comments, continually reverting, and continuing to attack everyone involved, mocking typing errors, picking up on minor mistakes and even edit warring over the userpage of the person he claimed to be his stalker. It isn't like I have seen this and come running straight here- I and another editor worked with him for a short while, and I only came here when I realised that he was intent on being unreasonable. J Milburn 21:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments are in no way uncivil; they are a factual report of the circumstances. I have attacked no editors. I have mocked no typing errors. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't want to get dragged into this debacle, seeing how it's affected everyone else so far; but this seems somewhat incongruous with the claim that "I have mocked no typing errors". -- Codeine 22:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no mockery there; that's the correct way to cite text which is know to be incorrectly written; see sic. Andy Mabbett 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, but I fail to see how "he's acting like a cunt" can be regarded as anything but abusive. Andy Mabbett 21:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He is inappropriate comments in an uncivil manner, which serve only to incite anger and bad feelings. We'll be putting WP:AGF to one side for this discussion, will we? Go and take the beam out of your eye, JM. You've made your point at very great length. Now let's see if other more experienced admins pick up on it or, as I suspect, let sleeping dogs lie. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I am not putting AGF to one side, that's all they have served to do. You will also note that other, more experienced admins have also said that they support a long block of Pigs already. J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

[{WP:AGF]] states quote clearly, (with the emboldening in the original: This guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary.. Given that Leoning Mig has called me a "cunt", called me "a prick", recently vandalised my user page and admitted editing only for the purpose of stalking me, I'm satisfied that that criteria is met. Why are you not? Andy Mabbett 19:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's block log speaks for itself. Disruptive obnoxiousness and This user appears to be here to make nuclear war with contributers; not to write an encyclopedia being the most apt descriptions of his behaviour in my experience. I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. --Folantin 22:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree. Will somebody please just block him? J Milburn 22:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea why this editor has not been banned. He has been. Currently he is not. What do you want him blocked for, JM? Disagreeing with your view of wikiquette and having the temerity to be the master of his own userpage? Being a curmudgeon? Annoying the fsck out of us all by his style of argument? Not being what you would want him to be? You are - by analogy - poking someone with a stick, and then whining "oh, won't someone ban him" when he bites back. I just cannot fathom why you've mounted this campaign, beyond the dislike that you have of Andy. And that's just not a good enough reason for a ban. Don't you have anything better to do? --Tagishsimon (talk)

There is far more of a personal attack in each of those quotes, and in Folantin's use of them, than in the disputed text from my user page, which contains no PA. Yet he is allowed to continue unabated... Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. I have again removed the offensive paragraph from Pigsonthewing's talkpage and warned him that if he reinserts it I will block him. However, Leonig Mig's comments that provoked Pigsonthewing were highly unacceptable and I have left a warning for him as well (I note that a number of other users have also asked him to improve his civility in this matter). Hopefully the matter can end here. Newyorkbrad 22:28, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

He's just reverted his user page yet again after you gave him his last warning. This is typical Mabbett behaviour: he just ploughs on like a bulldozer until he gets his way or gets banned. Hopefully the matter can end here - sadly I don't think this is ever likely to be the case. --Folantin 22:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

We are not going to put up with much more of this. Much more of what? Of Andy not agreeing with your world view? Perish the thought. --Tagishsimon (talk)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. But since there is apparently some dissent, instead of act unilaterally I request input on the proposed block. Newyorkbrad 22:37, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Fully support, as I have done from the start. The fact he continued to act after a blatant final warning just strengthens the case. J Milburn 22:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Support the block, I would say 24 hours, and protecting his user page in the meantime, so he cannot continue to edit war when he comes back. SirFozzie 22:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Just block him for as long as possible. Some of us have had to put up with over two months of this kind of behaviour. There's no point offering him any more chances, he never takes them. --Folantin 22:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel a block is justified because Andy continues to be disruptive (I'm thinking more of his behavior toward the opera project members, though his activity on his userpage is not appropriate, either). Heimstern Läufer (talk) 22:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I would recommend locking his user page for a month and not blocking him. Were he to move the content to his talk page then would be a good reason to block him, SqueakBox 22:45, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Of disruptive conduct that interferes with the editing environment. What does that mean. Is it the disputed message that is causing disruption? If so, what is it disrupting? If not, what exactly is the complaint, other than that we don't much like Andy and his style of argumentation? Is that a sufficient reason for a ban? The whole storm appears a nonsense to me; the ban threat little better than concerted bullying. --Tagishsimon (talk)

(outdent) I have blocked User:Pigsonthewing for 24 hours, per 3RR violations mentioned above. I did so as an admin action to prevent this discussion over-heating. Please would the above participants attempt some sort of consensus in this period. Also, if anyone unblocks or reduces the period then fine, there will be no wheel war as I am off to bed! LessHeard vanU 22:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that no attempt at such consensus was made in my absence, and that another editor who supported me by reverting my user page was blocked for doing so. Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I note that I gave a reason of "harrasment" in my block edit, but I had intended to cite 3RR... I was tired, I guess. LessHeard vanU 12:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I support a lengthy cool off period. Tagishsimon, you must realise we are not bullying Andy because we just want to pick on him. He brings it onto himself by dragging any of his critics down to his level and then forcing them to engage in a horrible sledging match. If you carefully read through the history of this debate you will see that this is just one and many similar arugments he has caused. In this particular argument both J Milburn and Newyorkbrad assumed good faith and approached Andy with civility. He then responds with his usual stubbornness which includes censoring comments that are in any way critical of himself. It's highly ironic and hypocritical then when he accused Moreschi of censorship when he merely archived rather than removed a discussion. See Durin's post about the examples of how he brings any editors critical of him down to his level. The fact is any 3rd party who tries to resolve this either has to be pro-Mabbett or be cajouled into a heated discussion with him where you are then accused of bullying the guy. It appears that his new tactic of argument is to call any attack on his behaviour and ad hominem attack on him.

It is this unhelpful attitude that I think should warrant a lengthy ban. He was after all banned for exactly this behaviour in the past for 1 year. He hasn't changed one bit. Centy – – 23:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

All that may well be so. But this - WP:ANI - is not the place, and the above discussion is not the process by which such a sanction is determined. At best this is a kangaroo court, at worst a lynch mob. If findings of stubbornness and hypocrisy and whatever else can be proven in the appropriate place (dunno - Arbcom? RfC?) then so be it. Take it to that appropriate place and run with it. --Tagishsimon (talk)

You need not worry on that score, though consensus on ANI is a perfectly valid rationale for blocks. Moreschi ^Talk 06:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Mabbett's never had any hesitation about hauling other users in front of ANI when they've done something to offend him. And I'll always remember how, when one of his ANIs wasn't going quite the way he wanted, he went on a WP:POINT spree against Project:Opera by suddenly insisting that all operatic terminology be rendered into English forthwith (that was on May 1 of this year). He also has a habit of branding any comments he doesn't like in discussions as personal attacks and deleting them, so this user page controversy is the height of hypocrisy. Forgive me if I find all this "Andy is the victim here" talk quite unconvincing. --Folantin 07:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Is a complaint about a 6 or 7 week-old opera dispute really pertinent to the current problem? And I don't think it can all be chalked up to Pigs interpreting comments he simply doesn't like as being personal attacks. For example, one of the inclusions in the 'Stalker' section was when his entire user page was replaced with a link to this. That's a personal attack, and vandalism. No room for dispute on that one. And calling someone a cunt certainly qualifies as well. Whether or not this stalker section is a good idea is a separate issue. I don't find it terribly helpful, and find the declaration that he no longer feels it necessary to explain edits very troubling. But outright blocking when there clearly wasn't even consensus on whether or not he should be allowed to include the box was premature. And rehashing old opera arguments is entirely unhelpful. Bladestorm 12:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Those aren't "old" opera arguments, they're part of the same campaign of disruption which continued until yesterday. They are proof Mabbett knows nothing of the subject at hand. I have no idea why he is editing in this area beyond a desire to push through his beloved microformats. He was disrupting the Opera Project page right up to yesterday morning in an attempt to restart a dispute that has been dragging on since mid-April. We had just agreed a moratorium on the issue when Mabbett burst in trying to re-ignite the whole argument. Those who have had to deal with the user page issue have experienced his behaviour for just one day; some of us have had to endure this kind of thing for weeks. That's why I want tougher sanctions against him. --Folantin 12:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no "POINT" spree; that's a lie. Andy Mabbett 19:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes there was, by any reasonable person's definition of the word. Moreschi ^Talk 20:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent) The user has now reposted the comments that were the source of this incident on his talk page. Yet another user has restored it to his user page. Judging by the length and intesnity of this debate, (and speaking purely as an uninvolved party), this appears to me to be a case for WP:RFC. Codeine 10:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Even though I find Andy annoying, being a pain in the neck, in itself, is not a reason for a block. This current issue was stirred up by the entry on his user page where third parties to that particular argument seem to be split, some restoring, some removing the entry. An RFC would be an appropriate way to deal with that. If he continues to argue the different point on the opera or classical music pages, that two can be dealt with as a separate issue. --Peter cohen 13:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I will confirm Andy's long history of being involved in ugly disputes, and that this is not simply about the stalking entry. Often his behaviour is not the ugliest in the dispute, but it would be too much of a coincedence without the explanation that his behaviour in some way leads to this state of affairs, dragging others down to his level and further by focussing on criticisms of behaviour rather than the topic at hand. Unless Andy decides that this is a problem worth fixing, there seem to be two choices: blocking Andy for a long time, or avoiding the trap of discussing behaviour and ignoring any comments along those lines as much as possible. It might be clear which option I consider preferable, but either would be more productive than stopping to argue about whether the paragraph on the user page is ok or not, blowing that particular problem out of all proportion. JPD (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Since he's continued with his WP:DE, and thumbed his nose at the various parties who were trying to work with him, I have changed the block duration to 72 hours and protected his talk page for the block's duration to keep him from readding the information. SirFozzie 15:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My comments about the Opera & Composer projects are to - legitimately - point out that the claimed consensus for the wholescale removal of infoboxes does not exist; I've provided evidence to that effect. It is irrelevant to this discussion. Andy Mabbett 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My editing was not disruptive, and your block on my talk page, after reverting it to yoru preferred version, was an unaccpatbale act of censorship. Andy Mabbett 19:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

After you had broken 3RR on your user page (and been blocked for it), to just move it to your talk page was WP:DE in a nutshell, and considering folks above were calling for a longer block, I'd say you got off quite lightly. As long as the paragraph in question does not reappear on your pages (with or without your ok), I consider the matter closed. SirFozzie 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"article"-ban proposal

• Proposal - I would just do this, but the conversation here involves many... this user is under revert-parol from his arbcom case in 2006. I recommend a simultaneous "article" ban and deletion of his userpage enforceable with lengthening blocks per the remedy demanded by the arbcom rulling. "Determination of when this has been violated may be done by any uninvolved administrator." - I am uninvolved and I am determining that he has violated his revert limitation. I am requesting support for this remedy. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Supported. Entirely appropriate. Regardless of justifications, PoTW has been engaging in highly disruptive editing. --Durin 15:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • As an involved non-admin, I support this. People should be on the lookout for sockpuppets, as Pigsonthewing has basically admitted circumventing his previous 1-year ban. Fireplace 15:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Only if Leonig Mig (talk · contribs) faces heavy sanctions for continually baiting PoTW. I looked at PoTW's unblock request this morning and Leonig Mig's block log and my response was "Why the fuck is Leonig not banned". I think someone has taken their eye off the ball here, so I would be looking for Leonig Mig to be banned from interacting with PoTW (and vice-versa) with a further ban on either party reverting each other (using their own accounts or by proxy) anywhere in the article namespace with blocks of increasing length for both parties. Nick 16:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you just clarify here please, Nick? I've looked at Leonig Mig's block log and as far as I can see there isn't a single item in it [1]. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place? NB: I have no doubt it's a good idea to keep that statement off Leonig Mig's user page as well. It's currently removed anyway. --Folantin 16:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem, if action had been taken against Leonig Mig, we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. Nick 16:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left Leonig Mig a note: if he makes one more PoTW-related edit, I will not be best pleased. He should realise he's not helping here. What ban exactly are we proposing here, BTW? Moreschi ^Talk 17:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

we wouldn't have PoTW in the state he's in. I sincerely doubt that. Mig hasn't exactly been a model of civility but the two serious PAs on Mabbett date back to 2005. Mig has hardly edited Wikipedia at all in 2006 and 2007. More importantly, it's worth noting that Mabbett was found guilty of harrassing Leonig Mig by ArbCom (vote 8-0) [2]. But, yeah, we should use sanctions against both users if need be to put an end to this two-year old dispute. --Folantin 17:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Leonig Mig,, by his own account, edits using another account. For all I know, he could be posting here; he could even be you. I have harassed no-one. Andy Mabbett 20:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

More importantly, I'd echo Moreschi by asking what ban are we proposing here exactly? --Folantin 17:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I proposed banning PoTW and Leonig Mig from each others talk and user pages, plus banning either party from reverting (either directly, or by proxy (as far as is possible)). I'm not convinced allowing either party to interact at all is a good idea but I'm fine with permitting civil conversation between both parties on article talk pages only. Any breaches of these parole conditions would be met with blocking of extending durations. Nick 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the "article ban" in question means not adding that section any more. I'm hesitant to delete the user page, because of that one section,that's like 5% of the user page. Basically, he knows that that if he continues to insert that paragraph anywhere (user page, talk page or any subpages), he's going to get a lengthy block anyway (because of the tendentious nature of his editwar). (and yes, Leonig will have to remove anything similar from his user/talk page as well) SirFozzie 17:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

What is it that you object to? Me pointing out that Leonig Mig rejected of my offer of mediation? Hi ddid do so, as shown at that link. Or do you object to me pointing out his statement that he was stalking me, and that he called me "a cunt"? Or that he called me "a prick"? Or is it that his abuse continued in June 2007 ? Andy Mabbett 19:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I object(ed) to you ignoring all requests to voluntarily deleting the paragraph after you were asked repeatedly to remove it, reinserting it after it was removed FOR you (breaking 3RR), and then immediately upon being blocked, inserting it onto the only page that you COULD edit. As I said above. Since you have not added the paragraph since the temporary protect has expired, as I said above, the matter is closed. SirFozzie 19:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The matter is not closed; you have yet to answer my question - what, in that paragraph, did you object to? And those were hardly requests for voluntary action, given the subsequent heavy-handed enforcement, with no supporting consensus. 3RR does not apply to such material, on a user's user-page. Andy Mabbett 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdenting) Actually,, as was explained to you when your request for an unblock was declined (please note, I was not the one who placed the original block, nor the one who declined the unblock request), 3RR did and still does apply. SirFozzie 19:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not what WP:3RR says. I'm asking you for a third time: what, in that paragraph, did you object to? Andy Mabbett 20:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained what I objected to, and you continue to argue. "Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose", apparently. SirFozzie 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Doug Coldwell (talk · contribs); original research, content forking, and material in userspace

I'm having a problem with an editor who has repeatedly tried to place his original research in a range of articles, and has now turned to content forking to achieve his goals.

On June 19, I nominated Francesco Dionigi, an article created by User:Doug Coldwell, for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi). He later copied a substantial portion of that article's text into a new article, Birthday of alpinism, which I have now nominated for deletion (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). In my opinion, this is an evasion of the AfD process through content forking.

But this is just the tip of the iceberg. Doug maintains an impressive array of sandboxes in his user space. For instance, his sandbox 50 is an essay on the ancient Greek work eidos; he has tried to include bits of this in the articles idea, Theory of forms, and eidos (philosophy); when these attempts were rejected by other editors as original research or irrelevant, he created eidon (now up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eidon). As another example, Doug created the article Good sense (now deleted) from material in his Sandbox 48 (most of the revisions have been deleted at his request); this material, somewhat reworked, has now shown up in Good will (philosophy). A set of sandboxes, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_47, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_63, User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_65, and User:Doug_Coldwell/Sandboxes/Sandbox_67 contains ideas related to the ancient Greek word Nous--which have shown up in Nous and Noema, among other articles. Note also that an anon IP, probably belonging to Doug, requested the creation of Divine Nous on June 8, after Doug had encountered stiff resistance to his edits on Nous; Doug now supports merging Divine Nous into Nous.

