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:DreamGuy

DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include

• Adobe Photoshop 3
• Photo editing 2
• Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
• Satan 2
• Domain name 2
• Shroud of Turin 2

Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. Nihiltres^(t.l) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing#Photoshopping. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry! --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13_(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"? If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom. Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them. Eh? Jehochman ^Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13_(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)

Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13_(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing#Request_for_Comment and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13_(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.

But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked. (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism. Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the views expressed here

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page: [1]. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman ^Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position. I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ ^{slurp me!} 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment [2]. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before. Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint. I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one. So the question is this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

AfDs as well

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLector^Talk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Latest removals with untrue edit summaries

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

A proposal

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Frequent incivility

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).

I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --健次(derumi)^talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution

Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days. If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other. Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman ^Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it. If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page. Navou ^banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus. Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate. I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --健次(derumi)^talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --健次(derumi)^talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.

Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too. I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc. But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness. I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc. I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He certainly does some good work. Also some bad. And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --健次(derumi)^talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things:
- Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to).
- Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation.
- Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors
- Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring
- Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more.
- Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back

DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)

I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user [3] I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder ([4]) and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'. Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back. Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history: [5]. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLector^Talk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#DreamGuy --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters? Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor. I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome. --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask. --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13_(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin. Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

There are no uninvolved parties here. DreamGuy has the protection of some powerful people. --Ideogram 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it. But maybe it was. Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing. Who is being uncivil to you? Who is malcontent or out of line? What policy do you refer to? If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

People are out of line on both sides here. DreamGuy, you aren't as innocent as you would like to think, but that's not to say that there aren't policy-breakers harassing you. It's just that not everyone who disagrees with you is one of those people. --clpo13_(talk) 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate

On his talk page, in response to polite inquiry from the guy who has mediated the compromise on the content dispute on Photo editing, DreamGuy makes clear his position:

I've made comments on the talk page. The same people out to edit war to the bad version ignored them as usual. We had a consensus version, but most of the people who built that consensus gave up and were driven off by harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere. The article is simply a battleground and not a real discussion over actual Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

— DreamGuy

In fact, he has made no comments on the talk page since July 28, and has not responded at all to the proposed compromise. One can infer that he rejects the consensus and intends to go back to unilateral dismantling of the content section after it's unprotected, if that ever happens. His view of "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users" seems delusional; is there a solution, or a proposed course of action, for such situations, or do all admins just want to continue to ignore it? Dicklyon 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I cooperated: I fully explained the reasons for the edits over and over and over and over again, for something like five or more months now, which you simply ignored. To try to portray my getting sick of it all as somehow proof of bad behavior is just ridiculous. But an editor did politely ask me to respond, so I found time out of my busy day of real work and undoing the vandalism and fullscale doctoring of the RFC page to remove any info that made your side look bad to also go in and, what else, re-explain the same things I've said over and over and over. It shouldn't be too difficult to pay attention instead of blind reverting to your version all the time. DreamGuy 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC

So it seems that in addition to the content RfC that he ignored, we need to do a user conduct RfC before arbitration makes sense. So I tried to open one, but the button to create it (here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct) took me to an already existing page on a previous 2005 conduct RfC on him: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy. So that's probably what he was referring to above as "said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves." So what is the procedure for opening a new one when there is already one by the preferred name? Dicklyon 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to create a new RfC about that user, create the page Wikipedia:Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 with the content {{subst:RfC|DreamGuy}}. Then fill out the page as normal. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, as you can see from the link color, that worked. I haven't put any content in yet, but I got the page started. Dicklyon 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I filled in my part. See Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for instructions on how to contribute. You'll find a link to the DreamGuy conduct RfC there. (and sorry about that last edit that got reverted; looks like I got out of sync somehow) Dicklyon 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper procedure for letting interested parties (such as those commenting above) know that this RfC is open? Or would any such be considered improper recruiting or canvassing? Dicklyon 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm checking successful outcomes in Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive before filing my part. «You Are Okay» 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

DreamGuy have you anything to say before I file my part? «You Are Okay» 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Technically canvassing is defined as spamming talk pages of users who are unlikely to be interested in the case. Posting notices on pages of involved users is borderline, and as noted above, you will need to be careful in your handling of this case. Posting in public places such as the Village Pump is probably okay. --Ideogram 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected and Actual Sock Puppetry by the Accusers (not DreamGuy)

For the record, You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has very few edits and shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. His first edit ever used {{cite}}. A savvy newcomer is okay, but when he or she aligns with a known sock puppeteer, that's suspicious. Ideogram has been caught operating at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion on a block that was given for disrupting Arbcom. See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram for full details. Jehochman ^Talk 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a sidenote: one can be a new user and still know the policies. I edited as an IP for a long time before getting an account. I'm not defending anyone, but it's not really that much of a point. --clpo13_(talk) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. A savvy newcomer can be explained away, but when that savvy newcomer helps build an RFC with a known sock puppeteer and block evader, he or she becomes a suspect. Jehochman ^Talk 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I can see your point there. I wasn't originally aware You Are Okay was a suspected sock of Ideogram. --clpo13_(talk) 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I refactored my initial comment to clarify the linkage. Thanks! Jehochman ^Talk 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's just that Jehochman got carried away in collecting sock puppets for ideogram, who is clearly a multiple puppeteer. But User:You Are Okay is plainly just a newbie. He added three ext links, copying the "cite web" template from the line above in his first edit. When DreamGuy reverted them (properly), YouAreOkay went to his talk page, discovered this dispute, and piled on, here and at the RfC. Not a sock, just a newbie following his nose and his hurt feelings; but it would be better for all if he'd go away and leave this matter alone. Dicklyon 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I copied and pasted. On my first day of joining Wikipedia I tried to resolve a dispute with DreamGuy over a link to a blitz chess site. He couldn't even respond to, "Do you play blitz chess?" «You Are Okay» 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive

2004 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy (general incivility, biting newcomer)

2005 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 - RfC closed following general agreement - WikiCivility generally improved allround.

At the moment no further censures are appropriate, but if the involved parties continue to engage in Personal Attacks additional measures may be required.