Doug does not agree that his articles are forks (see his comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birthday of alpinism). I'd appreciate some outside opinions as to whether there's any policy violations here, including whether Doug's sandboxes are appropriate. --Akhilleus (talk) 18:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Comments regarding these points:
    • True, sandbox 50 is the article Eidon, which I worked out in a sandbox first before making it an article. However did not first try to put these ideas into other articles. I make edits to these other articles, but not on this particular subject.
    • true I do have an array of sandboxes to work out the articles first in a soadbox, however note most are deleted. Only the remaining are being now worked on.
      • You can go through my Contributions and see how I work and edit in the sandboxes. I make as many improvements as I can before I enter and make it a new article. You can see through the history how this went, then shortly therafter the new article was actually made. This sometimes actually makes an article so good in initial quality that ultimately there are few or no further improvements - example Petrarch's library and Palazzo Molina and Francesco Nelli and Petrarch's testamentum.
    • Sandbox 47 is the article Nous pretty much the way I worked it out in the sandbox. The points that I improved upon must not have been objectionable to other editors, since most of it is still there. The original article before I did a major overhaul was last edited on April 9. I did the overhaul (worked out in a sandbox first) on April23 - which most of that is still there to this day (so apparently other editors didn't object to most of it). Of course some edits have been done since then for additional improvements.
    • Sandbox 63 is the Noesis article worked out in this sandbox first. Yes, this part was later deleted.
    • Sandbox 65 is the article Noema which I did a major upgrade to on June 17 - no editor has objected or even made any edits to it since I did this major improvement.
    • Sandbox 67 is only dictionary definitions I made to this "new" sandbox of as June 16. I haven't even worked with this material yet since I just obtained it.
    • Birthday of alpinism is a completely different subject that Francesco Dionigi which is explained in Talk of the prior. They happen to have common denominators that couldn't be avoided in the new article. If different references are desired, I can certainly furnish that. The article so far has received nothing but Keep from other editors.
      • Its interesting since these Keep votes have come in --Akhilleus has made several improvement edits to this article he nominated to be deleted.
    • I agreed with merging Divine Nous with Nous to go along with the other editors to expide the process. If I would have objected, then there would of course been an objection to this. So to make matters simplier and to expide this I figured this was the best procedure. It really doesn't matter with me if Divine Nous is merged, not merged, or deleted. Whichever they feel they want to do with the article is fine by me because it looks like Nous pretty well covers all the points anyway. I was just trrying to help matters by going along with everyone else. Whereever they want my vote on this is fine by me, since it doesn't matter to me. I haven't put in a vote one way or the other on the article or edited it.
    • Other articles I have started (many of which are few or no edits) are on my User page - mostly concerned with Petrarch.--Doug ^talk 19:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
• Sandbox 50 has many deleted revisions that are substantially similar to Doug's contribution to Eidos (philosophy) ([3]). Doug tried to include similar material in idea ([4]) and theory of forms ([5]). Doug's changes have been objected to on the talk pages of those articles (e.g. [6], [7]), and some have been reverted. After most of the material that Doug contributed to Eidos (philosophy) was removed [8], Doug started the article eidon, which is so close to the removed material from eidos (philosophy) that it's a content fork. --Akhilleus (talk) 20:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I did make major improvements to the article Idea starting on May 15 - most of which are still there to this day (so apparently other editors are not objecting).
    

Here are some example parts I added for improvements that are still there and were not there before I added them and are not being objected to:

History of the term "Idea"

Where ideas come from

Francesco Petrarch

René Descartes

John Locke additions

David Hume additions

Immanuel Kant additions

picture of "Walk of Ideas"

Wilhelm Wundt additions

Validity of ideas

Many additional references and sources added with inline citations and footnotes - including new Bibliography. Basically all the References now on the article are what I contributed. The article previously did not have a Reference section - I provided all the references - a major improvement.--Doug ^talk 20:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• • • P.S. Forgot about the parts where I expanded the "See Also" section and added the links to

Wikisource

Wikibooks

Wikiquote

Wikiversity

--Doug ^talk 21:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Whether you've improved Idea is discussed at Talk:Idea. As you know, because you were part of the discussion, not everyone thinks you've improved the article. However, the reason I started the discussion here is not because of your edits to Idea in and of themselves; it's because you're creating articles like Birthday of alpinism and eidon as content forks. --Akhilleus (talk) 21:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at it this way - its obvious that I am trying to make major improvements to Wikipedia as is shown by my work. Perhaps I don't get every little rule correct, however assume good faith. If I broke a rule somewhere, it wasn't intentional. I am not trying to put in any particular "ideas" that others are objecting to. If they object to something I put in, I just let them take it out and leave it be. Its just not that important to me rather it is there or not. Most however is not objected to and is still there, so it must be alright. If you don't like something I added to an article, just take it out - I really don't care. There are so many articles to work on that I am too busy anyway to be concerned with nit-pick items. I didn't see you objecting to these points I added to the article Idea. As I already explained in the Talk section of Birthday of alpinism, this is entirely a different article with "different" viewpoints. If you want different references (being the only content items similar to the two articles), then just let me know and I will obtain them for the same material, since there are many references on this material. Eidon is also a differnt article (or anyway I thought it was when I initially wrote it), however you feel they are close - so my suggestion is then why not merge them to make one good article since Eidos is now a stub. It obvious by the quality of my articles that my intentions are to write excellent articles - which apparently I have since most are not edited much. There are some however that do get a fair amount of activity and become an outstanding article from what I started - example being Aemilia Tertia. So my friend whatever you want to do with Divine Nous, Nous, Eidon, or Eidos, it really doesn't matter to me. I have bigger and better things to do. My next major improvement will be on Giovanni Boccaccio and the article On Famous Women - so I thought I would give you a heads start on this one. FYI: I am the one that found the ISBN number for it.--Doug ^talk 21:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

This is the second article I have seen by Doug Coldwell in two days. They are both empty pieces of nonsense, formed about a small fact, and bolstered by irrelevant references. This editor is seriously disruptive. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 23:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Not quite sure what you are referring to on edits however here are a few in the last couple of days

1. Petrarch - Added that Cicero, Virgil, and Seneca were his literary models.)[9]
2. History of Rome of a similar climb by Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans (ascended Mount Haemus in Thessaly). [10]

These are not exactly "disruptive" edits, however are constructive. In addition, you can see the quality of my articles I have started and work on.--Doug ^talk 23:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary: this edit, small though it is, is destructive and incompetent guesswork. "Philip of Macedon, the same who waged war against the Romans" is an (uncredited) quote from Petrarch; leaving out the quotation marks was already irresponsible. But that Philip is not Philip II of Macedon, as actually reading Wikipedia's article on him would have told Coldwell; Macaulay's schoolboy would have known it. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

This is strong language, and I was testy when I posted it; but, upon consideration, I cannot call any of the words here wrong. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it is true I did a major upgrade and major improvements to the article Nous on April 23. If you compare what I added, it turns out most of that also is still there to this day (so apparently has not been objected to by other editors). These are the Sections that were not there before that I added for improvements that are still there as major improvements:

Anaxagoras

Plato

Aristotle

Alexander of Aphrodisias

Neoplatonism

Plotinus

Augustinian Neoplatonism

The Section originally called "History" with identically the same wording has been relabeled "Overview of usage by ancient Greeks" and moved to the top. These are all major improvements which are still there to this day which no editors are objecting to. Of course there has been some additional edits to improvement my major improvements, which is to be expected (since there is always room for improvement). My major improvements have been then a springboard for other editors to work from, which they have. The previous edit before my major improvements was on April 9, which then was basically a stub with no references. It is now a full good quality article with the major improvements I made (which have been improved upon even more). The part of certain IP addresses of Divine Nous "probably belonging to Doug" is just that, a guess. There has been 5 different IP addresses that have worked on Divine Nous. I noticed that Nous, the article I made all these major improvements to, was flagged that perhaps Divine Nous should be merged with it. My first choice would be to delete Divine Nous, however had I said that there would of course been an objection. So since there only 4 choices here (merge, no merge, delete, keep) I chose to merge since this apparently was what the other editors wanted, so I went along with them. Whichever vote they want from me on that article I will be glad to give, if I knew what they wanted without an objection.

If you go through the last 2000 edits I did in my Contributions you can see the parttern is that I work out an article first in a sandbox. Then when all the bugs have been worked out and all the improvements added, I then make it a new article (or a major section improvement to an existing article). This then produces quality and there are few (if any) further edits needed for some time for these major improvements made. Also you can see the many other improvements I have made to many other articles (from ice cream to botanical gardens to science to history) as well as much vandelism reverted. There are times these improvements are then even improved further, which is the way it should be.--Doug ^talk 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you don't edit cooperatively. This is a wiki; the product of several minds is usually better than one. And when your "improvement" is justly criticized, as at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francesco Dionigi, youi create another article with the same information and the same sources, and lie about it. The temptation to do so must be strong; that is a lot of work to waste; but it would be better to edit cooperatively from the beginning. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 13:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd say I edit in a very cooperative manner and try to please as many other Wikipedians as I can. Ultimately I won't be able to please all, however most times I can please most others. I have noticed that certain areas are however more sensitive than others, in particular religion and philosophy. One example, in these other fields, where recently an editor felt I wrote up an article that looked like an advertisement for a historical society. That was not intentional when I wrote up the article, since I have no connections to the society (therefore no motive). Anyway I rewrote the article (in cooperation with other editor requests) so that it didn't look like an advertisement, which completely satisfied all the other editors. That article is Mason County Historical Society. Other articles that I have started that have been expanded and improved much, that I contributed again to in cooperation with other Wikipedians, that ultimately produced a quality article are:

• Aemilia Tertia
• Self-guided tour
• Weymouth New Testament
• De Viris Illustribus (Petrarch)
• Genealogia deorum gentilium
• Epistolae familiares
  

Other articles that I work on often in full cooperation with other Wikipedians are:

• Harpers Ferry National Historical Park
• Poplar Forest
• North Carolina Transportation Museum
• Atalaya Castle (all pictures are mine)
• Brookgreen Gardens - my favorite botanical gardens
• Petrarch - my favorite subject
• Boccaccio - second most favorite subject
• Africa (Petrarch)
• Montpelier (James Madison)
• Self storage (place of employment)
• Club Med - where I travel often.
• Carrom - favorite game as a child
• Ludington, Michigan - place where I would like to retire to.
• Ludington State Park - favorite state park
• Montpelier (James Madison) - favorite presidential historical house
• Biltmore Estate - tourist attraction I visit often
• Williamsburg - favorite tourist attraction (videos are mine)
• 1964 New York World's Fair - personally went there then (contributed several pictures to Wikicommons)
• Street light interference - my favorite science project.
• oatmeal - my favorite food.
• ice cream - my favorite desert.
• Scipio Africanus - my favorite ancient history subject (except maybe for Plato and Aristotle)
• Second Punic War - favorite historical war event
  

There are several more articles I work on in full cooperation with several other Wikipedians, however the list would get too long if put here.--Doug ^talk 17:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In this case, you may get a more productive result out of a request for comment than out of the Admin noticeboard, as there does not seem to be a clear-cut policy violation. I would recommend listing it there and seeing what sort of comments come out of the woodwork. Pastordavid 16:57, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, does seem to be turning into one, doesn't it? I will be busy for a few days; if someone else write one, please post here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 00:36, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism

How about copying right out of the Encyclopedia Britannica? Compare the earliest revision of Genealogia deorum gentilium (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Genealogia_deorum_gentilium&oldid=106348439)--"Boccaccio's on the genealogy of the gods of the gentiles is a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth... It was the first ever in a very long line of Renaissance mythographies." and the Encyclopedia Britannica article on Humanism: "His De genealogia deorum gentilium (“On the Genealogy of the Gods of the Gentiles”), a scholarly interpretive compendium of classical myth, was the first in a long line of Renaissance mythographies;..." That's a direct quote, copied into Wikipedia without attribution; given Doug's seeming unfamiliarity with research standards I believe he was unaware that was he was doing was incorrect, but it is plagiarism and copyright violation nonetheless. I have to wonder if the same problem is present in other articles he's written. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, it was unintentional. I often work from the 1911 Edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica, which text I understand is public domain. If you found certain text from Encyclopedia Britannica that you think is copyright, could you please remove it as perhaps I placed it there by mistake thinking it was public domain text -or- make the correct reference to what it should be. Normally if I know some text is copyright I make the appropriate reference and give credit where it should be. Example on the article Street Light Interference I quote Hilary Evans on page 16 as to What seems most likely to be happening in this phenomenon and placed it in quoteblocks - which to the other editors I am working with on this article seem to think is the correct procedure. So if you find where I accidently placed some text that is copyright someplace, please make the correct references or let me know so I can correct.--Doug ^talk 19:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Public Domain status doesn't mean it's not plagarism. You still must attribute the words of Thomas Paine or Shakespeare to their authors. I suggest, quite seriously, you research plagarism as it applies ot the writing of papers and such. You've probably got an old high school/college copy of Strunk & White's somewhere, might be worth keeping it at hand as you continue to edit Wikipedia. ThuranX 22:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

"Britannica", in this case, did not mean the 1911 Britannica; the text was copied from this page, which is copyright 2007. There's little doubt that the text was copied from that page, because it was one of the external links in the original version of Genealogia deorum gentilium. --Akhilleus (talk) 00:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

As you can see in my other articles I do give credit if it is copyright material - two such examples are in Francescuolo da Brossano in addition to the examples in Street Light Interference described above. The material for the major section additions I added above to Nous and Idea were public domain text. I referenced this as such at the bottom. Article of Idea has a very extensive Reference section now that I added, where there was nothing before I made the major improvements to the article. The article on May 14 was tagged as not having any references - so I provided many. I do 1000's of edits and apparently at that monent thought it was the 1911 public domain text of Britannica. I realize it was a short sentence, however should have been credited accordingly anyway. Thanks for noticing this and removing the text. I'll watch it closer in the future.--Doug ^talk 20:58, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can only agree that Doug's edits have been disruptive and damaging to the quality of the encyclopedia. When I nominated some of Doug's work on Jerome's De viris illustribus for deletion, I provided some documentation of his original research agenda (for example, to prove that the New Testament was written only several hundred years ago). More recently, at Talk:Divine_Nous (diff), Doug has denied any connection to anonymous IP edits from his area of Michigan that are very obviously him. I think this should be investigated, and that his lies to make himself look better/different should be weighed in any evaluation of how he participates in the Wikipedia community. I warmly embrace the amateur nature of the Wikipedia project, but Doug is a crackpot, not an amateur. He edits and creates many articles about ancient Greek philosophical ideas, not because he is interested in them or knows anything about them, but because they fit into his original-research project. Most recently, after I called successfully for the deletion of "Good sense" Doug has put the same dubious, half-understood, error-riddled, and often nonsensical material at several other articles (Idea, Nous, Divine Nous, Eidos (philosophy), etc.). These contributions have been thrown together by a method totally contrary to any integrity; they are full of footnotes, but in fact the citations (I've looked some up in my library!) often do not justify Doug's original-research statements, and Doug culls indiscriminately from any bad source (he treats ref-desk answers as fact; he has recently been treating John Opsopaus as an actual source for ancient Greek ideas, as in a recent attempt to get yet another fork going at Noesis!), so that it's much worse than nothing. The few expert editors out there (I don't claim to be an expert in Neoplatonism, but like Akhilleus I know ancient Greek) struggle to keep up with and contain these messes. In the history of my involvement with Wikipedia, I have generally been content to see quality material build up; Doug's projects stand out as the only counter-argument that seems to say, "Wikipedia doesn't work; a small team of expert classicists is not enough to keep several articles from reflecting garbage ideas from one problem user, which the community has no effective way to keep up with." I'd love to be proven wrong and see the system do something here, & send the message that if the scholars on Wikipedia express unanimous dismay about bad material, it can count for something, & that the system will work and keep the bad material from spreading and lingering. Wareh 02:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• For those not up on the problems here: This is not even a plausible crankery. The New Testament is the best attested Ancient Greek work of literature; it has a dozen manuscripts of pre-Byzantine date, (and hundreds of papyrus fragments) all in genuine third to sixth-century writing, found all over the Eastern Mediteranean, and many of them with Koine variants not in the standard text. The Church fathers quoted all of it, one place or another. Petrarch didn't have enough Greek to read Homer. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• Unfortunately, this is almost all content disputes, probably beyond ArbCom's mandate. Do we need a problem editors page, with the resulting abuses? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lava_lamp

I understand that there is some sort of copyright issue going on, but that isn't my concern. My concern is that I found it using Special:shortpages, even though there is an invisible comment which states it is supposed to avoid that list. Is there something going on?--Flamgirlant 02:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• It's been blanked due to OTRS actions for almost a week now. However, the 'short pages' comment-text was only added today & as the short pages page itself is populated from a snapshot of cache, it took its 'snapshot' of the page when it was at 0 bytes. - Alison ☺ 02:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I see. So as long as it never hits zero, it should be fine, right? --Flamgirlant 02:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Yep. Don't ask what that threshold is, though, as I've no idea! :) - Alison ☺ 02:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The threshhold for appearing on the shortpages list is a moving target, but currently is tending to be around 106 characters. The key is that the cached versions only lists 1,000 pages. So it includes the shortest 1,000 pages at the moment it is run. It tends to be run every 3-4 days currently, and will likely be run either later today or tomorrow. If you like working with shortpages, you might also want to check out User:Zorglbot/Shortpages. This is a bot generated parsing of the special::shortpages data, and nicely categorizes the contents of the shortpages data. The Zorglbot report is also run daily, so while it cannot pick up newly shorted pages until the master cache is updated, it at least nicely shows the current status of all those pages that were on the previous master cache.

As for the invisible comment, that reflects back to the 1,000 article limit for the cache data. I tend to drop that comment on a variety of pages that show up on the shortpages list, but really are not needing attention from regular short pages patrollers. Salting templates, Wiktionary soft redirect, copyvio notices, and the blanked Lava Lamp page. All these are pages that show up on the list, but really do not need attention from the short pages patrollers. And every one of these that I can bump down off the list is one more page that can make it into the 1,000 that may actually benefit from the attention of the patrollers. - TexasAndroid 13:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

• Another OTRS drive-by... I've restored it to a stub-level article. It would be nice if the OTRS guy came back at some point to fix the article but... don't hold your breath. --W.marsh 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• This I've gotta see: what possible OTRS issue can there be about Lava lamp? Especially one that requires blanking? --Calton | Talk 02:59, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • See the article's talk page... some kind of corporate trademark thing. Similar to Frisbee at a glance. --W.marsh 03:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I recommend you don't actually stub it as the issue (from the edit history) is over whether the term "lava lamp" can constitute a genericized trademark or not. Your edits just now say that yes, it is, and it's obvious that Haggerty Enterprises disagree. Not sure if I want to go there ... - Alison ☺ 03:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • So improve it. But I see nothing in the current version claiming it's a genericized trademark. It just describes what a lava lamp/Lava Lamp looks like. --W.marsh 03:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that we should have notified User_talk:Swatjester#Lava_Lamp before going ahead and adding content to the article. I've never heard of OTRS, so I can't help any here.--Flamgirlant 03:50, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • (to w.marsh) Yes, but they're likely claiming that Lava Lamp™ is a trademark which is their property, while you're referring to it as a generic term. That's bound to piss them off, esp. given their court proceedings against Mathmos, no? It's not as simple as it looks, hence OTRS - Alison ☺ 04:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I can't find the OTRS ticket referred to, but I suspect the complaint is either that we are genericizing their trademark, or that we aren't using the approved name: "LAVA(r) brand motion lamp". Based on that, any article at that title will be a problem. --Carnildo 05:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry but what the bloody else do we call it (not have a go at wikipedia or wikipedians, just the idiot company). That is most definitely a genericized trademark. Viridae^Talk 07:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Apparently, they're "motion lamps" or even "Astro Lamps" (the original name). I guess the people who own the name Lava Lamp™®(r)(C) get very het up about these things - Alison ☺ 07:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Never ever heard them called anything but Lava lamps. Viridae^Talk 07:28, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • There seem to be endless companies other than these 2 selling things called lava lamps. But this is an article content issue, not a legal issue. We aren't selling something we claim is a trademarked Lava Lamp, we're just describing what people mean when they say something is a lava lamp. Part of that will include who owns the trademark and so on, it would help if they could provide coherent third party documentation. We need to make the article more accurate, not blank it. --W.marsh 11:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• I haven't been able to find the OTRS ticket number either. Maybe it was copy/pasted wrong? In any case there is no trademark issue as far as I can tell from my understanding of trademark issues. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
• It's in the legal queue, which is why you can't see it. We've received a legal complaint from an attorney regarding this. The issue goes directly down to the words Lava lamp. Thus, I blanked the article completely: any use of the word lava lamp is disputed in the claim. REGARDLESS OF THE MERITS, please let us proceed through this to resolution before reinserting the information. The world will not end because this article is blanked for a little bit. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  • There has got to be a better way to handle it than this... hatcheting articles on demand and maybe fixing them at some point is an insult to people who work hard on articles. --W.marsh 16:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Maybe you have some misconception of what's going on here. It's not hatcheted on demand: it's a preventative response to a potential lawsuit. And we're not "maybe fixing them" at some point: it's under active investigation, and it WILL be fixed as soon as that ends. There's no insult there. Until that point, you need to trust that OTRS is doing their job. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:04, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I'll get some trust when I actually see OTRS fix an article they've hatcheted. I haven't seen that in a while... at one point they were quite good at fixing actual problems quietly. Now all I see are farces like Lava lamp. --W.marsh 17:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Assume good faith? ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:06, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
          • Fix the article? --W.marsh 19:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
            • It will happen, as soon as we finish resolving things with the party. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Er, in order to keep a trademark good, doesn't one have to show a history of enforcing its use? I can recall past examples of various companies (Caterpillar is one that comes to mind) publishing notices in periodicals like Writer's Digest about their trademarks, but I have never seen any notices about "Lava lamp". And I can assure you that I would remember that -- because that would be like attempting to trademark "Acapulco Gold". -- llywrch 23:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Here you go. This should explain to you why the entire article is blanked, as opposed to a 2 sentence stub or so. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 01:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
          • (Hope that's enough indents; sorry if it's too many) Yes, that's all very nice, but one sparrow does not mean spring is here. They have to enforce their copyright in a consistent & regular fashion; send out enough legal notices, & someone somewhere will cave. Waking up one morning after decades have passed, then siccing legal sharks after everyone using the word without the proper symbols after it, doesn't qualify as "consistent and regular". I hope whoever is handling this case is insisting on sufficient burden of proof that the people behind this complaint have made a reasonable attempt to enforce their trademark -- otherwise, we're not talking about caution, we're talking about caving in. -- llywrch 04:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • I fear that Haggerty are a bit late. The name lava lamp (uncapitalised) has been common currency in the UK for about thirty years... Guy (Help!) 09:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Would using the term "lava lamp" within the context of a scholarly article qualify as fair use? I think it would. Also, my understanding of the law on this is that owning a trademark does not give one carte blanche to force others to use it, as seems to be the case here. Trademark is meant to prevent other commercial entities from creating products that can be mistaken for the trademark holder's products. Since Wikipedia is not producing lava lamps motion lamps, calling the article about l**a l**ps "L**a l**p" should not be a problem. Besides, the term entered common currency long ago. At least they're leaving Volcano alone ... for now. --Dynaflow babble 09:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• Ah, I think they may be overreaching if I'm reading their legal page correctly {I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice but an attempt to comprehend the situation with the sources available; please don't sue me, volcanic light-fixture people; etc.). From their legal terms page: "A 'lava lamp' does not exist." Their trademarks are LAVA®, LAVA LITE®, and LAVA WORLD INTERNATIONAL®; the term "l**a l**p," which the page asserts does not exist, does not appear to be trademarked by them, which would logically leave it free for generic use. Also demanded by Haggerty: "Somewhere on the page containing a LAVA® brand motion product, the following must be written: legalese, blah blah blah blah." There was probably an issue with having a picture of a "motion lamp" on the page without their legal language there, but it is my understanding of fair use that, if one takes a picture of a product, then that image belongs to the person who created it, and that would thus not constitute a trademark infringement. I am wondering why they have not trademarked "l**a l**p" and instead insist upon LAVA LITE®. Methinks someone might want to look into whether or not they applied for that trademark but couldn't get it because it was determined to be a generic term or was trademarked by someone else. --Dynaflow babble 10:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
  • According to TESS, a trademark for "Lava Lamp" is owned by a fireworks manufacturer in Missouri. In my search, I didn't find any explicit Haggerty trademark of the phrase "lava lamp," though they do seem to own "Lava Brand" in relation to lamps and such. Someone else should double-check that because I might not have looked in all the right places and might not be interpreting their entries correctly. In any case, this is from the Compact OED: lava lamp • noun a transparent electric lamp containing a viscous liquid in which a suspended waxy substance rises and falls in constantly changing shapes. I would love to see what happens if/when they issue a C&D order to the OED people. There will be fireworks, for sure. --Dynaflow babble 11:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
    • I hope our team of attorneys uses all of this excellent evidence to ensure our article can remain accurate and high-quality. --W.marsh 14:27, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I expect the recent trend of expedient solutions and capitulation in the face of brute force to continue, but hey, the Foundation might just redeem itself this time. LOL at one of the LAVA LITE®'s own vendors' interpretation of Haggerty's trademark practices (at bottom of page): "Lava Lite® lamp and its configuation are both registered trademarks of Haggerty Enterprises, Inc., and they will SQUISH anyone who infringes upon their stuff." --Dynaflow babble 18:25, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• Well done to User:Spikey for pointing out this potential trademark problem nearly 3 1/2 years ago! violet/riga (t) 14:41, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
• The conflation of copyright and trademark at User talk:Swatjester#Lava Lamp is highly indicative that OTRS is once again failing here. A copyright dispute would involve someone copying something that is copyrighted. From the above, it is clear that this is about a trademark, not copyright. In addition to the Oxford English Dictionary mentioned above I add pages 14–16 of ISBN 0124001513, a reference work like Wikipedia, entitled "What Makes a Lava Lamp Work?", which talks about lava lamps throughout and which in turn references an article in the March 1991 issue of Popular Electronics entitled "How to Make a Lava Lamp.". Uncle G 20:12, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I don't like this any more than the rest of you, but let's keep this constructive. Someone at OTRS is doing the best job she/he can (I don't know if it is SwatJester, but for the moment Let's assume he's just here answering questions) -- although this person is not responding to this legal harassment with the appropriate attitude. I think that at this point the claim of infringement on their trademark is looking pretty dodgy to any uninvolved observer; we ought to give the person holding this hot potato at OTRS a chance to share with us any evidence that Haggerty has provided showing they have enforced their rights to "Lava lamp" -- or to take the evidence we've supplied & ask them to respond in a constructive manner. If this doesn't happen, then it would be the time to stop assuming good faith here. -- llywrch 00:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OTRS does need to be held accountable though. The article has been in a useless limbo state for a week now with no resolution in sight... is this really acceptable? If this is the best volunteer OTRS can do nowadays, the foundation needs to seriously consider getting paid legal counsel back, as I doubt a qualified attorney would have had to handle it this way. --W.marsh 03:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't dispute your point: I'm growing increasingly worried that OTRS is being used as a magic formula to remove controversial material without a proper discussion -- & only serving to offend long-term Wikipedians who aren't privy to these discussions. Nevertheless, try to remain civil while pressing your points: one catches more flies with honey than vinegar. -- llywrch 20:44, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Meh. That's not a helpful thing to say, to be honest. Criticism isn't automatically uncivil... I am going to criticize people who mess up articles. The solution isn't for me to keep my mouth shut, it's for them to do a better job. --W.marsh 20:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• The Geological Society of America has published discussion by geologists of a "lava lamp model" of the Earth's mantle, by the way (Ian H. Campbell (2001). "Identification of ancient mantle plumes". In Richard E. Ernst and Kenneth L. Buchan (ed.). Mantle Plumes: Their Identification Through Time. Geological Society of America. p. 7. ISBN 0813723523.). I hope that the OTRS people will have the sense to reject outright any calls to blank mantle plume, diapir, and Mantle (geology)#Movement. Uncle G 20:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Republicofwiki

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

Seems a bit suspicious for a newbie, and a possible username violation even. Goes around adding {{fact}} to articles, even dating the additions (I don't even remember to do that, and I've been on WP two years!). Then they oppose my RfA. Sounds an awful lot like a sockpuppet of a banned editor, though I don't know exactly who matches Republic's MO. Can an experienced admin check up on the situation? —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 13:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, they are even dating the fact tag! That is obviously a WP:SPA, but I don't think they are disruptive by themselves (yet?). I'd suggest keeping an eye on him to see if an agenda appears. -- lucasbfr ^talk 13:46, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Gotta be someone who's been here before, and obviously hitting "Random article" and added the fact tags. The only sock I can recall with a similar M.O. was User:MsHyde (a sock of the banned User:Cindery), who added unreferenced tags to a few hundred random articles to build up her first 300 edits or so. But I think we'll have to wait and see. MastCell ^Talk 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Ryúlông per WP:HARASS. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 01:46, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock due to the suspicious behaviour, but I may have been wrong. The user showed me where they first found the obscure tag I mention in my unblock decline that so raised my warning bells.[11] The tag was added a long while ago by another user.[12] A couple of users have expressed concern about the block. I myself am a bit suspicious and wary of the user. However, in the absence of solid evidence that this user is the sockpuppet of another specific user, or that the user's intention is to disrupt Wikipedia or harass its users, our principles encourage us to assume good faith. An indefinite block seems a bit out of place without a demonstrated need for it. Indef blocks are generally meant for users who have repeatedly demonstrated an inability to work productively in this environment, not first warnings. Just some thoughts. Vassyana 12:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I made the following comment to the user on IRC - "Well, I don't know if you're telling the truth or trolling. But Wikipedia policies as well as common sense would seem to indicate that in the absence of clear evidence for the latter, the former should be assumed". I think this sums up my views, it's possible that the user is trolling, however I think he should be unblocked in the interests of Assuming Good Faith. It's trivial to block the user again if he is a troll, yet we could lose a potentially valuable contributer to wikipedia if he remains blocked. --Darksun 13:51, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This is obviously a sockpuppet. Ask them to get over it and get another account; if they feel like editing constructively. — Nearly Headless Nick ^{C} 13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a fair bit of nonsense. Being a sockpuppet is not a reason in and of itself for a block, especially an indefinite one. Also, it's more than a bit ridiculous to say we should tell them "to get over it and get another account" when their indef block includes (account creation blocked). Vassyana 16:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

While I agree he's a sockpuppet/new account of an other user (he know the procedures much more than most users), I don't really see the harassment. In my views his behavior is not really against WP:SOCK, since he did not disrupt a process or seem to have /voted somewhere. Personally I'd assume good faith, unblock and keep an eye on him; but for now blocking him is more a preemptive strike than anything else. As a principle I never revert an admin decision without consensus to do so, so it's your call. -- lucasbfr ^talk 16:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the user made a single !vote, which was the basis for the block.[13] Vassyana 17:04, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that there was nothing wrong with voting as long as the user votes once; i.e. not with both accounts. hbdragon88 18:20, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The block was made, I believe, because Ryulong viewed the !vote as harassment, as noted above. Vassyana 18:37, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I blocked because I saw the !vote. There should very likely be a checkuser in this situation to see if the individual was vote stacking.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 20:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The above is a good example of poisoning the well. If you want to request the checkuser, go ahead, but would you agree to unblock if nothing turns up? Given what the user appears to have learned, I'm not sure what this block is preventing. Gracenotes^T § 02:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Due to the lack of evidence connecting the user to a banned/blocked account and no proof that this user is a puppet of an abusive sock, I cannot support an indefinite ban. Additionally, it seems as though consensus indicates that the user should be unblocked under good faith. I have notified Crazytales here and Ryulong here that I am willing to unblock under these circumstances. Barring any serious objections and/or further evidence, I will unblock the user after 24 hours to allow time for responses. Vassyana 07:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I support the unblock. In fact, I'd support an unblock right now. The user quoted from RFA: "Any Wikipedian with an account is welcome to comment in the Support, Oppose and Neutral sections" Considering this block, the user is correct in saying that this is obviously not true in practice. Apparently, we have some intangible suffrage level of "real" looking edits before a user can vote without being banned. I can't believe that this is being considered harrassment. It's a complete misapplication of blocking policy and disregard of assuming good faith. -- Renesis (talk) 21:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Iwazaki

• Iwazaki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks)

After an editor exposed my real identity in an ANI through an error I made in a sandbox, I have been harassed number of times with that information ever since. I have not dealt with incident of exposure of my real identity when I had made all efforts to conceal it including blanking the Sanbox number of times yet. That decision I am still grapling with but the harrasement is interfering in my ability to contribute to wikipedia.