2007 ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2

I did respond to "Do you play blitz chess?" -- I rightly responded that it was totally irrelevant for determining whether the link there should be there... and this newbie editor also edited to add similar improper links to other articles. So far all this person has done (on this account anyway) is spam some articles, complain when the spam was removed, ignore the policies explaining why it was removed, and jump into somehow digging up extremely old and unrelated RFCs to try to claim that some known problem editors who started them (all but a couple of the complainers in those early RFCs have since been permanently banned from Wikipedia for personal attacks, POV-pushing, vandalism, etc.). This complaint is similar to the other complainers: clear violators of WIkipedia policies trying to lash out at someone they perceive as an enemy instead of working to follow policies or try to resolve (or ignore) disputes. DreamGuy 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now I realize the reason Wikipedia's chess pages are amateurish. DreamGuy writes the chess pages and doesn't play blitz chess. «You Are Okay» 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I wrote all the chess pages, that's it. :rolls eyes: And funny how the only thing you did to try to change the page was to add a spam link. The only reason I was even on that chess page was I saw you spamming other articles and went in to remove them and thought I'd check your edit history to see if you spammed anywhere else. My not playing blitz chess has nothing to do with you not following WP:COI and WP:EL, links to which I provided on your talk page immediately after removing your edits. DreamGuy 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Not spam. UChess.com is a respected non-commercial chess site. Ask the opinion of any professional chess-player who plays 10 minute blitz chess. Chess is participation. Registration is unavoidable to calculate ratings and rank players. Akin to professional chess tournament leagues. «You Are Okay» 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, DreamGuy, WP:DNFTT. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for the comments. I will consider them. -Jehochman ^Talk 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It is not compulsory that evidence of disputed behavior involve the users certifying, see how previous RfCs have been run ~/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive «You Are Okay» 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

~/WP:AN/I history shows more time wasted [6]

More time wasted at ~/WP:AN/I: [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Are Okay (talk • contribs)

Who is wrote the above? El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

These are the diffs you seek: [8] [9] You Are Okay (talk · contribs) has done nothing but spam and disrupt. There's not a single productive contribution. I suggest an indef block. - Jehochman ^Talk 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I warned this very new user to stay out of this dispute; s/he is only making things more complicated for naught. El_C 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It didn't work. 11 minutes after your warning, the trolling continued with this very unhelpful diff. [10] This is likely a sockpuppet of a long term disruptive editor. Jehochman ^Talk 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours; and we'll go from there. El_C 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Checkuser came back as "Unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram. You Are Okay was blocked for disruption, not sock puppetry, so the block remains valid as I understand things. - Jehochman ^Talk 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for my impulsiveness. «You Are Okay» 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome back. If you need any help finding your way around here, just ask me, OK? - Jehochman ^Talk 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. «You Are Okay» 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor madness

I've tried my best to handle the chaos that ensued on the RfC page during my absence. Conduct RfC rules must be enforced, from now on. El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Has anybody noticed that the topic of this discussion has gone from User:DreamGuy's incivility to suspected (though deemed unrelated) sockpuppetry? LOZ: OOT 05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Alleged incivility, with the accusations largely coming from extremely uncivil people (many of whom were warned off by other admins for harassment and etc.) as well as mysterious "new" editors showing up to express long-standing grudges. DreamGuy 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And frankly, has anybody noticed that this discussion has been going on for a good two weeks? What's so difficult about giving User:DreamGuy a warning, and if the incicility continues, a possible long-term block? I don't understand why there has to be so much argument and debate over something that is usually settled in under 24 hours. This user's incivility is not acceptable and he/she needs to understand that. And the issue that you are now discussing (which is already settled), with the exception of the filed (and then unfiled) arbitration case, is totally unrelated. LOZ: OOT 05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Not to be unwelcoming, but it would be best if week-old accounts stay out of this dispute. El_C 06:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry.LOZ: OOT 06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, new editors popping up out of nowhere to immediately participate in existing personal conflicts and demanding long term blocks and etc.... and people wonder why we're talking about sockpuppets. DreamGuy 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

W-W-What are y-you t-t-talking about, Dreamguy!?! I'm n-n-not a s-s-sockp-p-puppet!!!

Just kidding. I just think that this argument is going on for too long, and it's just getting ahead of itself. Sorry for butting my nose in where it didn't belong.

And after a week of constructive edits, as opposed to suddenly appearing out of God-knows-where, it's safe to assume I didn't come to Wikipedia to argue with controversial editors. I've added this page to my watchlist to see if anyone responds to me, or leave me a message on my talk page. Or better yet, just forget I was even here. LOZ: OOT 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of real name.

I humbly request that this sort of gratuitous personal attack not be permitted. I've repeatedly requested the editor not to use my real name when it is unnecessary, and he is now adding it in gratuitously. I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that your username is "TedFrank" you may find it hard to keep people from calling you that. Have you considered a username change? Friday (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's bizarre that User:TedFrank, who used his real name as his User name, has a problem with editors (I am not the only one) when they use his user name, which happens to be his real name. People consistently use "David Shankbone" when writing to me. Ted Frank said there is a WP:Policy against "gratuitous use of name" and then began editing talk page comments. So, Ted wants to have a user name that nobody uses. Regardless, Ted has never, ever made such a request to me, he just began editing my Talk page comments. --David Shankbone 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit unreasonable to request that users not refer to you by your username. There is no such policy for this. If your real name was not disclosed, it would be harassment to continue to use it, but your name has been provided willingly. Granted, users who don't want the hassle can use THF in the future, but it's unreasonable to ask others not to call you by your username. Leebo ^T/C 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for my username to be changed to THF. I was naive and didn't realize that people were going to engage in wild and untrue personal attacks against me, perhaps because I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA rules would be enforced. THF 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

David, please be a good sport & use "THF". Ted, please realize that your current username is a perfectly valid way to address you on Wikipedia. I know of no policy that's being violated, but a little less hostility and a little more common sense could end this little dispute now. — Scientizzle 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You would not wear a name tag, say to a convention, with a name other than what you wanted to be called. Likewise if you did, you cant get mad at people for calling you the name on your name tag. In short change your nametag, dont try to change everybody reading it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm totally willing to be a good sport; but may I suggest to Ted that he pop by my Talk page and make future requests, instead of making the unilateral decision to edit my Talk page comments, especially since we are engaged in a very contentious issue on several pages? That seems reasonable and sportsman-like. --David Shankbone 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Thanks. — Scientizzle 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I also want to note that the issue "THF", David Shankbone ("DS") and others are having with THF is over an article he specifically wrote under his real name and is trying to inject on multiple articles, so use of that real name is not particularly unseemly in the context of these discussions. --David Shankbone 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a related thread concerning THF on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest noticeboard. I've commented, per a request on my talk, but would welcome some input from others as well. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations against THF