• Incident 1,
• Incident 2,
• Incident 3
• incident 4 Thanks Taprobanus 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
  

Iwazaki (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) revealed at a AFD discussion, the subject is adamant LTTE supporter based on his edits in wikipedia and endangered his life[14].Madrass Express 03:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The harrassment of Taprobanus is unacceptable, however anyone can find out Rajkumar Kanagasingam.Bakaman 03:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically User:Blnguyen didn't reveal the identity of Taprobanus. In circa 2006 December User:Taprobanus (Then User:RaveenS) posted the essay which Blnguyen found in the User:Taprobanus/Sandbox on his userpage. Few days after that the page was deleted. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 14:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

However, Iwazaki's action of stocking and harassing a wikipedian is wrong. Especially when he puts on the "totally disputed" tags on articles that has been edited by User:Taprobanus without a proper reason. How can we expect Taprobanus to contribute to wikipedia if his work is going to be torn apart because of his real identity. Proper steps needs to be taken to help fellow wikipedian to make him edit comfortably Watchdogb 14:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment on the stalking issue right now but this identity reveling issue is totally false allegation as I see. I too like to recommend to have an Oversight regarding this but I strongly object for the scolding on others for the totally unwanted self identity declaring done by him self. It's true that Blnguyen went through the Special:Prefixindex on User:Taprobanus and found that on his Sandbox. But once that essay was on his userpage. So if Taprobanus reveled his identity then he should learn to live with it. Sorry to say that. --♪♫ ĽąĦĩŘǔ ♫♪ ^{walkie-talkie} 18:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This complaint is not on the fact that he revealed his identity. Its rather about Iwazaki breaching WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:AGF and so on. It's about judging the editor and then assuming he is here to vandalize. Wikipedia clearly does not allow this. Some measures should be taken to stop said user from such offence. We all want to contribute to wikipedia without being stocked and abused for our real identity. Watchdogb 21:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel users should not raise the background,race,religion,sex etc while raising issues here on any account in particular in Talk or Discussion pages and discussion should be confined to the topic ,I feel that is getting to personal and if he is stalking that is totally unacceptable and I feel no user should stalk others.One can watch pages no issues with that but stalking is totally unacceptable and violation of WP:NPA, WP:Civil, WP:AGF.Harlowraman 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought this was Administrators Notice Board of Incidents (ANI), :((( looks like no one wants to touch a hot potato. That’s all right, any way I have my two cents, based on the adamant protection of User:Blnguyen reveals to me that the poor chap was set up, i.e he was given the information by those who had interacted with me in the past. But this notice is not about Blnguyen’s actions. This is about the harassment. Thanks Taprobanus 12:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Impersonating another user and religious attacks

Fyslee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has taken text I wrote on one talk page and posted it on another talk page(midway down the mixed edit), effectively amplifying an already heated discussion. He then proceeded to have a heated conversation against this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself. His behaviour in the last 24 hours on the [15] talk page appears to be purely in the name of escalating an already volitile situation. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 01:34, 23 June 2007 (UTC) Is there anything that can be done about this? I really feel he's trying to escalate a bad situation beyond a tenable discussion. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming... We're dealing with blockable and bannable offenses here by a user who refuses to accomodate BLP and NPR concerns from several users (including myself) regarding Metta Bubble's behavior. If necessary I will take this to the BLP Noticeboard and try to get Metta Bubble sitebanned for gross impropriety. No need to waste time on a ArbCom RfArb, when any admin can simply make a block or ban. There are other users who will back up this effort. -- Fyslee/talk 07:54, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"My response to this totally false and misleading charge is coming..." The diffs I posted above speak for themselves. What possible legitimate reason could you have for posting my comments and signature to another page? How would you like it if I went around posting your signature to things?

Your content issues do not warrant admin intervention. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 08:32, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand. It is your behavioral issues that may require blocking or banning. I never attached your signature to anything. I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) and my replies (thus preserving the context). You start out here by making it sound like I forged something and then added your signature to make it look like something you had written:

• "... this post I never made. He has included my signature and the date. It appears to other users as if I posted the information myself."

You did post that information yourself on my talk page. I only moved it in context. They are your words and signature and time. Don't try to make it sound otherwise. I would never "post(ing) your signature to things" you had not written, and I would not take them out of context and add them to another discussion of another subject. I was only keeping the discussion on the same page, especially since the context also involved other users and your accusations against them. As my response below explains, I am prepared to drop this matter if you don't restore you personal attacks and BLP violation. Otherwise I will go higher up and have a very strong case, since a previous editor who made the same false charges got banned, partially for showing intention (without even doing it) to out another user. That was the last straw after they had already repeatedly publicized private information about myself and made false and unproven COI allegations. You have already outed AvB, but since you may not have understood the seriousness of what you were doing, AvB is being very generous. If you heed his request and don't go there again you may be spared this time. -- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe you openly admit it and still don't see how it's wrong. Can someone please explain how Fyslees actions (in his own words "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all) ") are inappropriate. I'd truly appreciate this. I'm really sick of this user harassing me and I thinks it's gonna get ugly if someone doesn't set him straight on the appropriateness of copy-and-pasting other users signatures. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to false charges and misuse of this board

I see that Metta Bubble has continued her disruptions, personal attacks, and BLP violations against myself and User:AvB at the Talk:Stephen_Barrett page, and has now escalated the matter by making false charges here. This false charge concerns ONE word which Metta Bubble wrote about me, and which I refactored to a more accurate word (which makes Metta Bubble look more charitable!), and then noted why I did it. The word was a repetition of a false charge from a RfArb. (That RfArb resulted in a banning of my accuser.) That charge was never proven and a repetition is simply a gross BLP violation and personal attack against myself. Making COI charges is a serious matter. Rather than take the matter to the BLP Noticeboard, I simply changed it and explained why, since I saw "no need to make waves." Metta Bubble decided to escalate the matter and reverted it (restoring BLP violations is a blockable offense, IIRC, while deleting such isn't even covered by 3rr) and deleted my explanation. Metta Bubble then took the discussion to my talk page, which I felt was problematic as it split the discussion, removing it from the relevant spot, which also involved other editors. I therefore copied very precisely and carefully (no "impersonation" at all, so she is deceiving this board) Metta Bubble's ensuing comments (they were indeed her comments!) and my own replies and placed them in the existing thread where they belonged, so others would know what was going on. Otherwise it would not be understandable. I also wished other editors to help me keep the BLP violation out of Wikipedia, and I made such a request.

She has also vandalized MY heading and is making a big issue out of it with another user (even claiming it was her heading).

Now she is calling me a vandal here (by wikilinking my name to "vandal"). She is getting more and more agitated and is attacking other users as well. Please get her to calm down and just leave the more accurate "POV" instead of the false "conflict" (COI) word in place. That will settle the matter for me.

In the meantime I will continue to remove the BLP violation against me in accordance with the requirement ("must") for any Wikipedia editor to do so if it pops up again. As of the time of this diff, the state of this word matter is acceptable to me.

These edit histories tell part of the story:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Barrett&limit=500&action=history
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Metta_Bubble
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fyslee
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Avb

-- Fyslee/talk 09:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee considers it a BLP violation that it's my opinion his edits reveal a conflict of interest on the article. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Admin comment

• Why has this user been allowed to get away with impersonating me? Have I brought this to the wrong page? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 00:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Both of you summarize your complaints in 100 words or less after my comment. Right now, this is an argument between the two of you that has spilled over onto this board. There is nothing we administrators can do without knowing what the hell is going on.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Fyslee (talk · contribs) copied my user post to an article talkspace (replying, inserting my message, then making a religious attack)[16]. He admits his behaviour here, stating "I very precisely and carefully copied your statements (signature and all)." He also deleted my posting about his Arbcom identified conflict of interest, claiming it is a BLP violation. I respected his refactoring though he was already cautioned. Some days later he continues to post religious attacks on me. I see his behaviour as wilfully inciting hostilities. I take impersonation and religious attacks to be critical community issues. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 07:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I see Metta Bubble continues to falsely charge me with "impersonation." If I had written a message and attached Metta's name to it, then that would indeed be impersonation, but I didn't. I simply copied a complete conversation, including sigs, to the existing thread on the article talk page so the discussion didn't get split up, and also because other editors were being attacked by Metta Bubble in that particular thread. Since everything related to that discussion was relevant for others to read, I just copied it. There was nothing remotely related to "impersonation" or any attempt to misrepresent, take out of context, or otherwise do anything improper. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The other accusation about COI is misplaced. The RfArb listed my interests, but no COI was every proven. A shared POV does not a COI make, otherwise no one could edit here. Even a COI does not prevent editing if it doesn't affect the actual edits.

Her COI accusation was clearly a personal attack, as defined by the NPA policy:

• using "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [17]

-- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

"Religious attack"? Only pointing out the hypocrisy so evident. I admire the ideals of Buddhism, and when a Buddhist so evidently seeks and pursues conflict it seems rather hypocritical to me. She should live up to her ideals instead of making a mockery of them. -- Fyslee/talk 14:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thirdy party comments

• Although not a party to this specific conflict, it is a bit of a spin-off of a conflict between Metta Bubble and me and I am mentioned above. Ryulong, if I can help, please let me know. I am still considering whether or not to ask an admin to step in and explain to Metta that "outing" and damaging another editor's real-life identity are blockable, sometimes bannable offenses. Apparently they do not accept this from me or other editors who have tried. Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 07:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Avb (talk · contribs) has a conflict with me and seems to be the reason his friend Fyslee (talk · contribs) started attacking me. I haven't outed anybody and never posted information beyond what is already public on wikipedia. If these users want to pursue their accusations I'm happy to answer with diffs to refute any and all claims. However, I see this behaviour as tag-team filibustering. I can't imagine any forthcoming context for justifying impersonation and religious attacks on me. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 12:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Metta_Bubble_refuses_to_acknowledge_"outing"_another_editor. AvB ÷ talk 14:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat

Is this blockable? Corvus cornix 06:38, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, just lame. Riana (talk) 06:42, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of which, this user is a minor revealing a great deal of personal information about himself on his User page. Corvus cornix 06:55, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think any of those restrictions on minors revealing personal information ever became policy.--Chaser - T 06:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

(ec) It's totally MySpace-y & is userbox hell. Dunno if the personal info aspect warrants it, though. I'd love to delete it on the grounds of aesthetic offence, however ... - Alison ☺ 07:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

No, not policy. Just common sense. Riana (talk) 07:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Protecting children's privacy says Reasonable efforts to discourage children from disclosing identifying personal information are appropriate and Users who appear to be children editing in good faith who disclose identifying personal information may be appropriately counseled. Deletion and oversight may be used in appropriate cases to remove the information.. Corvus cornix 07:03, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

"... in appropriate cases ..." - define "appropriate". In this case, the fact that the guy reveals his full name concerns me here, but everything else seems reasonable at a glance - Alison ☺ 07:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The city he lives in and the school he goes to? Corvus cornix 07:06, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Ummm - I'm deleting that - Alison ☺ 07:07, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. ☺ Corvus cornix 07:08, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Userpage deleted. We have to have some limits. Riana (talk) 07:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it is blockable, technically, although a block probably isn't really necessary given the implausibility involved. He appears to be threatening to have his mom sue wikipedia for not removing that image. That would be a legal threat, albeit a very lame one... we could ask him to clarify, though, if it isn't clear. --Aquillion 07:12, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I have cooled down that dispute before this thread started. And the "legal threats" were just grasping at straws, so just dismiss them as empty talk, at least for now. —Kurykh 07:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this might be considered another legal threat/rant: [18]. bibliomaniac15 ^{BUY NOW!} 17:00, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

And I thought recruiting an admin into my discussion with User:Hornetman16 would defuse things... seems that his objections to the photo is not founded in anything other than an intense desire to have it removed. Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

About his userpage? He's just gone up the foodchain a bit [19] Flyguy649^talk_contribs 18:22, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Which I would imagine wont do him much good at all, I left a link to his talk page so if Jimbo really wants to he can get an explanantion there, SqueakBox 18:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The only method of getting him into constructive conversation was to appeal to his religious beliefs, which was laid out quite blatantly on his user page. Unorthodox, yes, but if it works, hey, what the heck. —Kurykh 18:30, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image removed under the biographies of living persons policy