This is the thread Brad is talking about. The problem stems from an ambiguity in the WP:COI guidelines. WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:

• The existence of a conflict of interest; and
• The conflict of interest guideline

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. The report on me (which two administrators have commented on already) is a good example: WP:COI compliance requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. DSB left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page after I disclosed a conflict of interest, when in fact, that is exactly what WP:COI says I should do. Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. Per a suggestion by an administrator, I've made some edits to WP:COI that do not change the meaning, but resolve the ambiguity. They are discussed here. THF 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There are more than a couple of us who find THF's behavior disingenuous, and WP:GAME-y. It's at best extraordinary poor form to edit the Conflict of Interest guidelines when he himself is (and has been) up for a Conflict of Interest incident (so he disagrees with the merits - what subject of a COI doesn't?); he writes and sells an article on Michael Moore that includes his own version of highest grossing documentaries, used by nobody, has it posted on his employer's website (for which he is paid) and then strenuously argues for its inclusion on multiple pages, raising the argument that if we don't include it then it's POV (while nobody else in the Mainstream Media uses it). It's a bit difficult to assume good faith through much of this, when almost universally everyone acknowledges he is on Wikipedia with an agenda. I think wider comment on the totality of your edits would be merited, and how you go about them. Gaming the rules and guidelines is disdained as much as flatly violating them. I would venture a guess that, excepting the situation with THF, 98% of my edits are uncontroversial, where has less than third of THF's edits are the same. He is involved in many Talk page disputes and edit wars, which has been pointed out on several boards. --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

DSB is disruptively forum-shopping after having his false allegations rejected on WP:COI/N. Can an administrator please confirm that this set of edits to WP:COI is consistent with COI guidelines? THF 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

How is David forum-shopping? You're the one that started this topic, not him.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

He's raising a false allegation of Wikipedia guidelines violations that has been rejected over and over and over. At what point does this become tendentious? Or can he raise the same rejected allegation on every page that I edit and force me to waste time defending myself instead of editing Wikipedia? THF 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

You have a point, but a bit more discretion on your own part would also be helpful. A wise person recognizes that even if certain things are permissible, sometimes it is better to refrain from doing them. Raymond Arritt 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• The solution is obvious. THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance - and abide by their decision. The complaint about using his name looks very much like an attempt to distract attention from this blindingly obvious fact. If THF refuses to take a step back from promoting his own work, then the next step is RfC and ArbCom. This is not, I think the first time he has been in difficulties of this nature. I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance. This is exactly what I did: I disclosed a COI, made my case in an RFC at 19:01 on a talk page yesterday 17 hours ago, and made no further arguments, not even responding when DSB made additional false personal attacks on me on that talk page and misrepresented facts in his argument against inclusion. Neutral editors are evaluating the proposed edit. It won't be in the mainspace unless they agree. My role in that dispute is entirely over. Not once did I edit mainspace to promote my article. This is exactly what WP:COI compliance says I should do, and exactly what I did do. In terms of whether my edits have been disruptive, I note that this is the fifth time I have had to request an RFC for Sicko, and the first four times, the RFC agreed that I was correct, and that changes to the article were required; this time, a respected administrator has agreed that my proposed edit merits some change to the article. Consensus may not agree with him at the end of the day, but my request wasn't frivolous, and, at least some of my proposed edit may be adopted, though perhaps without the cite to me.

But DSB is continuing to harass me: we now have four administrators who have participated in the COI/N thread, and all four have rejected the complaint that I violated the COI guideline. DSB re-raised the allegations here and a fifth administrator, Raymond Arritt, rejected them. Not satisfied, DSB posts again at 12:12 today on AN/I repeating the same allegations that are about to be closed at COI/N without identifying a single new fact, instead raising a content dispute that I am not even currently participating in.

Wow, you say you made your case to include your own work and then made no further comment, but then why do you have reams and reams of paper making the argument on the Talk:Sicko page that if we don't use your article, we will be violating WP:NPOV. Again, this is disingenuous, Ted. One of the last steps you took was the RfC, after strenuously arguing for inclusion of your hit piece on Talk:Sicko, WikiProject:Films, Talk:The Dream is Alive and Talk:Jackass Number Two. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I remind Guy that the last time I was "in difficulties of this issue" in February, the other editor was indef-blocked for particularly nasty harassment and legal threats. I don't know why he thinks it is a damning fact that I was a victim of harassment, and it is unfair of him to insinuate that that was somehow my fault. THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think THF has a point at all, and he's the one who tried to get the his article on multiple pages, and lodged an accusation against me as on the name change page as his reason. WP:KETTLE. The COI board had quite a few users that felt THF's strenuous, constant efforts to have his paid work ranking documentaries by his own criteria posted on his employer's website violated COI. Had he started on the barely-trafficed The Dream is Alive page (as he did eventually) and nobody noticed an answered, and he made the edit, would that not have been a COI violation? He would have been in the letter, but not the spirit, of the policy. This is all too WP:GAME-y and disingenuous. There were serious problems with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:NPOV with including his article. Ted spammed his story on the conservative blogosphere, and then said "Blogs are starting to pick this up" to defend that nobody uses this list. It was pointed out to him that even when he spammed his story on conservative blogs, right-wingers themselves questioned why he included Jackass Number Two and Eddie Murphy Raw on a list of documentaries. I stand by my actions, and I still find it a COI issue, as do many other people. The name issue was really the ultimate: I am the author, who wrote this piece, and who has now tried to have it put on as many film articles as possible, and yet -- don't you dare use my name when discussing it! Get real! Two days ago I told Ted I actually respect his edits; I have absolutely no respect, and assume no good faith, where his edits are concerned. I think he has completely ruined any good faith assumptions this week. And yes, this is the second time he has been brought before COI. --David Shankbone 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The record will reflect that the first time I was brought up before COI, it was by an editor in a content dispute who was upset that he had lost an RFC: two administrators evaluated the allegation and found no COI, much less a violation of the COI guideline. DSB knows this, yet repeats a false allegation. DSB issued the second COI complaint, and four administrators have unanimously rejected it on COI/N. Yet he raises it again here, ten hours after an administrator on the COI/N board asked to close the earlier complaint. Again: how many times must identical attacks on me be rejected before someone asks DSB to stop attacking me? THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The previous COI, and the last one, all point to your editing articles that deal directly with your employer, that you do during your work day, and trying to have your own unnotable (paid) work for that employer put on multiple pages, and then saying we are violating policy if we don't put it on. Not only do I find this COI, I (and at least six other editors) find the totality of your edits to be agenda-driven, in violation of WP:NPOV. That you misrepresent your edits here is par for the course. --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, DavidShankbone is a highly respected editor on wikipedia with many valued contributions on a variety of topics, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with you. He certainly has better things to do than forum shop just to harass you, and accusations of such are quite laughable. You might want to question whether it is your own behavior at fault here. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It's pretty straightforward, as Guy mentioned. THF did the right thing by proposing his piece on the talk page. But he's gone overboard by vociferously arguing for its inclusion and trying to shout down people who object to it. It's permissible to introduce a source you've authored for consideration on the talk page, but then you have to let it stand or fail on the judgement of other, uninvolved editors. Expending this amount of energy arguing in favor of his source indicates, to me, that it lacks the approval of such uninvolved editors. The rest is just yelling. MastCell ^Talk 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF appears to be digging a hole for himself here. First he deletes this question I asked him:

Wow, I thought the legal name associated with the username THF looked familiar, so I did a bit of research, and it appears that this Ted Franks is likely the same Ted Franks mentioned in the Net.Legends.FAQ, who was well-known many years ago for his trolling skills in alt.folklore.urban. While "Ted Franks" is not a unique name, THF states on his user page that he "at a conservative Washington, DC, thinktank specializing in legal policy". One of the first hits on Google under "Ted Franks" is a lawyer at American Enterprise Institute who graduated from the University of Chicago with a law degree; the Ted Franks of a.f.u posted from a University of Chicago server. It appears (at least to me) quite likely that these two people are the same.

Seeing how this thread has gone on so long over an issue of dubious seriousness, I feel it is very germane to ask if (1) he is this well-known usenet personality & if he is, (2) based on this documented history, how can we be sure that he is not simply jerking everyone's chain here. Such evidence makes it hard for the rest of us to assume good faith. -- llywrch 06:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then he leaves the following post on my talk page, under the section header, "WP:AGF, please":

Leaving aside the fact that the meaning of "trolling" has changed to mean something considerably more antisocial than it did 15 years ago,[11] do you really think I've made 6000 edits to 2393 individual pages as part of an elaborate troll, rather than to productively contribute to Wikipedia? Come on. THF 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the most respected Admin here, but deleting my comments on WP:AN/I, then insisting that I assume good faith (by the abbreviation, no less) is not how one makes their case to an otherwise indifferent audience. Wikipedians who want to avoid being considered troublemakers almost never do those things. THF, if you are the guy I think you are, you can come up with smarter responses than that. -- llywrch 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

allegations by 74.86.28.230 against THF

• Gosh. Why am I not surprised there is a section on here regarding THF?

I have contributed countless man-days to Wikipedia, without credit, and have always found contributors and admins to be more than reasonable, and flexible. Suddenly I encountered THF a few weeks ago, delving into a topic I know rather a lot about, but which he demonstrably only has superfical knowledge. I countered his extreme edits on the talk page: only to be met with a wall of 'adminspiel': reference to WP:EL as though it was not subject to interpretation (except for HIS interpretation of course).

Common sense, history, and IMPORTANTLY, the value of the article to the PUBLIC are out of the window. The blunt instrument of his, and only his, interpretation is applied. From the above, he has obviously been busy causing issues with others, but sadly today he is back with hos over-the-top, over-zealous, wielding of the edit-axe.

Is there no way of getting control of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), a WP:SPA, objects to my objection to his repeated insertion of WP:SPAM to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act article, which includes advertisements for SOX-related firms. I encourage administrators to evaluate the dispute, since the page is poorly policed, permitting the anon's edit-warring. I should have escalated it sooner. THF 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

What I object to is the overbearing ill-considered edit attempts by this individual. He applies his interpretations of the guidelines as though no other interpretation was possible. He chops all those links en masse, yet he clearly has almost no knowledge of Sarbanes Oxley, the history of those links, or the article on Wikipedia.

It is so easy to chop any article to pieces on the basis of one stilted interpretation of WP:EL. So easy to go into robotic mode, and ignore the effect on the value of the article, or indeed, how silly it will look when certain references are chopped.

WP:EL is essential, but it is equally essential that it is applied with commpon sense, and neutral interpretation. THF fails to do this. This was crystal celar when I saw his edits. Finding this page, and seeing what others thought of his approach simply confirmed that he makes a habit of this.

The pattern is clear from above. Really, someone should address this matter and deal with the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

The links are a mixed bag. I see one that's apparently an academic study, and some others that are dodgy. Suggest both parties trim the list judiciously instead of inserting and reverting in toto. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

There are many many academic studies. These two are from for-profit groups, and can be included in the main text to the extent they are notable. If we include every academic study in the EL, there's going to be a WP:NOT problem, and if we don't, there's a WP:WEIGHT problem. The decision to trim eight of the eleven links was judicious, and, in any event, the anon editor (who has made four reverts of two editors so far today) explicitly rejects the deletion of the plain spam link, and has rejected the consensus calling for the deletion after an RFC. THF 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The above is a typical example of distortion to support some other unknown agenda.

I tried the link by link approach. I selected the Sarbanes-Oxley-Forum in particular to debate simply because that has a particularly strong case and is so central to the compliance efforts of so many. So motivated was THF to chop everything, that he cited a 'typo' as evidence that it didn't belong! That level of desperation to get one's way suggests some other mission is at play with respect to him.

It is pointless debating with THF, but that particular source is extensive, and the forum section doesn't operate as standard forum, but largely as a Q&A ref some of the biggest names in the SOA arena, thus having become the biggest reference source for information on the topic!

As for academic sources, the line that 'none should appear because there are many', is like slamming a door on knowledge. Why not research and list the most useful? Or if too lazy, leave what is there?

Indeed. There is no good answer. Hence back to us questionning his REAL motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)

First of all, external links are not references. They should be material which extends the article but cannot, for a variety of reasons, be included in the article. On a given academic topic, there will be thousands of different articles related to it; not all should be included -- only those which are directly pertinent to the article, and are probably discussed in the articles. In addition, please remember to assume good faith all around, and to sign your posts. --Haemo 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry by spammer

• Sarbanes-Oxley Act (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 74.86.28.230 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

A WP:SPA who admits to "using several accounts to contribute" is repeatedly inserting links to an obscure talk-forum that consists mostly of spam in violation of WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and the consensus of an RFC. He rejects the talk-page consensus because the anon considers himself more of an "expert" than the three editors who removed the link. (This is irrelevant--WP:OWN--but the only stated evidence for the expertise is the anon's recognition of the alleged value of the spam-link.) Some real WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TALK violations also on the talk-page and edit summaries. Intervention needed from an administrator, as the user is ignoring dispute-resolution procedures and just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline and the page is little-trafficked. THF 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an absolutely disgraceful and scurrilous allegation. So someone, who has worked heavily on that article, disagrees with him: so out comes the name calling: a 'spammer'.