Without expressing an opinion either way as to the existence of this image on Wikipedia per se, I have removed it from one of the articles in which it was being used, under our Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy. Its use in that article was an entirely gratuitous publicization, that added no information to the article, of a living person who is not a public figure and who can neither defend xyr own rights or grant consent, and thus unacceptable. See Talk:Nackt Radtour#Image removed. Please note that any attempt to edit war or to re-include this image without making a strong and compelling case beforehand that these specific children need to be personally identified in an encyclopaedia article about a bicycle race will lead to loss of editing privileges. Uncle G 13:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• I see mention of OTRS on the description page, are we sure that the naked man has not granted consent? Viridae^Talk 13:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • The owner of the website on which it was displayed claims copyright and has granted GFDL rights. The child in the photograph has not consented and probably could not. --Tony Sidaway 13:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • There's no "probably" about it, Tony. That kid can't be more than three years old--that's too young to give consent in ANY country. I do have to wonder, though ... the name of the child wasn't included. If it was, then that would be totally inappropriate. But is merely including a picture of a child the same as identifying her (and it definitely looks like a girl)? Just wondering for future reference ... Blueboy96 16:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • In most countries, the legal guardian (presumably one of the parents, possibly the very person holding up the child in the picture) could have given consent which would make the matter perfectly legal. However, whether this particular picture enhances the article in any way (given the other pictures), especially given that our society has issues with displaying images of nude children, is a totally legitimate and relevant question.--Ramdrake 16:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Hmmm, I can understand that perspective--especially since no race action was portrayed, or it wasn't clear that the guy holding her was the winner of the race. On those grounds, the picture should have been removed. But it's still not clear (to me, anyway) whether the girl was identified. I'm a journalist by training, and I agree it is totally inappropriate to identify a minor without the parent's permission. Seems a bit too broad to suggest that merely including a picture on a high-traffic Web site would be considered identification. I just want to make sure we're not setting a bad future precedent.Blueboy96 16:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
          • IMHO, that's a distinct possibility. That's why I'd drop the WP:BLP pretense (which to me doesn't apply too well), and just say that the merits of adding this particular picture to the articles are doubtful, considering the possible controversial nature of the contents (depicting a nude chld). Purely subjective, but if there's consensus behind it, I'd say it becomes fully justified. Otherwise, if we accept that WP:BLP applies because the child itself couldn't be old enough to consent, we'd need to remove all pictures of children belowe the age of, say 7 years old from Wikpedia, which would be counter-productive.--Ramdrake 16:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • My thoughts exactly. I may be a pentecostal/charismatic Christian (though somewhat more liberal than the guy leading the charge for that picture to be spiked from WP entirely), but I'm no prude. I realize that per Jimbo, we seem to have adopted a very broad interpretation of BLP, but this is carrying it too far. That said, the picture should stay out of that article--it's not clear whether the guy holding her won the race, and portraying nude children in a nongermane manner is unencyclopedic. Blueboy96 17:20, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
            • Indeed if it doesnt go in Child nudity it shouldnt go anywhere, and if it isnt linked to any articles it should be deleted, SqueakBox 17:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
• I have moved the image to Commons. And I'd like to point out the three IfDs [20] this image has gone through. There is plenty of consensus to keep the image. Acting unilaterally otherwise goes against the community will. I believe that counts as the strong and compelling evidence Uncle G asked for. -N 17:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Indeed, then it shouldn't be deleted (nor was I suggesting that it be). The only thing I was suggesting was that the image's place in the article should be judged independently from the WP:BLP standard, which I don't feel applies here. It might be useful in an article on family nudism or somesuch. But putting in a picture of a nude child to point out that their presence in this particular event is rare - is it just me, or is it counter-illustrative?--Ramdrake 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, as I pointed out on the article's talk page, most of the keep consensus was based on the image being in that article. It's a nude bike race, those are pictures from the race. Europe is incredibly lax on public nudity, even of children. If pictures from a nude bike race don't belong in the article on the nude bike race then something's wrong. Of course it could also be well-placed in other articles. -N 19:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, I would have considered it be kept in the article, but for two reasons: 1)the article (which isn't that long) already has several pictures of the racers and 2)the caption of the image said children are rarely seen at that event, which means the image is atypical rather than really illustrative of the event. Under these circumstances, I would question its inclusion.--Ramdrake 20:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
        • Well, I've moved it to Commons. I'm perfectly content with that as a solution in the meantime, and waiting for the uploader to return to Wikipedia and see what they want to do. -N 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
  • It is nothing of the sort, as already explained. As yet, no strong and compelling evidence has been presented that this image need be used anywhere in the entire encyclopaedia.

    The Wikipedia:Biography of living persons policy most definitely does apply here. I find it dismaying that editors, including especially those who profess to be journalists, are not thinking of the consequences of their actions, including the fact that they will result in a living person, who had no choice in once being photographed naked as a child, being labelled in the future as they grow up by friends, schoolchildren, employers, and complete strangers who recognize xem from xyr picture as "that naked little child in the encyclopaedia".

    This is why journalists have editors. I suggest that Blueboy96 run the idea past xyr editor of choosing between two pictures to illustrate a published print article about a bicycling event: one that contains solely consenting adults capable of giving consent, making their own choices, and defending themselves, and one that contains a child in a pose that can cause that child embarrassment and distress in the future as xe grows up. I expect that Blueboy96's editor, if xe is competent, will have strong words to say on the subject, and explain to Blueboy96 that conventional journalism ethics is to do no harm in such cases. If xyr editor is not competent, there are plenty of discussions of journalism ethics around, as well as plenty of explicit codes of journalistic conduct, that will explain what one has to think about with regard to pictures of identifiable children.

    As an alternative, consider how you would each react to embarrassing and distressing photographs of yourselves as children being used in an encyclopaedia as you grow up. We are not constructing private photo albums of baby photos here. We are constructing a public encyclopaedia for the whole world's use. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia. Uncle G 22:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

    • I'm afraid you're wrong on all counts: three IfD against this image have all resulted in the image being kept, as per Wikipedia consensus. This is as strong and as compelling as evidence can get on WP, barring direct intervention from Jimbo Wales. Your WP:BLP argument would hold water if the child was identified and/or readily identifiable. Neither applies: the child isn't identified, and the picture of the face is taken in such a way as to make formal recognition very difficult, if not almost impossible. It's just a casual image of a naked child, about as anonymous and unprovocative as can be. The argument about the child not being able to make its own choice is also moot: if a legal guardian has consented to the picture, that counts just as if the child him or herself had accepted being photographed. None of these arguments are appropriate to remove this picture from the article.--Ramdrake 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Come to think of it also, I fail to see how this would be any more traumatic than say, your mother showing pictures of you as child, naked in the bathtub, the first time you bring a girlfriend over to dinner to meet your parents. Sure, it's embarrassing, but it's far from being the life-long trauma you seem to depict.--Ramdrake 00:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
      • And something else. That picture was taken in 2001, and has presumably been on the original site since then. Germany has stricter privacy laws than the States ... seems if there was a concern, it would have been raised by now. In either case, I stand by my argument that keeping it off on BLP grounds sets a bad precedent for Wikipedia. Blueboy96 21:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User page as possible attack page

What is the policy or usual method of acting when one encounters a user page that may be genuine, but looks to me more like an attackpage? I mean something like User:Robthenerd1990, which is possibly not written by this Rob Boot but by e.g. a school "friend" (I can't imagine someone saying about himself "Hi I'm a Christian nerd and a nazi). Warn? Blank? Block? Leave alone? Fram 16:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

• There is a previous account User:RobtheGate, who started the article Littlemoss High School which this "Rob" coincidentally says he also attended (and is the newer account's only mainspace edit). I'd say that it's an attack page. EliminatorJR ^Talk 17:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Robthenerd1990 19:17, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Its not an 'attackpage' and the fact that you consider it such makes you appear to be intolerant of the far-right, i was also 'robthegate' but i lost the password a few days after creating the account (i didn't give an email address for it so i couldn't get my password emailed) Why would i cover up my political or religious beliefs? I am openly a National Socialist and have been for a couple of years, i don't go shouting it but most people guess and if they ask ill tell them. Most Neo-Nazis are unlikely to cover up what they think unless they are trying to sabotage a red or anti site. I started the 'littlemoss' site as 'robthegate' and i rarely see the need to update a page and if i do it usually gets stopped even if i provide factual evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Robthenerd1990 (talk • contribs)

Ahh, an accusation of intolerance from a devotee of Adolf Hitler whose avocation is making "morality based complaints involving male and female relationships amongst his peers." Mind if I go ahead and tag the two accounts as related? MastCell ^Talk 20:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Trademark violation?

This is a long shot, but is there any action to take regarding this? Background information: about a week ago, Istarlive (talk · contribs) created articles like Istarlive and IStarLive which were A7/G11'd, and I username blocked the user. Today JamesterDude (talk · contribs) moved User:Istarlive to Istarlive and claims it is a trademark violation for "IStarLive" to be used to refer to a user. -SpuriousQ (talk) 00:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of the trademark issue (which legally is a non-starter), to prevent further spamming, I've removed the invalid redirect and salted User:Istarlive. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and I added Istarlive to protected titles, given its long history of creation/deletion. AKRadecki^Speaketh 01:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Considering that CheckUser shows that JamesterDude and Istarlive are the same person, this adds an extra layer of comedy. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:46, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Re-post about WP:POINT

Help, please Could someone review this post; these issues have not been resolved or even addressed. I have refrained from editing these pages, pending someone's intervention, and I don't want another edit war to start. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 03:00, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The post looks like a content dispute. Have you considered using the dispute resolution process? — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:26, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Carl, to be honest, I was not sure where to put this, as there are a large variety of disputes across more than one namespace, even. If you think it is wisest to post there, I will. Does anyone else have any suggestions? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocking User:Zaindy87 for policy violation

Pl. block User:Zaindy87 who has uploaded several images (which he himself admits to be fair use for copyrighted images) under the additional license tags of Creative Commons or GDFL. The upload page clearly mentions "Do not upload content with false license declarations. You will be blocked." He has exactly uploaded with false licenses, therefore pl. block him and delete the images. --Idleguy 04:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I see no need to block at this time (not that I could if I wanted to...). He seems to have stopped for the while, and probably understands the warning. If he does it again, you would be within reason to take it directly to WP:AIV (an unusual step, but it works). YechielMan 22:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Problem Editor/Possible Vandal

Stefers08 (talk · contribs) made several uploads and edits to three of the four main Fantastic Four Heroes by using promotional images from the FF movies. Upon further review of his contribution history, either this guy is an obvious vandal that has slipped under the radar, or a seriously misguided editor. Activity suggests and leans towards Vandal. I checked most of his uploaded images, and the ones I saw had the {{Non-free currency}} tags on images that depict ficticious characters. Most of his activity has been "contained" in a 12 day period. --293.xx.xxx.xx 11:53, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

This is almost certainly a good-faith WP:NOOB who simply doesn't understand the image policy. Come on, everyone, raise your hand if you really had a solid understanding of image policy during your first month or 50 edits on the project. That's what I thought. So some of the images are already tagged, and the others could be listed at IFD. No harm, no foul. YechielMan 22:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:UBX/Zionist

Tagged for speedy deletion under the brand-new CSD U4 ("polemic"). Anyone want to take this one? I'm seriously tempted to remove the tag and say take it to MfD, but... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I feel I have no choice but to forward this to MFD, for one very simple reason. Userboxes of this nature have survived MFD in the past, and I can only support a speedy criterion if I believe that a formal debate would result in a near-unanimous deletion. I will make it a procedural nomination, and I will give full context. I hope that works for everyone. YechielMan 14:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've tagged this and User:UBX/Capitalist on the grounds their opposites, Palestinian return and communism were recently speedied. Fully understand about your reasons for prefering a MfD. Addhoc 14:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Works for me, although I can't really say I'd have agreed with the above two being speedied either. Thanks for understanding. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:52, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There's are active discussions on this & related deletions in several places simultaneously , (at least) WP:DRV, WP:CSD, WP:MfD .DGG 21:43, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User: Darkcurrent recidivism with insulting edit summaries

I hope I've found the right place to post this; sorry if I haven't. User: Darkcurrent recently made a small, unsourced edit to a page I watch, but then summarized it in a completely inappropriate way: diff. I am personally deeply offended by his language, and originally I was just going to ask him to stop on his talk page -- but then I noticed that he's been blocked for very similar behavior before: [21] (links to user's contributions page). I'm not sure what needs to be done, but I'd suggest that the user be blocked again, as that seemed to teach him a lesson, at least for a little while before. Thanks. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 17:02, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) I see you left him a polite warning, that was definitely a step in the right direction. I'll keep an eye out and if he continues then you cna either follow up here or take it straight to AIV. All the best. The Sunshine Man 17:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to say that whatever point Darkcurrent was attempting to make was more than slightly compromised by his spelling "whole" without the w... Considering the epithet s/he used regarding editors, perhaps they had something else on their mind? LessHeard vanU 18:58, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) Also, the point is false. It's I'm in insurance, per [22]. You'd have to go to the last page, if memory serves, because it's the final scene, but clearly, it's "I'm in insurance.".--Ispy1981 21:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Any chance this guy is User:Light current? Friday (talk) 21:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

That was my first thought, as Light current was banned in February and this account started full-time editing in March (only one edit before that) and Light current had a history of abusive edit summaries. But it seems to be two different people based on editing patterns and their comments. — Moe ε 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

(Non admin comment) User:Light current was better at spelling, and wasn't so heavy on the caps lock key. pablomismo_|\talk 22:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Brookstein

The article Steve Brookstein has been edited by an anon claiming to be that person (see Talk:Steve Brookstein). This needs investigating given "how can Wikipedia be taken seriuosly when it allows vandalism and untruths be spread about people and presented as facts", but nobody has taken this through the official channels as far as I am aware. violet/riga (t) 17:29, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

He was legitamately complaining about a BLP violation on the talk page that would violate NPA as well. Could someone oversite it please now i've edited it off the talk page? ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The editor who added the section in question is 80.6.89.61 and here is the diff [23], that should help. ^{(Hypnosadist)} 17:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I deleted the talk page and restored versions that did not contain that text. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 21:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Colors in Infoboxes

I would like to block the IP address 68.173.209.19 (talk · contribs), because he continues to change the colors on baseball players infoboxes, mostly Yankees players and changes them to lesser known teams they played for. I believe he changes them because he doesnt like the Yankees, and that is not a good reason to change the colors, I also believe it is the Ip address of Pascack (talk · contribs), considering they make nearly all the same edits, and I think he uses a couple of other IP address also. I have told him numerous times to stop but he doesnt listen--Yankees10 18:10, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

He offers the fact that the said player is in the hall of fame with those colors (i.e. Dave Winfield was with the Padres the most). What is your compelling reason for retaining the original colors? hbdragon88 18:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well for players like Reggie Jackson, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk he has A's colors for Reggie when they should be Yankee, Mets Colors for Gary when they should be Expos, and Red Sox colors when they should be White Sox--Yankees10 18:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

(non admin) Those are all debatable, especially Fisk, who is most closely associated in the popular imagination with the Red Sox and wears a Red Sox cap on his Hall plaque. I'd say that, in many cases, you're right, but there are others -- Jeff Nelson comes to mind -- in which he's done the right thing. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 20:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree Nelson signed with the YANKEES TO RETIRE AS A YANKEE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.16.153 (talk • contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Possible contender for the Screaming WGAS award here. No administrative action is called for here; work it out somewhere else. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

'Wood Green Animal Shelter'? HalfShadow 21:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeff Nelson actually played three separate stints for the Seattle Mariners and played more years in Seattle. However, I agree that he is likely better known as a Yankee. However, Reggie Jackson played many more years in Oakland and won more titles in Oakland. Since his photo is already shown as a Yankee, I think it would be most fair to show Oakland colors, so that both teams are represented. However, I have never used profanity or foul language in the descriptions when making edits, a practice that Yankees10 has done consistently. I think this is much worse than showing Jeff Nelson as a Mariner, or Reggie Jackson as an Oakland A - both representations that are not beyond reality. I will give him Nelson as a Yankee but Reggie should be shown with Oakland colors since he played many more years there. Regarding Carlton Fisk, he actually is in the Hall with Boston colors, not White Sox, but I think he is most remembered as a Red Sox due to the famous World Series HR in 1975, and I believe the general consensus would agree. Gary Carter is wearing an Expos in the Hall but it was his request to wear a Mets cap and he was overruled because the Hall wanted an Expos hat represented before the organization moved to Washington. He is most remembered for his high-profile championship years with the Mets in the 1980's and he has also spent the better part of the past 15 years working in the Mets organization as an instructor and minor league manager. Carter clearly identifies himself most as a Met.Pascack 21:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Thedeadmanandphenom

Having some problems with Thedeadmanandphenom (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been leaving profane, incivil and occasionally threatening (though not realistically threatening, more in the 'I hope you die!' type commentia range) on the page of Darrenhusted. I think he needs a time out. Could someone put him in the corner for a a couple hours? --Thespian 18:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

In the past he has disrupted pages [24] and blanked sourced material [25], and after having numerous warnings [26] for editors other than myself he has now decided to attack me personally for PROD-ding an article he created [27], [28]. I don't know if he is here to constructively edit, and I have tried to assume good faith, even tidying up the article he created [29] but I think that some kind of block (may be for 12 hours) may be needed to try to reign him in. Any help on this matter would be appreciated. Darrenhusted 18:41, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

If anyone ever gets around to looking at this issue, I'd also request a checkuser on Lostinspace123 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has been mucking with my talk page and Darren's, entirely with snarky comments about Darren's sexuality and facetious sounding comments about Thedeadmanandphenom. --Thespian 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

ETA - slurs from Lostinspace123 invectives have now gotten racial in addition to being sexual. He's on a bit of a tear. --Thespian 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him indef for a "death threat" as well as general harassment SirFozzie 16:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:BullyDale

BullyDale (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is another likely sockpuppet of User:Danny Daniel that should be blocked. The user's contributions fit the pattern of previous Danny Daniel sockpuppets (see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel for more info). The username is in CamelCase. He/she even created a hoax sequel called The Big Field Trip 2: When World's Collide (a parody of The Jimmy Timmy Power Hour 2: When Nerds Collide. User:LuisPlank2X4 created similar pages which are dubbed The Inuyasha Jake Power Hour. User:68.37.205.18 was a suspected proxy of that user, which turned out to be a confirmed Danny Daniel sock). Pants^(T) 20:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, block BullyPoop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Pants^(T) 20:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Update, BullyPoop has been blocked indef by User:Naconkantari for having an inappropiate username. BullyDale has not been blocked yet. Pants^(T) 01:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Folken de Fanel and Sandpiper

I was't quite sure what to do about this so i thought i'd better put it on here. These two users, User:Folken de Fanel, and User:Sandpiper, are engaged in edit warring over a number of harry potter related articles such as Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, Horcrux, R.A.B., Kreacher etc, and neither seems to be able to resolve an issue over article content, instead, the same arguments keep being repeated over and over, if another user becomes involved, like i did, still no consensus or compromise is reached, the user just gets sucked in too. Judging from their contributions, it seems that all they do is revert the other ones edits. Can anything be done about this, or will we just have to wait for the book to come out and settle all the debates.--Jac16888 20:40, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

and i forgot to say that they don't appear to actually be breaking the 3RR, which is why i haven't reported it there.--Jac16888 20:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Block requested

Use Yankees10 (talk · contribs) has persistently used profanity in the discussion section in editing history. Argument in question is the team colors on Reggie Jackson's infobox - Oakland vs. Yankees. This argument can go in either way, but he should not be using such language on a public forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pascack (talk • contribs) 21:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Take your feud somewhere else, please... HalfShadow 21:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Massive 3RR'ing on Jeff Nelson (baseball player) for the past two days. Can an admin just block Yankee10 now, or will I have to file a 3RR report? hbdragon88 21:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I admit I am over using profanity but you are changing everything because you clearly dont like the Yankees--Yankees10 22:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

Personal Attacks & Incivility

User:ThuranX started making personal attacks on me the other day, and has not relented, despite my efforts to resolve the issue politely and, in the end, somewhat ineffectively. I have had very little in the way of interaction with him, and am very surprised by the rage and vitriol I am seeing in his recent edits to and about me.
The conversation began over some placement of citation tags in the Catwoman, wherein ThuranX and another user, Duhman were edit-warring and generally being uncivil to each other. I suggested that they might want to take a step back for a bit, and they both went nuts. I replied to each of them on their talk pages. Duhman proved pretty much a lost cause, but I had enough respect for Thuran to try and help square things away, as evidenced here and here (both of the short sections are full of personal attacks). He took my questioning of his edits as a personal attack, and became a lot more uncivil. I wasn't expecting this and responded a bit hotly, though nowhere near as hotly as what continued. I retracted my statements, hoping this would calm matters down. It didn't, and the personal attacks just kept coming:
In the Catwoman article:

• 1
• 2
• 3

In another editor's talk page:

• 4 (including my response to the initial attack, which I self-reverted, wanting the attacks to simply stop)
• 5

His own talk page had more personal attacks.

The damnable thing is that, while I know he is feeling burnt out and is not at all polite with many, many others (as evidenced by a look at just the edit history of his own Talk page). I actually respected the guy - until he decided to target me. I am not sure how to proceed, as he seems to be continuing the uncivil stuff despite my politely trying to defuse matters, or not responding at all. I mean, I am avoiding the guy, but he just keeps making comments. Can someone lend a hand? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

He's not assuming good faith on your part, but good faith has its limits and he might have reached his. Here he explains himself:[30]

You're a troll. You're deliberately disrupting pages with citation demands for every line and section to make a point. What that point is, I don't care. but it's tiring, childish, and irritating. If you feel that every single thing needs citation, you go find it. I found more than enough, given that this all started with you being nosey. ThuranX 17:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've not reviewed your dispute in detail, but if ThuranX is seeing this correctly, he might be correct regarding the citations (though presumably has mistaken your intentions). You only need to place <ref/> tags on facts that are likely to be questioned. –Gunslinger47 19:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that wasn't the issue prompting the complaint. I was addressing the personal attacks and incivility that accompanied the edits, which another editor also addressed with him (to no avail). Maybe he was all upset about the User:H issue, and it spilled over, but I am not the only person he has blown up at or made personal attacks at. When a user acts in this way, they usually get blocke for a period of time, not as punishment, necessarily, but instead to both protect the project as well as giving the person being complained about some perspective. I am not sure I understand the delay in acting here. -Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:29, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

This complaint was perhaps accidentally archived without resolution. I am putting it back into queue, because people shouldn't be free to be a dick. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 21:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I'll warn him to keep his cool but I pretty much agree with him in that you're being completely zealous with the whole citation thing... that's about all I'm willing to do though. Lay off asking for citation for facts that probably wouldn't challenged per policy. Sasquatch t|c 04:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Admin intervention for User:pwok

Resolved

 – Account indefinitely blocked.

On the Talk:Matt Sanchez page, User:pwok, now editing under his IP address of User:71.231.140.80, has continually (one might even say continuously) attacked editors who do not agree with his interpretation of how to edit the (contentious) article on Matt Sanchez. Pwok/71.231 is an SPA, as his user logs show. He has been blocked three times already for incivility (3 hours, 10 days, and 7 days), and during his blocks he has used his talk page (which he blanked yesterday) to rain invective upon Sanchez, other editors, the admins who have blocked him, and Wikipedia itself. Then, of course, there is this attack on Wikipedia, at a site he has created, which is solely dedicated to smearing Sanchez. (Suggests more than a bit of a Conflict of Interest.) He apparently has some sort of vendetta against Sanchez, and there have been allegations of off-wiki drama between the two of them, but his activity here (and his personal attacks against User:Elonka and User:WjBscribe are simply out of line. During his last involuntary wikibreak, the hostility level on that talk page dropped considerably. I would suggest some sort of intervention, and am willing to take this to the next level if necessary to block a tendentious and abusive editor from Wikipedia. Horologium t-c 21:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The IP address has been blocked by Jayjg for a month (link) and its talkpage has been protected following the subsequent posting of attacks and abuse. Given this and the receipt of abusive emails from Pwok, I have now blocked that account indefinitely (and disabled the "E-mail this user" feature from that account in order to prevent further attacks on editors he has been in conflict with). WjBscribe 02:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with non-free images from Wikipedia:WikiProject Hello! Project

This project is currently endorsing the upload of unfree images of living people. I don't have the guts to engage in talk, as I have already been called a Nazi (two times image my talk page [31] [32] and in a message delivered to several project participants ([33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39]...)). Would someone step in?

The WikiProject Hello! Project covers articles about Japanese pop celebrities, and as such, is a magnet for replaceable non-free images of living people. Besides keeping an eye on its articles, I have added minor instructions to the project's page to help with the problem.

But, recently, the project's page has been changed to endorse the use of unfree images of living people. I don't think it's helpful to state "Free images sadly do not exist for H!P artists." in the project's instructions about the images.

It's a good thing to notice that the project also promotes the tagging of all images used in its articles. But its incentive to the upĺoad of images that are going to be deleted is not something desirable. --Abu badali ^(talk) 22:13, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Straight-up I see a violation of WP:CANVASS and implied ownership and incivility in the call to "protect" the project from "copyright nazis". hbdragon88 22:24, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left a nice essay on the main user's talk page and the talk page of the project.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 22:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

And they're not getting it. They're claiming that there are no free alternatives because their management company does not allow fans to bring cameras to the concerts.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 00:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The same user, User:Cjmarsicano, continues with his highly uncivil language [40] [41] and ownish behaviour[42] [43] [44] [45] (where he states that only members of that Wikiproject should edit the Wikiproject's page, otherwise it's vandalism) even after Ryulong and hbdragon88 tried to communicate with him. Would someone especially tactful be willing to step in and help? Thanks. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:46, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Racist Personal Attacks

Resolved

Please be aware that on the talk page for Joseph Smith Jr. the editor User:Storm Rider has taken to personally insulting another editor, myself, by using racial slurs damning all Indians. I will not contribute in an environment that is hostile or that insults my race and he has done both. I asked a question involving the possible racism of Joseph Smith as it might be something to make the article more accurate. It is true that most people of Smith's time were racist and if Smith was as well then as an importand leader that began a religous movement it should be noted, especially since books penned by Smith do contain racist material. I recieved some initial responses but I still felt the issue had not come to a proper decision. I was very conserned about some of the information provided in a link and I specifically asked if the information in the link was factually accurate. At that point Storm Rider, instead of answering the question, called me a hypocrite for even asking. Not only did he call me a hypocrite for even asking but he then proceeded to insult my race by using phrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians and he insist on inserting information that had nothing to do with the topic at had, the possible racism of Joseph Smith Jr., by saying over and over again that all Indians are liers because they weren't the first people in America so they are all liers for saying it. I do not feel conforable continueing to edit in this type of atmosphere. I ask that this user be centured for these racist comments and not allowed to edit anymore. Should this not be something that Wikipedia is able to do even to someone that has launched this horrid type of personal attack at me then I feel it prudent to not edit Wikipedia anymore. Please let me know which one of us should go.--Billiot 22:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

• Well, a quick look says you're misrepresenting the situation. Storm Rider did not phrases like "blood thirsty Savages" to decribe all Indians; rather, he said, The various cultures of Native Americans ran from blood thirsty to peaceful...just like every other culture upon the earth. Slow down and read more carefully, and perhaps you'll have a better time here. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 22:34, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I find this kind of talk from User:Storm Rider to be totally uncalled for:

The noble savage is a farce and to begin to attempt to say that Native Americans were the "first" residents of these lands is the stuff of fairy tales we tell to ensure that the injustice of "the man" is condemned. That first group or people has yet to be identified or known by history. However, current archeology would say that Native Americans may simply be transplants from Asia. Given that perspective the concept of "original" inhabitants loses its primacy and legitimacy.

Not only is it uncalled for, because it is incendiary, but it is probably incorrect. Current understanding is that Native Americans are likely the descendants of basically the first human beings to inhabit North and South America. See Recent single origin hypothesis. Bus stop 22:57, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, "probably incorrect". There are also hints of human activity before the current residents and of catastrophe. But "simply transplants from Asia" only makes sense if there is an alternative of humans appearing spontaneously in many places. They're most likely to have appeared where primates live. (SEWilco 04:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

Not so much a personal attack, but a violation of WP:TALK and WP:NOT. Can you please tell me which talk page this was posted on, and I will post a warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Posted warning in talk page. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Jossi, I agree with your assessment and appreciate the notice. However, it should be udnerstood that the words being the biggest issue were copied from a personal attack on my talk page. After I responded Billiot copied just my exchange without his/her attack on the Joseph Smith, Jr talk page. To put everything in context I then added Billot's attack so that my response would be taken in context, but Duke53 reverted that addtion from the talk page. This is basically silliness in which I should not have engaged. I recognize that Billot was just trolling and I fed the troll. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 17:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

24.203.217.170, IP of an indefinitely blocked user

Resolved

 – IP blocked.

The user at the IP User:24.203.217.170 appears to have admitted to being a blocked user. I'm not totally au fait with the relevant policies, but would this be grounds for blocking the IP? VoluntarySlave 22:42, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - self-confessed sockery / personal attacks / revert-warring, etc, etc - Alison ☺ 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Centrx and my sigs

Centrx (talk · contribs)

User:Centrx is mass reverting my modifications of my own signatures which is explicitly allowed as per Wikipedia:Username policy#Changing your username. Centrx failed to convince Grutness that he has valid points. In addition a 3rd opinion was filed and was responded to, feel free to have a read of it.

Centrx is engaged in a revert war over my sigs on multiple pages including ones inside my userpsace. Centrx believes that I have a malicious intent for modifying my sig. I believe that also violates WP:AGF.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:17, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The policy talks about removing personal information. It's not like you used to use your real name, so I see no way that you could call Cool Cat something personal and identifying. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:23, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I strongly desire to change my sig. Thats all the policy expects. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest you notice the writing on the wall, and catch on that repeatedly changing your sig on every page you've ever posted on is an obnoxious waste of time and resources. --tjstrf talk 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not think resources is an issue and its my time to waste. At least according to the devs I talked to. En.wiki receives several thousand edits per day. Centrx is wasting more of our resources by repetively revert waring over this. -- Cat ^chi? 23:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Once again, here's an exact quote of policy: "If you feel strongly about personal information no longer being on visible pages on the site, you can edit these pages to remove your signature." The username "Cool Cat" does in no way, reveal your personal information, so there is no personal info for you to feel strongly about. Because of that, policy doesn't allow you to do what you're doing. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 23:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Lets say you are right for the sake of argument, there still is nothing prohibiting from fixing my sigs. I am allowed to change my sigs and even comments on non-archived talk pages by default. Although discouraged, I am even allowed to remove my comments altogether if I do so desire - especially in my userspace. -- Cat ^chi? 23:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason in changing your past sigs other than aesthetic effect? —Kurykh 23:45, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I am sorting my sigs by year. It is particularly helpful for me. I can explain additional reasons in private if you like. Though, I would like to add (no offense), I shouldn't really need a reason aside from "my strong desire". :) -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Centrx did not say he believes you have a malicious intent for modifying your signature. Regardless, why is this topic back here? At least Centrx has been kind enough to keep this trivial matter off the AN and ANI. Seriously, why is this so darn important to you? (And, to Centrx as well, why is this so darn important?) It takes two to tango; one of you just stop already. -- tariqabjotu 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Why did you move your mediation committee page? Is that really necessary? And what was the purpose of blanking the origin page and re-adding the same content? Was that in an attempt to make moving the page back more difficult? (If that was your intent, that doesn't do much). -- tariqabjotu 00:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I am more than allowed to move old references to my former username. I did this before with my first RFA. I forgot about the mediation case till recently. Why should I even need to provide an explanation? The complaint is Centrx's mass revers btw. -- Cat ^chi? 00:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's still rather pointless to continue to 1) remove references to your old name and 2) revert war over it when all it is, is your signature. Damn near everyone realizes that Cool Cat = White Cat at this point. Even if people didn't realize it by the signature, they could equally just check the history of any page you edited and it says White Cat now. — Moe ε 00:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have protected the MedCom nomination from editing and moves. I think it's generally best if closed nominations not be edited in any way, and this includes their location. Daniel 07:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have been an issue if the second involved party hadn't started reverting harmless changes. I think going back and editing your old sigs isn't really useful, but any argument against it (server load, disruption, etc) can be equally made against reverting edits to old sigs.