No attempt to explore the depths of the links in question. Just the usual paper thin dismissal and the abuse ('spammer').

I really think someone in the Wikipedia hierarchy should take action against THC (Ted Frank). It is exactly the approach which clearly has upset so many others before me, as we can see above. How long is he going to be allowed to continue to do this?

My inclination is to just walk away from Wikipedia. I am an honest contributor who has worked hard on this article, only for some guy to step in, delete material without justification, and then fling abuse like this. It feels like bullying, which is why I won’t walk away.

Is there no room for genuine contributors any more? Or is this just a clique for those who love to quote meta-wiki rules/regs SELECTIVELY to get their own way?

And yes, I have now registered from the hotel (I am working away). So there is one less stick for 'THC' to hit me with to divert from the issues. SoxMan

That's User:SOXman, not User:SoxMan, SOXman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). And he has returned from his 24-hour block with a new 3RR violation, disregard of dispute resolution, and continued uncivil personal attacks on the talk page, along with misleading edit summaries. Administrative intervention is appreciated, as my pointing SOXman to Wikipedia guidelines is rejected on the grounds that I don't know anything about Sarbanes-Oxley, as demonstrated by the fact that I don't appreciate the value of the spam link he's attempting to add. THF 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I most certainly do welcome administrative intervention. Please have a good long look at the history and hostile bullying attitude of THF/TedFrank. Please read all his contributions, not just with respect to myself and SOX, but elsewhere, as evidenced even on this very page. Please also consider his motives and his mission. As a simple contributor, I am not the first to have suffered such hostility and overbearing edit-warring. I guess most contributors would have walked away by now, but that would not help Wikipedia. Please assist.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Administrators should examine a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. The one website THF disputes on this page from the whole list he deleted is highly regarded amongst Sarbanes-Oxley professionals. This regard does enhance the profile of its contributors, perhaps in the same way that THF hopes Wikipedia enhances his profile. Those contributors may be competitors of THF, in a highly competitive market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)

User:SOXman, who is evading his one-week-block with this anon edit, has rebuffed my invitation to create a Sarbanes-Oxley Forum article on Wikipedia to see if third-party editors think it meets WP:WEB criteria: if it does, I have offered to add the information back into the article myself.

As for the frivolous COI allegation, I've never heard of the anon's spam site, and don't have any commercial interest in the SOX website market, or even in any spam site market. (Googlers please note that there is another individual with the same name as me who does run a SOX company. He lives in Ohio and I live in Virginia.) Three other editors agree the site flunks WP:EL after WP:DR. Wikipedia is a huge waste of time for my profile, which would be much better off if I stayed away from it, as I plan to do for the next few days. THF 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THF is making false accusations against me. Having just read the text above I am merely suggesting examination of a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. My own external investigations suggest this is worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)

This is a spammer who doesn't like his forum being removed - boohoo - THF has removed it, I have removed it, a couple of other editors have seen it - nothing to see here. --Fredrick day 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is an editor who is blocked being permitted to violate WP:NPA and WP:SOCK? THF 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi returns

I had thought things were a bit too quiet on the Conradi front, and I just figured out part of why. He's been editing quietly under the id User:Tobias Conradi2. Since he is a banned user, I have blocked this account. I wanted to give everyone a heads-up, since 1) he is likely to unleash another wave of personal attacks once he discovers his new account is blocked, and 2) he's evidently not accepting the idea that he is banned and unwelcome here. So I suspect more new accounts will follow. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I've cleaned out all the edits from this account since the date the ban was made official. The account has been active since a few days before the ban was finalized. The edits from before the ban, while technically block-evasion edits, and not ban-evasion edits, and thus are not as automatically reverable. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do people do such sloppy jobs? [12] This is why that tool should be used only if they are destroying things. Unless I am reading that wrong, it doesn't seem like mass removal had much of a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is enforcement of the ban, as laid out here. Conradi is banned. He is not welcome to edit on the project any longer. All his edits are subject to removal/reversal. That's part of how bans are enforced. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It would also be hypocritical of us to say "you are not welcome here, but we're going to keep a few of your good edits". - Crockspot 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That is exactly what happens. Articles created by banned users I am sure are not then deleted. Removing wiki linking seems pointless. Also all information submitted falls under free use. Perhaps what should be considered is more if they user just wants to edit now and avoid whatever got them banned. Exposing quiet editors who were once banned, that are editing articles in a positive way, seems counter productive to the goals here. P.S. If I have a slab of meat in my pocket, please let me know Crockspot. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Articles created by banned users can and are deleted. There is a specific Speedy Deletion criteria (G5) for exactly this case. I speedied a number of articles written by Conradi on his new account just this morning. In Conradi's case, yeah, he does good edits. But the general opinion at the ban discussion was that the good was not worth the bad that always seems to come with it. Many who endorsed the ban did so reluctantly, but they endorsed it none-the-less. I'll include the summary of the ban message from the ban list page below these comments.

But there is a psychological component to the systematic removal of edits by banned users. They are not welcome, and their contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome. And by systematically removing their contributions, they will hopefully get the idea before too long that continuing to try to edit in a place that they are not welcome is simply a waste of their time. Their edits will not remain, so why make them in the first place? Will Conradi get the point? Who knows. But I at least intend to continue to make the point. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

---

Tobias Conradi (talk · contribs · block log), July 28 2007

Banned for continued incivility and personal attacks. Multiple second chances were given, but eventually the patience of the community regarding his tendentious editing was exhausted and, following a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted. Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked. (Copied ban summary)

---

No offense to you, since you did not make it up, but that is a foolish system. People wish to edit, and are creating articles, are being chased off by those who probably do not, and instead correct the work of those who actually take time to research. The silly politics on Wikipedia seems to outweigh the notion of a collection of information for the public. Not wanted? The community said so? The idea that 20 ppl who frequent this board are "the community" is further absurd. But the 20 people who make up the general posters here are probably pretty sure they represent the community well enough. If only this was really a collaborative project. I could only imagine the total rewrite I did of Cali cartel and the 11 articles I created being removed because I said something flagrant, talk about depriving others of information and to spite only yourself and the community you are trying to help prosper. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what else to say. The policy is the policy, and until/unless it is changed, it is what it is. And this is far from the right place to debate whether it should change. So, I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but... <shrug>. - TexasAndroid 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

... Yeah ... It doesnt matter I re added much of the work, thanks for giving other people work you did not feel like checking. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy is not a noose with which to hang ourselves. Removing perfectly good edits that someone is going to have to replace is biting off your nose to spite your face, and as such is a complete waste of time. Deletion for the sake of deletion is incredibly stupid. Kamryn · Talk 10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

G5 applies only to work by banned users *while they are banned*. If a user creates significant areas of work before being banned, then they are not a banned user at the time of creation and hence G5 does not apply. Makes sense in the context. Orderinchaos 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

People are banned for a reason. They're not welcome, because they can't work in the community. It's an enforcement issue. The fact that we're even debating this is feeding the troll. You get banned, and sockpuppet, you get blocked and reverted. Too bad, so sad, should have thought of that beforehand. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

To say they are not able to work with the community, or are not better wikipedia, then to go and delete X ammount of articles they may have made and revert X ammount of edits that are useful, is quite a set of contrary statements. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. It really isn't worth fighting over. My point isn't to try to say "gotcha" to every vandal we see. I really do believe it's for the better of the encyclopedia; but like I said, not worth fighting over, sorry if you took it that way. The Evil Spartan 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

One solution to this problem of reverting all edits by banned users while keeping useful contributions, was for an Admin to revert the edit, then make it under her/his own name. Although this can be tedious, it is a simple solution -- & it appropriately frustrates the banned user in trolling Wikipedia. -- llywrch 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds like the most useful method. Instead of removing content from Wikipedia, essentially "vandalizing" in an attempt to get rid of someone deamed a "vandal," the admin would actually be preserving content. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If any user makes bad edits, they will be reverted. For non-banned users, we check their edits and keep the good ones. For banned editors, we can revert blindly (which is a lot faster). If we keep some edits by banned users, that means they are not banned. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment

Can I ask if the behaviour of User:Lonewolf BC towards me can be deemed to be harassment, as per WP:HAR? It seems to me that his actions fall into this category as he has a) followed me to other articles - from British monarchy to Rideau Hall, Monarchy in Ontario, Official residence, Royal tours of Canada, Canada Day, Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, and now Passport - to engage in an edit war with me, which would appear to be a mild form of wikistalking, or "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target." However, more distressing is b) he has made no less that three attempts to have me blocked in the past month:

• 10 August 2007
• 7 August 2007
• 15 July 2007

This to me fits into the last part of the Wikistalking description: "...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." The fact that we have butted heads previously (articles on Prime Ministers of Canada), along with the following:

• he spends what must be a significant amount of time digging out months or years old records to try and construct a 3RR breach on my part,
• tries to smear my character so as to influence whatever admin reads his reports,
• made a "prediction" of my breaching 3RR in fututre ("I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long" 1), and then himself filed the next report against me,
• he has himself recently engeged in edit wars and skirted 3RR breaches (List of palaces, Official residence, British monarchy, John Thompson (politician))
• flat out recommends I be blocked for what he personally, and hypocritically deems offensive ("I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things)" 2).
• he invests his time communicating, much more collegially, with other users about me, rather than speaking to me,
• attempts on my part to communicate with him personally were ignored, with the either no reason at all or the excuse that my words weren't composed in a manner paletable to him, or in the correct location, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

all says to me that his intent is not to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, but instead to target me and have me blocked so as to eliminate me as an opponent to him. I've made one request here previously that someone look into Lonewolf and his interactions with me, but nothing really came of it. I don't know how else to handle someone like this, and I'm really becoming quite disturbed by the whole affair. I'd appreciate some attention and input. Cheers. --G2bambino 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked User:Lonewolf BC if they would review and comment on the above here, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's rather difficult to declare someone a 'harrasser', unless they've disrupted ones personal 'discussion page' (example vandalism or continuous posting when requested not to). GoodDay 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Have you read WP:HAR? What you just said above is clearly not true. Corvus cornix 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of 'WP:HAR' (my blunder). Sorry folks. GoodDay 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah ha, this complaint falls under -Wikistalking-. It never hurts to research before posting (again, my blunder). GoodDay 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Um...no. "Wikistalking...[is] editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress...[my italics]" — "...following another user around in order to harass them[not my italics]." "[It] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason."
The reason I ended up editing a bunch of the same articles as G. is that he'd lately made the same edit across that whole bunch of articles. The edit was, if not flatly wrong, at least plainly unfitting, and I thought that this was obvious enough that G. would simply let it go. He did not, and it was perhaps my mistake not to withdraw immediately at that point (as I did very soon). Whether this actually caused G. "annoyance or distress" I don't know -- I somewhat doubt it, from his manner, which to me seems more agressive and gleeful than bothered or worried -- but if it did then that was not at all my purpose, which was only to set the articles right. -- Lonewolf BC 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My blooper; I was merely discribing G2bambino's charges. I haven't cast judgement on you (that an Administrator's duty). GoodDay 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is such a scatter-shot of complaints, here, and so little merit to any of them, that I cannot reasonably be expected to address them all. Nonsense (whether in the form of bogus accusations or otherwise) is easily made up, but takes time and trouble to show up (as nonsense). However, I shall deal with what seems to be the principal issue:
Making legitimate, truthful 3RR reports is not harassment. I am much concerned about the continual edit-warring by G2bambino, against many editors and across many articles, with frequent breaches of 3RR, and even more frequent dances up to the brink of it. For the good of Wikipedia, this must stop. To that end, I have lately troubled to report those of his 3RR violations which have come to my notice (whether because they were perpetrated in editorial disputes against myself, or for some other reason). These reports have all been carefully made and scrupulously accurate, detailing, where necessary, the precise nature of the revert. (And yes, this took me more time in the cases where some of the reverts were less straightforward, but diligence is not a vice.) The three reports that have already been handled have all been confirmed as 3RR breaches, and one resulted in a block. The fourth is (as of this writing) still pending, at AN/3RR. It includes, appended below the report, a very brief summary of the persistent pattern of behaviour that G. has shown, with links to the earlier reports. That stuff is recommended -- nay, needful -- reading for anyone judging the merits of this present "harassment" complaint.
Sooner or later, G's behaviour must stop, and better it were sooner. In order for that to happen, it must be be brought to admin attention, and its persistent nature must be made plain. That is what I have been doing. I really don't care much whether G. is actually blocked or not. So much the better if he ceases and desists from behaviour of this kind because he knows that "the jig is up" -- that his offenses will certainly be reported and their tale kept. However, I do not foresee that happening, and believe that blocking shall be needed, and is even overdue.
Although G. may find the reports "distressing", that scarcely makes them harassing. Whereas they are true, they are legitimate. If they were false then they would, I guess, be a very clumsy attempt at harassment, but in that case why would G. not just laugh them off? His worry about them only points to his knowledge of their validity. Indeed, and ironically, this whole "harassment" complaint seems to be no more than retaliation for my making the 3RR reports -- a vexatious attempt by G. to make me stop reporting his 3RR violations. However, I am sure that WP users are not liable to sanction for reporting the offences of a persistent 3RR-breaker.
-- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I looked over the contributions of both participants before asking Lonewolf BC if they wished to respond here. I would not classify either editor as a vandal, since both appear to be operating under WP:AGF in that each believes the others edits to be "vandalistic" in nature; which is likely why there have been various reports to WP:3RR - since parties do not believe that removing "vandalsim" counts toward 3RR. I also do not see much in the way of meaningful communication between the editors. Neither appear to be willing to move from their particular stance. At the risk of irritating both editors, it seems to be a trait shared by them in respect of other subjects and editors too. I suggest that mediation, or another venue of dispute resolution, may be appropriate to enable two good (if touchy) editors to continue contributing to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Howabout letting a 'third' editor implement his 'compromise edit' (at least until the opposing editors turn up a resolution). Stability of the article, is paramount. GoodDay 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding of NPOV is that bias may be included in an article, providing that it is properly sourced, as long as verifiable counter bias is also allowed. Here we have is two editors who do not recognise the others opinion as based in "fact". However, if a neutral compromise can be found then it may be that both editors will agree - although it may be difficult to reconcile the two differing stances. What do the involved parties think? LessHeard vanU 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If we're talking about Rideau Hall specifically, I don't see the debate as one "fact" vs. another. To my mind, it was more a matter of one person seeing a fact as valid while the other first saw it as valid but unimportant, and then later changed his mind to say it wasn't valid at all. I've always been gunning for a compromise - hence the numerous variations I proposed at Talk:Rideau Hall and inserted in the article itself. Again, from my point of view, what was last done (and what now remains in the locked article) addressed Lonewolf's initial concern of importance. Unfortunately, it may not now address his concern about validity. So, in the end I'm now quite unclear as to what he really thinks or wants; he didn't invest any time at Talk expressing his concerns/desires, preferring instead, it seems, to quickly and bluntly revert any alteration I made. Having my cooperative efforts met with that led me to, regretfully, revert back in anger, thus putting in place the final component that led to the inveitable edit war.