Really? What difference does the title of a medcab nom have to its content. Who is the candidate? Is it a lie to say that the candidate is me? -- Cat ^chi? 16:32, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyhow, this isn't prohibited, and User:White Cat shouldn't have to justify themselves in re. this. It's a personal choice, not a community one, and there's no reason that a personal (albeit retroactive) aesthetic choice should be made by committee. —User:Adrian/zap2.js 2007-06-25 01:03Z

He's been warned about this, twice. Originally he had a bot doing the changes in mass. He is editing community talk pages, so it's not just up to him. -- Ned Scott 01:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry to butt in, but why oh why does anyone care what he does to his own sigs if he's not being incivil or disruptive or trying to hide who made the comments? (he's actually making it more clear who made the comments) Someguy1221 01:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Because he's repeatedly been disruptive about it, and repeatedly told not to do it. -- Ned Scott 01:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me for not being involved in the previous discussions concerning this, but....why has he been told not to do it? I am straining to rationalize the edit wars this is causing. Someguy1221 01:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe it's been opposed for a variety of reasons by different people. Personally I dislike it because, unless you actually are leaving Wikipedia and vanishing, you don't get to put your previous ID down the memory hole like this. --tjstrf talk 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish, if you look at his userpage. He's actually making it easier for anyone reading old archives to find out the username currently being used by Coolcat, as well as still being able to see Coolcat's contribs (linked to right from White Cat's userpage). I still believe a mere redirect from his old userpage to his new one would be oh so much easier (I'm not finding it possible to comprehend why that wasn't done, looking through old discussions), other users have done that upon changing username. Someguy1221 04:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Just redirect all of the pointers to the old names into the new one and stop changing the sigs. This the second time I have seen this issue come up here since your name change and this is frankly getting me pissed off. Why are you making this hard on yourself White Cat; just make things easier so you can go back to editing. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Except that White Cat/Coolcat is clearly not trying to vanish - Not what was claimed: he's clearly trying to whitewash his reputation, given that the simplest thing he could have done was put a redirect at User:Cool Cat -- which he not only hasn't done, but has had the page protected so it CAN'T be done. Presumably he's trying to obscure something like [this. --Calton | Talk 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Indeed it was all to hide my block log. Man am I exposed...</sarcasm> Seriously have you actually seen my userpage? I link to that very log and far more (not that I am expected/required to do so). Also my sig does not link to my block log. Me fixing my sigs is more like "admitting guilt" if anything. Your accusations are baseless and unfounded.

Zscout370 I am not making this hard on myself. There is a person reverting me on multiple pages. And not just any pages but discussion pages (article content isn't in jeopardy) including the ones in my userspace.

If the precondition for me to fix my sigs is my leavening of the project, that can be arranged - though I believe such a demand would be out of proportion. I dispute the validity of those "variety of reasons".

This is a complaint on Centrx's behaviour. Strangely almost no one seems to be commenting to that end. 3rd opinion and Grutness's conversation with Centrx is pretty clear on this. The policy is also clear on this even though people are interpreting stuff not written on it.

I am not the first person to fix his/her sigs people...

-- Cat ^chi? 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the point, but I also don't see what the big fuss is about. If Cat wants to make a fresh start, great, as the old Cool Cat account had more blocks than a daycare full of toddlers, and I can thoroughly understand that. Is it obfuscating GFDL by changing all those talk page attributions? If it isn't, then Centrx, let him do what he likes. Neil ╦ 16:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Your accusations are baseless and unfounded. Reeeeally. Then mind explaining why you haven't done the simplest thing you could do -- why, in fact, you've taken active steps to PREVENT the simplest thing you can do from being done -- namely adding a redirect to User:Cool Cat? Instead, you are doing things in the most difficult way imaginable and bitching about it every step of the way. --Calton | Talk 20:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Am I the only one who thinks this is getting really ridiculous? Titoxd^{(?!? - cool stuff)} 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Bosniak sentiment

The article Anti-Bosniak sentiment (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was recently deleted by Coredesat for reasons I don't understand: he claims it was a CSD R1 (widow redirect) but AFAIK there was a full article there. Anyway, Bosniak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been complaining about this (in all the wrong places, such as Wikipedia talk:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard) and has just now reposted the article, presumably from an HTML copy, as it's not properly wikified. Naturally it doesn't preserve the author history, and is therefore a copyright violation. So…

1. Can an administrator check the deleted page history to see whether Coredesat deleted the article by mistake?
2. If the article was deleted by mistake, can an administrator please delete Bosniak's version and restore the original?
3. If the article was not deleted by mistake, can an administrator please speedy-delete Bosniak's version, warn him against reposting deleted content, and direct him to WP:DRV?

Thanks. —Psychonaut 23:50, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

There was never any full article there, far as I can see. Just a redirect. Note there was a bit of moving and shuffling of articles going on around then (and since) but what Coredesat deleted was just a redir - Alison ☺ 23:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Never mind; I see what the problem is. The page was moved elsewhere and then AfD'd. So in this case Bosniak is reposting deleted content. This is at least the second time he's done so; he was previously warned for this. This incident is particularly egregious because he's attacking an administrator who wasn't even involved in the deletion, User:Duja, claiming that Duja is responsible and has a conflict of interest. I suspect a block is in order (and it wouldn't be the first time). —Psychonaut 00:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Article deleted, it was a clear re-post of the old page at Anti-Bosniak attitude, which was deleted after AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anti-Bosniak sentiment (second nomination). Fut.Perf. ☼ 00:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The version I deleted was a broken redirect with no article history. The article was at Anti-Bosniak attitude, which I deleted after the AFD. --Coredesat 01:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Bosniak's behaviour

This incident was marked as resolved, but so far no one has addressed the behaviour of the user in question, who has

1. reposted a deleted article for the second time, after being warned the first time that this could lead to a block; [46]
2. refused to avail himself of WP:DRV despite suggestions by two editors; [47][48]
3. used numerous pages to accuse a completely uninvolved administrator (Duja) of engineering the deletion, accused Duja of having some unspecified conflict of interest, and forum-shopped to seek a remedy; [49][50][51][52] and
4. continued to proclaim that Serbs and Croats own particular articles on Wikipedia and that due to institutional racism here Bosniaks are prevented from having "their" own articles, thereby implying that it's proper for Wikipedia articles to exist for polemic purposes. [53][54][55][56]

Unfortunately this recent behaviour is simply the latest in a long string of personal attacks and willful disregard for consensus and policy. —Psychonaut 09:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, his behavior has been a problem that seriously needs to be addressed. For instance, I had to block him back in March due to personal attacks he made. [57] His block log shows that his incivility has been consistent throughout his time here. Perhaps you might want to open up an RFC on his conduct.--Jersey Devil 10:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an RFC is necessary or would be helpful. This isn't a content dispute; this is a user persistently attacking others as "racists" and flouting policy and consensus as if it doesn't apply to him. The behaviour has been going on for nearly a year, and has affected dozens of editors, many of whom have patiently tried to educate Bosniak about the rules. IMHO all that needs be done is enforce the existing rules to curb this behaviour; an RFC would only give Bosniak's irrational persecution complex yet another platform to spout its outrageous claims of Serbian infiltration. —Psychonaut 11:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've left him another message explaining exactly why the article was deleted, what recourse he has if he disagrees, what policies the article violated, and that his talk of conspiracy theories and allegations of racism will not be tolerated. If he continues, I'm happy to block him for a short time for incivility; if it persists after that, I'm ready to propose a community ban. His consistent NPOV violations compounded with his victim mentality and conspiracy theories do not a good contributor make. -- Merope 13:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Anon using two accounts to game 3RR?

Resolved

 – Page semiprotected.

Not sure if this is the right place, but... I suspect that 207.237.232.228 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and 69.112.18.229 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are the same person. Both have done little other than introduce the same controversial material into Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. They are different ISPs but both geolocate to the New York City metropolitan area (using http://www.ip2location.com/free.asp). Admittedly this is not the biggest issue facing the project at present. Nonetheless, it's frustrating to have to deal with stuff like this when trying to work on articles. Any suggestions for how to handle this kind of situation? Thanks - Raymond Arritt 01:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and sprotected. Naconkantari 01:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

(slaps own head...) I should have thought of WP:RFPP to begin with. Thanks for the help! Raymond Arritt 01:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Violation of fair use

Resolved

• Sefringle (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Continues to reinsert huge quotes [58] despite the fact that on the talk page of the article it has been noted that doing such is against fair use policy. Error1010 04:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Error1010 is an obvious sockpuppet of His_excellency (talk · contribs). A quick indef would be appreciated. - Merzbow 04:36, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please don't troll and harass me. Whether or not I am not a sockpuppet remains to be seen but I would appreciate some attention to this matter. Error1010 04:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Asked editors to summarize long quotes and move text to footnotes. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 04:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Nasty mess of SPAs at Omaha Steaks

Resolved

See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Omaha Steaks. Videmus Omnia 05:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Good work, but I think we can handle this over at WP:COIN. No need to cross post here. Jehochman ^Talk 06:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Community ban violation

Resolved

 – User:Verdict sockie, blocked some time ago by someone else - Alison ☺ 09:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Verdict (3rd)

User is currently contributing in the past half an hour or so, and continuing. Could this get a quick resolution? Sancho 06:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Besot.PNG

Resolved

What exactly is this image? I am blind so I have no idea what it is. The reason I ask is that 68.122.0.3 and 67.188.45.126 have added the image without explanation to Cumhal, Sad Sack and Wooper, with some other nonsensical edits. The image was uploaded without a copyright tag. I'm wondering what it is and what should be done with it. Graham87 08:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's a sprite comic. By the time you read this, I will have deleted it.—Řÿūłóñģ (竜龍) 08:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK thanks. Graham87 09:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Help with User

User:Baseball Bugs has been following me around and will not leave me alone. Some of his comments are rather benign, but his activity is very counter productive. He has commented on a number of articles that clearly have little to do with what he is interested in and everything to do with what edits I make. I just want the guy to leave me alone. Can someone please help? //Tecmobowl 12:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've examined the allegation, and it is legitimate: Baseball Bugs has edited several articles (not reverted, just edited) minutes after Tecmobowl has edited. ArbCom precedent in the RickK vs. TheRecyclingTroll case has established such behavior as a violation of Wikipedia:Harassment.

I'll give Baseball Bugs a stern warning. If he persists, please report him to WP:AIV or WP:AN3 or here again. Shalom ^Hello 15:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks, this is a very touchy situation and all i want to do is get the content on here better. //Tecmobowl 15:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
• It might be time for an admin to step in here. //Tecmobowl 19:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Jerdon13

Jerdon13 keeps formatting articles according to his personal aesthetics. This is his summary for one of his edits on the Curtis (50 Cent album): "Easier to read (LEAVE IT THIS WAY)". See here, here, here, here, and here. There is probably much more, but I only named the articles that are on my watchlist. That is incorrect formatting, and I have seen many other Wikipedians format articles the way I am trying to format them, even admins, so it must be right. Speaking of admins, Jerdon13 didn't even listen to Mel Etitis when he warned him to stop formatting that way. He thinks that articles are "easier to read", but the rules are obviously there for a reason, so his preferences on formatting are irrelevant. Oh yeah, and I gave him a warning too. Then he did it again. I think a warning is not enough for this user. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 13:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Please explain exactly what the problem is. I reviewed a number of these edits, and I had a lot of difficulty seeing any difference between the two versions. I would not recommend a block over a WP:LAME edit war.

At the same time, if you can clarify why this is a problem, it's clear that the user has been warned enough times, and a 24h block would be appropriate to make it clear that formatting articles against consensus is not acceptable. Shalom ^Hello 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK sorry, I am a bit new at this. The thing is you are not allowed to use <br>s in InfoBoxes like he is doing, you are supposed to use commas. This is actually important, as some users have been blocked by some admins because they were doing this. That is the problem, it is anti-WikiProject formatting rules (for albums). He was told not to do it. He did not listen to me, or the admin, something must be done. --- Efil4tselaer: Resurrected 20:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Wilhelmina Will

I suspect that User:Wilhelmina Will is, in fact, another sockpuppet of User:98E. Could someone please check the IP to see if this is the case? Tweeks Coffee 13:29, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• I believe you want ask this here. //Tecmobowl 13:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• • Indeed, thanks. Tweeks Coffee 13:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

• No problemo :-) //Tecmobowl 13:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unilateral moving of "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States"

A single purpose account one month ago moved "Allegations of state terrorism by the United States" to "State terrorism by the United States".[59] Since then there has been a poll with majority support for keeping the old title.Talk:State_Terrorism_by_the_United_States#Title It was moved back today.[60] Now user:Stone put to sky has again moved the article back to "State terrorism by the United States".[61]Ultramarine 13:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I explained my rationale for moving to the "allegations" title at the current AFD. I don't feel that strongly about it, but please folks, let's not have an edit war. Shalom ^Hello 14:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to step into that article, but I'll point out that if you're going to use the "allegations" wording, shouldn't it be "Allegations ... against the United States", not by the United States? The other wording makes it sound like it's an article covering allegations that the United States has made. (In fact, that's what I thought when I saw this section header.) --Aquillion 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Metta Bubble refuses to acknowledge "outing" another editor

See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Impersonating_another_user_and_religious_attacks

On Talk:Stephen Barrett Metta Bubble has "outed" my real-life identity, damaging both my Wikipedia and real-life reputations, brought assorted unwarranted COI accusations presented as "questions", also violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA. I responded to the questions and explained about the various blockable offenses. I hoped that my explanations would be understood and taken to heart and let it go, under the impression that Metta wanted the conflict to end (see my talk page e.g. here) and had realized there was, indeed, a problem with their behavior. I myself had also responded somewhat irritatedly, and I assumed this was more a question of temper than one of extreme policy violations - lessons learned all around (although I do not believe I have violated any policies here. If so, please let me know).

However - I regularly look at problems here and on the BLP noticeboard to see if I can be of some help. Yesterday I noticed this AN/I report where Metta was accusing one of the other editors they had accused of a COI worthy of an ArbCom arbitration and tried to resolve the conflict. Being mentioned there, I posted some background in the Metta's report. Their responses opened my eyes to the fact that there is no discernible learning curve here.

Here are some relevant diffs (a number of intermediate posts not included):

• post by Metta Bubble
• response by Avb
• response by Metta Bubble
• Avb posts defense against allegations
• more by Avb
• attempt by Avb to explain and resolve the problem
• Avb refactors Barrett talk page to remove WP:BLP/WP:NPA violations & repair "identity outing" etc. now that it has been discussed
• attempt by Avb to discuss the issue
• Metta Bubble denies the problem
• more explanations by Avb
• Metta Bubble denies the problem on AN/I

I would appreciate it if an admin could explain the problems here to Metta and ask them not to "out" other editors?

Thanks -- AvB ÷ talk 14:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

PS My user page history (the real-life info had been lifted from an old version) has just been deleted at my request in order to prevent repetition. AvB ÷ talk 14:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta Bubble, investigating a possible COI, finds information in your User Page history then mentions it in a discussion about a possible COI. You remove the information and delete your User page's history, and note that you want this information kept private. Has Metta revealed this information since you removed it? –Gunslinger47 15:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed it probably a year ago by blanking the page/adding new contents. It was useful at the time as a declaration of my possible COI since I was editing related articles back then. But (as always) it remained somewhere at the bottom of the history. Other editors are not supposed to use it, and that's what I told Metta very early on. Instead of removing it from the article and disengaging from this specific line of questioning, they expanded on it. Regardless, simply editing user page info out should be sufficient. I never expected another editor to do dig up a very old version, let alone doing something like this. As a result of this experience I then had my user page history removed. I haven't heard from Metta since then. AvB ÷ talk 16:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Circular accusations of COI have been a staple of Stephen Barrett and related articles for some time. I must say that the "evidence" here is extremely weak (i.e. you are a health-care critic, so is Stephen Barrett, therefore you have a COI). And digging through year-old userpage diffs and then posting identifying information in article-talk space, in service of such a weak COI accusation, bothers me substantially. I've been previously heavily involved (and now very occasionally involved) in Barrett-related pages, so I'm not in a position to objectively evaluate this situation as an outside admin, but I would urge an uninvolved admin with patience and a streak of masochism to review this situation carefully. We've already had one such conflict on these pages end up in a prolonged and nasty ArbCom case. MastCell ^Talk 16:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metta was being extremely silly there. The evidence proved the converse (example: it lists many chiropractors). For the rest, "nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition". And the reverse is also true; I simply want this user to understand the situation and never do something like this again. Mastcell and others who have helped to explain this so far, thanks a lot. AvB ÷ talk 16:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

69.201.146.55 deleting material (again)

Resolved

 – IP blocked for 24 hours.