In the end, I suppose I'm saying a compromise was what I'd been gunning for all along. What was most aggravating was that anything I did in an effort to reach that compromise was either ignored, thrown aside when the person with whom I was trying to compromise changed his grievance, or deleted by that same person; the one who then went on to target me for 3RR breaches and discuss having me blocked behind my back.

Lonewolf does seem to now be acting more collegially, which pleases me, and I do remain open to discussing a resolution that satisfies everyone involved. --G2bambino 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I retract that final statement after discovering this, entered from a special section of his Talk page. --G2bambino 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User:PalestineRemembered

I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice and afterwards opened an AV/I case that was a tad ignored.

i'm reopening the case with new personal attacks made after the previous complaint and am pushing for a one week ban:

• "were you one of them?" ^{(22:20, 10 August)} - a repeated accusation that i was a fighting member in the "Jenin massacre". (he's received, and removed, a 3rd level warning on this one) ^{3rd level warning (personal style) and removal}.

-- on this one he recieved a notice that i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint.^{(15:04, 11 August)}

• this new message from 17:53, 11 August, in which User:PalestineRemembered states the following after all the previous discussions and warnings.

statements made:

1. are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?
2. If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum

-- User:PalestineRemembered was made aware of my complaint^[13] yet refused to take note and continued with this baseless libelous accusation. considering this is a prolonged issue, i'm requesting a one week ban on said user.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)

I don't think I have had direct notification from User:Jaakobou that he has requested the community act against me.