69.201.146.55 (talk · contribs · logs · block user · block log): I issued a final warning about removing content, after which s/he did it again, and I reported it here (albeit a bit after the fact). Since then, the user has removed {{Copyvio}} from Hajj Amin Elahi (I've reverted to the tagged version and moved the rewrite to a temp page). I have an ongoing dispute with the user, otherwise I'd handle it myself. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 14:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours. MastCell ^Talk 16:13, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

88.22.61.254

This user has been adding a foreign GTA fansite to the external links section to many Grand Theft Auto related articles that certain has no reason to belong there and takes you to a page that simply contains a date and does nothing. - .:Alex:. 16:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Left a message on his talk page. Exploding Boy 16:39, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MrClaxson (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – Avoid nourishing the trolls; new sockpuppet blocked.

There's a bit of an argument going on at MrClaxson's talkpage, related to the sock report for which he was indef-blocked. Could someone intervene, particularly since the accounts of whom he is a sock were both notorious post-blocking trolls, who had their talkpages protected? Thanks, --Rambutan (talk) 16:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He's been indef-blocked and his appeal denied, so I'd suggest just ignoring him. If he keeps posting abusively on his talk page just to hear himself talk, then I'll be happy to protect it. But right now, I think the best approach is to let him go hungry - stop responding to his talk-page posts, and he'll probably stop. If not, let me know or come back here. If you have problems with him flooding your email inbox, we can reblock him with email disabled. MastCell ^Talk 17:14, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I'll bear that in mind.--Rambutan (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

MrClaxson, or whatever his original account was called, has been evading his block as User:Kelpin; that account is now indef blocked. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Removing a copyright violation

There are a very large number of links in a small number of articles to the "official" Tate LaBianca murders blog. All link to content which is copyright and identified as such, the site makes no claim to any right to publish this material. Rather the opposite, actually. I have removed them from Helter Skelter (Manson scenario) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and will remove them from other articles when I get time. I am aware that last time these links were removed it stirred up a shitstorm. Hopefully the explanation on the talk page will prevent that happening again. Guy (Help!) 16:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seems completely correct to do. I've edited Paul Watkins (Manson Family) to remove all the offending links (plus several YouTube links that also violate copyright). -- Merope 17:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

And I've got them from Charles Manson, too. That appears to be all of them. -- Merope 17:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks by HeadMouse

Fresh off his latest block [62], HeadMouse (talk · contribs) is calling the editors he is in a dispute with "uptight power hungry ass holes." [63]. His talk archive (which was re-archived just 50-odd minutes ago) shows at least four warnings for personal attacks so far this month. Can an admin do something about this? Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 17:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Where? The diff you provided dates back several days, and his edits today don't seem overly problematic (although his edit summaries suggest he's turning beet red and steam is coming out of his ears--appropriate, given the articles he's editing). Exploding Boy 17:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The edit in question. At least he isn't disrupting the article right now. Right now being the operative term. Chris Cunningham 17:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Right. I've left him a message. Exploding Boy 17:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

My apologies; I appear to have inserted the wrong diff link. The correct on is here and I also fixed it above. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ok, well I've left him a message on his talk page and I've refactored some of the posts on the article talk page in question. He hasn't made any new edits for some time now, so for the moment there's not much else that can be done. If he continues to be incivil or if he begins to edit war, then he can be warned or blocked again. Exploding Boy 17:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It was said above that HeadMouse (talk · contribs) is not currently disrupting the article. I would argue that is not the case, as a careful screening of the edit history shows that HeadMouse has reverted every edit made to the article today by other editors ([64], [65], both a revert of Maelwys and some text changes, and both a revert of TREYWiki and an image addition). The disputes over the article have been so mild today because those of us who care are being inextricably ground down. I mean, what is the point when HeadMouse has made it abundantly clear that he has no interest in reading (let alone following) WP:MOS and WP:NOT, and that he will revert any edit he sees fit in order to make the article "have CLEAN, ACCURATE, READABLE, information." (See this, this, and this for his un-compromising, obstinate dispossession on full display.)

At this point, I am at a loss as to what can be done. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the coloured fonts in the description of the trains. I thought that was weird when I looked at the article in the first place. He hasn't made any edits for 2 hours now, and I have to say I really see very little problem with his edits, unless I'm really missing something, which is certainly possible. He's insisting that the "R" in "relations" in the subheading "Customer relations" should be capitalized, which I think is debatable, but otherwise the diffs you're providing don't show me much... Just edit the page per talk page consensus, and keep an eye on things. If he's really being a problem editor he'll be blocked one way or another. Exploding Boy 18:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

User continued abusive behaviour and was subsequently blocked by me for one week. He continued altering another person's signed comments on his discussion page and so the page was protected for 24 hours. This will hopefully give this user a chance to cool down. One unblock review has already been performed and of course, unblock-en-l is open if he desires another one. Hard to imagine any admin being willing to unblock this user, though. --Yamla 20:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to hijack my account?

I have just received two password reminders: from IP address 203.218.104.136 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) on 23 June, 8:47, and from 218.103.168.56 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) today, 12:22 (both of CET). One such request could be an accident, two mean it's intentional. I'll list the addresses to be checked for possible open proxies; is there any other action I should take? - Mike Rosoft 17:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neither of them look very proxyish to me from RBL checks of the IP. You may want to change your password to keep it secure. SirFozzie 18:03, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Umm, what? There is nothing wrong with Mike's password. Any idiot can send password reset messages and they do nothing unless acted on. If you log in with the new password it will become your new password, but it was only mailed to you so the idiot never sees it. If you ignore the messages, your old password remains active and the idiot never sees it. Just ignore the emails. Thatcher131 18:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the best way to go. Although if you do have a weak password you may want to strengthen it, on the off-chance that Mr. Idiot presses any further. --Masamage ♫ 18:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I just scanned both of those IPs, and neither of them have any open ports. Sean William ‹‹‹ 18:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay; and I presume that even if he had made 50 password reminders - which is no longer possible, I presume - his chance of guessing it would be remote (and repeated attempts to log in to my account would first require entering a "captcha" code, and eventually be blocked altogether). I remember having received many new passwords in a row from 146.145.148.209 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) the other day, but it probably wasn't a hijack attempt, either - just an attempt to annoy me. So there's no need to worry; I was just being paranoid after multiple accounts were taken over by vandals. - Mike Rosoft 18:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

An added bonus to this might be the discovery of 218.103.168.56's contributions: Contributions/218.103.168.56. All two edits are directly related to Louielim2007 (Who awarded Mike Rosoft a barnstar a bit earlier. Sean William ‹‹‹ 18:41, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I get these 2 or 3 times a week. If you use a strong password, it doesn't matter. And it doesn't matter anyway because only you can see the e-mail. However, when I do get them, I check the IP's contributions to see if there are any. --(Review Me) R ^ParlateContribs_@ (Let's Go Yankees!) 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Small Problem

we have a small problem on Timeline of CGI in film and television where a editor and myself have different opinions on what is notable the editor will not go to dicussions explain his choices just say it in his edits. I have a large amount of knowledge and would like to make this page the page the best it can be. I do change the information when I am in fact wrong But there are somethings I think are notable that he erases when he reverts it. I would like to know how to deal with this wikipedian in a civilized matter.Marioman12 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Seek a Third Opinion --> WP:3O. If that doesn't work try mediation. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:00, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't find a third oneMarioman12 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

pardon? Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

third OpinionMarioman12 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use of album cover images

I have been removing album cover images from discographies in the bands' articles, and have encountered quite a bit of opposition. Where is the discussion on this specific subject that I can point the objectors to? Corvus cornix 19:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been doing the same thing--it's a surprisingly prevalent problem. In my edit summary, I write "remove excessive Fair Use Images; see Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria items #3(a) and #8" and then I put a note on the associated talk page. Let me know if you're still having problems. -- Merope 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a pretty thorough explanation here.

Jamie L.^talk 19:30, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:MUSTARD also specifically covers this in the discographies section. --Yamla 19:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you. Corvus cornix 20:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Huge sockpuppetry problem

We've been dealing with a load of sockpuppets screwing with the Witton Albion F.C. recently. They have odd usernames like Mane trim and Noon went. At the same time, it appears that Northwich Victoria F.C. is being attacked by socks with names like Mane mane and Tree three. When both articles are protected from new users...the socks start coming out. A brief look through the attackers of both articles will show that the socks are made on the same days. This guy is making about ten to fifteen accounts every two or three days and waiting to use them. The most recent wave to attack both articles were made on the 7th of this month. This guy has patience. Any ideas what to do? IrishGuy ^talk 19:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

You could try "Requests for IP check" at WP:RFCU to identify and block the underlying IP, if possible. Many checkusers will list other obvious sleeper accounts when performing a check. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't think he is using a static IP. He only brings out the sleeper accounts when he needs an older one. If there is no protection on a page, he just uses brand new accounts. Everytime they are blocked, he just makes a new one. As you can see here he even taunts Come on boys, set your best Checkuser on me. because he knows he can switch IPs. IrishGuy ^talk 19:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

If there's nothing that can be accomplished via checkuser (and I'd still recommend giving it a shot), then I don't know what else can be done other than semi-protection and revert, block, ignore. MastCell ^Talk 19:38, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Have you tried to get the IP addresses blocked? Assuming it isn't possible to block the underlying IP address got me once. I finally got fed up and submitted the user for an IP address check and got some ranges blocked. Since then the user has been pretty much non-existent. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:42, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

He has used an IP address a few times. They were 86.139.246.131, 86.139.244.206 and 86.139.240.167 that is how I know it is the same person on both articles. He can change it so quickly that individual IP blocks are useless. I don't know how big the range is so I feared collateral damage with a wide rangeblock. IrishGuy ^talk 20:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd still submit them for an IP check. Let the person running the check decide if they can block or not. You may also want to request the person keep a record of the IP addresses so you can file a report at WP:ABUSE and maybe get BT to shutdown their account. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Does this[66] stay in borders of WP:CIVIL?

This edit just cropped up in my watchlist and I felt It could use a comment from admins.--Alexia Death 19:48, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

While I'm not an admin, that falls under WP:CIVIL like the Pope falls under Judaism: i.e. it doesn't by a long shot. Will ^(talk) 20:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Repeated personal attacks and UserPage vandalism by User:PageantUpdater

Resolved

On June 18, User:PageantUpdater left a message on her user [67] and talk pages [68] [69] asking the project to "f*ck off".

One day later, June 19, she updated the messages explaining she was leaving Wikipedia [70] [71].

But just 2 days after her goodbye message, on June 21, she came back in an DRV discussion to call fellow Wikipedians "F*KING IGNORANT" , "IMBECILES" and suggested that Wikipedia has "gone down the toilet"[72]. She said that it was that what brought her to leave Wikipedia.

Just on they later, (June 22) she was apparently back to normal editing, when she created one article [[73] and added a free image to two articles [74] [75]. All very good!

But today she just came back and, apart from some apparently normal editions, called Wikipedians "imbecile" [76], showed intentions to ignore WP:NPA when she see fits [77] and vandalized User:Fuzzy510's page [78] to call him (and another user named Carlton) a "f*cking arsehole" and to ask him to f*ck himself and to go to "hell".

Also today, she updated here userpage to say that "everyone here is a f*cking arsehole" [79].

DISCLAIMER: I have to let you know that this user is involved (but not very active) in an Arbitration Case against me, so, I may have a bit of personal prejudice on how I read all these "f*ck you" in her comments. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, this crap doesn't fly with me. User was warned, persisted in doing it anyway, and is now blocked for 24h. -- Merope 20:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of accuracy: Insults are not necessarily personal attacks. Only if said insults are used to dismiss arguments in an ad hominem form does it qualify. Under WP:NPA, threatening behaviour also qualifies. See personal attack for the nuances of the term.

That said, the PageantUpdater is definitely having some trouble with Wikipedia:Civility. –Gunslinger47 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, I don't now if any of this is really a personal attack per se, but the Fuzzy510 diff (which appears to be in response to an AFD notice Fuzz510 left at PageantUpdater's talkpage) absolutely warrented a block. I understand that it sucks to see your work get nominated for deletion, but that sort of response simply is not helpful. The "everyone is a fucking arsehole" bit I'd just chalk up to frustration...--Isotope23 20:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least calling the other parties in an DRV discussion "F*KING IGNORANT" and "IMBECILES"[80] is an uncivil ad hominem argument, right? Anyway, thanks for dealing with her. --Abu badali ^(talk) 20:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Continued personal attacks by Isaiah13066

I came across this edit by Isaiah13066 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and warned him against making personal attacks. He continued (the user's last name is Cox but Isaiah13066 is calling him Cocks). So I gave him a final warning to which he did this to. The user was previously blocked 48 hours for making personal attacks. Paul Cyr 20:43, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Those diffs would prompt me to block him, but I note that they're all from 2-3 days ago. His more recent edits, while uncivil, seem slightly more constructive. I'm feeling like blocking him for those older posts now would be punitive rather than preventive; however, I'm all for having a zero-tolerance policy from here forward, given the inappropriateness of those earlier remarks and the fact that he's been adequately warned. MastCell ^Talk 21:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I've also notified Isiah of this discussion on his talk page. MastCell ^Talk 21:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and forgery by Cberlet

There have been edit disputes going on at Lyndon LaRouche and United States v. LaRouche for several weeks now. The discussion on the talk pages and in edit summaries has been fairly heated on both sides of the disputes, although I would say the worst incivility has come primarily from User:Cberlet and User:Dking. I and others have asked the editors in these disputes to tone it down. However, today an incident took place which I think crosses the line. In this edit, Cberlet deleted a comment by User:Don't lose that number and substituted a different text, so he effectively forged a post by Don't lose that number. I think this incident requires some sort of administrative action. --Marvin Diode 21:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not forgery, that's refactoring. The link you provided shows Cberlet changing the heading of the poll he started and refactoring the comments of another user to conform with a poll. While I don't think polls are generally helpful, I've seen this done frequently before where someone adds a comment to a "vote". Regarding the incivility charge, the "pro-LaRouche" editors, particularly NathanDW (talk · contribs), have a habit of making negative personal remarks about Cberlet and Dking [81][82], and have been warned. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

A different text? Qué? It's exactly the same text. Did you not scroll all the way down on the diff, or something? I think your charge of "forgery" here on ANI requires some sort of apology to Cberlet. Bishonen | talk 22:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC).

I would prefer that Cberlet not edit an article in which he has such a strong personal vested interest (he is named several times and his publications are cited as sources). However there is nothing wrong with that diff. Thatcher131 22:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Trolling by anons on Talk:Mudkip

Over the past month or two, a dispute over an internet meme from 4chan has been debated on Talk:Mudkip. When I joined the argument (against the meme), things turned south quickly, leading to several long arguments on my talk page and Talk:Mudkip, partially because I was playing the "hardline policy" card. About a few weeks ago, two anonymous users - 64.40.60.55 (talk · contribs) and 64.40.53.240 (talk · contribs) - have been playing devil's-advocate on the page, and seem to be doing it to get a rise out of myself and out of Ksy92003 (talk · contribs). Is there anything that can be done to stop this madness one way or another? -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll put in a request at WP:RPP to semiprotect the page so that anonymous users cannot edit it. Such action is unheard of for talk pages, but it's justified in this instance. Shalom ^Hello 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I have another note to add: 64.40.60.55 tried to impersonate Ksy92003. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 21:57, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Possible external link spam

User:72.181.40.126 has been rapidly adding links to "thebusinessmakers.com", which appears to be a podcast series, to multiple articles - see the contributions list. The links tend to be tailored to the articles to which they're added (interviews with article subjects, etc.), but the sheer number is beginning to become alarming. Could use some admin attention. JavaTenor 21:40, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Reverted and warned; adding links like that is never OK. I'll be watching their contributions and seeing if they start up again. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:49, 25 June 2007 (UTC)