I don't think I have accused him of anything, however it has become necessary to ask him if there is a Conflict of interest in some articles he is editing in WP. He has had ample opportunity to deny this is the case, instead of which he chooses to ask I should be blocked for 7 days. I trust that admins will give proper consideration to his request, and the actual circumstances under which it has been presented. With best regards, including towards those with whom I will do my best to behave in a collegiate fashion in future, I am, Yours Sincerely, PalestineRemembered 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, refactored. I just noticed that Jaak had already pointed this out. I'm not exactly certain what is up with PR. He accused me on the talk page for Battle of Jenin of being hormonal cause I'm a woman. (Which amuses this catLORD to no end) Kyaa the Catlord 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I'm involved in this dispute, and have had some fairly hostile exchanges with Jaakobou, so take this as you will. Bombast and incivility are always bad, but Jaakobou still won't tell us whether he has a conflict of interest in the matter. He is an Israeli which means he's likely a reserve IDF soldier, but he won't tell us whether he was mobilized in "Defensive Shield" and whether he was involved in fighting in Jenin. A simple "no" would suffice here, rather than this extended drama. Asking the question is not an accusation, claim, or libel. Eleland 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - User:Eleland, with all due respect, you should really avoid this discussion considering our latest altercation. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's unreasonable to ask editors if they have a Conflict of Interest. If the requestee refuses to answer, or engages in bluster, or requests I be blocked for 7 days, as he did here then it ceases to be a robust exchange of views between editors, it becomes a robust difference of opinion between the requestee, (User:Jaakobou) and the community. PalestineRemembered 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a difference between asking if a user has a conflict of interest and accusing him of being a war criminal, however. This accusation is an amazing leap from "were you at Jenin and do you have a COI?" and "did you indiscriminately kill civilians?" Kyaa the Catlord 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to try and determine if an editor has a conflict of interest. It's another thing at all to attempt to discern another persons identity for the purpose of disparaging him, especially in emotional situations.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's hard to imagine a neutral application of the COI rule that would forbid Jaakobou from editing because he is Israeli, but permit an editor with a name like "PalestineRemembered" to edit. If Jaakobou says he does not have a COI, WP:AGF requires that to be the end of the matter without further inquiry. If there is tendentious or disruptive POV-pushing, then address that through DR. It's a waste of time for everyone when editors (on either side) try to use WP:COI to obtain ownership of pages. THF 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i'd appreciate the de facto libelous claims of the reported user be put into center stage. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's phrased as a question, it's technically not libelous. It is an obnoxious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. THF 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, i disagree. for example if i ask you "are you a rapist?" in a crowded room. is that not libelous because it's phrased as a question? Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered could/should have opened a report on WP:COIN. But it's still strange, that you never responded to the WP:COI charges. --Raphael1 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael, please apologize. Editors have no obligation to respond to obnoxious questions like that. THF 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Editors have no obligation whatsoever as they always have a Wikipedia:Right_to_leave. IMHO the question is only annoying, if there is indeed a WP:COI. What do you want me to apologize for? --Raphael1 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're repeating the same violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that appropriately got PR blocked. Under WP:AGF, Jaakobou, aware of the COI policy, does not have a COI unless he declares one, and Wikipedia editors are not tasked with harassing editors to determine otherwise. If there's POV-pushing, use WP:DR. Don't harass a user by demanding they answer obnoxious questions. You would presumably be justifiably upset if people were to start asking you if you provided material support to suicide bombers. WP:CIVIL fortunately prevents that sort of diversion. THF 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Why do we have a WP:COIN, if a COI can only be self-declared? And no, I wouldn't be upset, if people would ask me, whether I provided material support to suicide bombers as I can negate with a clear conscience. --Raphael1 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you would get upset if you were pestered repeatedly with the same question. We have WP:COIN for cases where editors with COIs ignore COI warnings and violate COI policy and administrative intervention is needed. There are other cases where undisclosed COI can be determined from, say, a Google search or an ARIN WHOIS search. COIN isn't for content disputes. THF 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It might be, that the question was asked repeatedly, because it has never been answered. --Raphael1 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Raphael1, i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets. to note, PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We can only speculate about the motives PR had, when he asked you about your IDF engagement, but we can never find out ourselves. The phrasing was definitely inapt as he confesses himself on his talk page ("lurid terms"), which is why I agree to the 24h block. But I don't understand, why the sheer question would be insulting. AFAIK a pretty long military service is compulsory in Israel. How can someone be insulted for something he would be obligated to do? --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If someone asked me an irrelevant and obnoxious question that violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, like you're doing now to Jaakobou, Raphael1, I might not answer either. If you want to ask irrelevant and intrusive questions, please become an employment lawyer rather than use that tactic on Wikipedia. THF 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What question did I ask? I consider it superfluous to repeat PMs question. Instead I'm rather interested in why Jaakobou doesn't answer it. --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since you keep describing these claims as "libellous", Jaakobou, does this mean that you are intending to begin some kind of legal proceedings? Tim Vickers 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim, i'm fairly sure that being alleged, out of the blue, to be a war criminal and asked if i'm seeking asylum, is pretty damn close to the legal description of libel. am i planning to pursue legal proceedings because of an internet talk page clash? no. am i requesting the user blocked for a week due to his insistence on soapbox behavior and baseless libelous attacks? yes, considering he was warned and patently repeated the offense on more than one occasion. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaak, please don't use the term libel, it makes things very close to legal issues. Please just stick in terms of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That said, I've blocked PR for 24 hours. This comment in particular is well beyond what could possibly be ever acceptable. We may wish to reconsider whether PR is an editor that we want to have on this project, considering these remarks and his extensive block record. JoshuaZ 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

i'll avoid that wording in the future. Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence.^{static version} Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo

Sherzo's has taken a course of actions that I feel need investigating at a higher level. He has been offensive and rude to users and assumed a superior position to other users in order to push forward his point of view.

When I got involved with the debate over the notability of Glasgow University Student Television, it appeared to me that Sherzo was trying to railroad the article towards deletion. That being said, the article had not been re nominated for deletion by any user. When I next saw the article, Sherzo had, on his own authority, wiped the article with a re-direct to an new article he created that he took from another users userspace. I have restored the article and marked it for deletion so that the matter can be resolved correctly and within the rules.

I then got involved in the debate over the changing of the name of British Student Television. Sherzo preceded to personally attack myself and CR7 in an inappropriate manner. He gave the opinion to me that he thought he owned Wikipedia, and the article in question was his own personal property. In the time I have entered debates on matters, I have always assumed good faith, but I fear my assumptions were wrong. I have never suffered such personal attacks from another user, whos methods include vandalism and not keeping to a neutral point of view. TorstenGuise 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once claim "ownership of any article" despite tortenguise frequent accusations, in fact asked him many times to contribution towards the article rather than just berate me for not being British Sherzo 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I left out the personal attack before too and in the previous thread no administrators looked at Sherzo's 'ownership' of British Student Television. Sherzo's tactic of changing the main page to support his stance on the renaming discussion is blatant vandalism. CR7 (message me) 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

no i changed it back from an edit by TortenGuise to support his argument, so perhaps your accusing the wrong person of vandalism Sherzo 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has vandalized List of US Presidents by miltary service for at least the 8th time. This is unwarranted. Bush's service is questionable, yet it is still a controversy and not proven fact that he was AWOL. That is why it has no business being placed on that page.Bluecord 12:11, 12 August 2007

Please be sure to read this too. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The link above that JacќяМ ¿Qué? has posted is now defunct. I have archived it below. TorstenGuise 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note, as Sherzo is changing content controversially without a concencus, he is now on his final warning. If he changes content in a similar manner again, please report it. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has now opened an incident report for TorstenGuise below to counteract this report. CR7 (message me) 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have an administrator rule on this complaint, and the counter complaint filed by Sherzo. Thank you. TorstenGuise 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has now vandalized after his final warning. He changed the page without consensus AGAIN, and it appears he's been blocked for this before. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's enough evidence for an administrator to take just action now? 82.20.134.51 12:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the article to a more suitable location, the existing title was inappropriate given the content being discussed and even on it's own, it was completely incorrect and should have read "British student television" though the fact it discussed the Rep of Ireland does rule that title out. Please do remember that titles of pages need to accurately reflect the content for other users and personal preferences should have no part in the naming of pages. Nick 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unhappy with the page move, Sherzo simply reverted without any consultation. I've since returned the page to the title I believe best fits with our Manual of Style and the content being discussed, protecting the page from being moved but not edited. Sherzo proceeded to copy and paste the content from one page into British student television, sans the history of course, so I've proteced both previous page titles until Sherzo realises that page titles need to be accurate and reflect content, consensus and geopolitical considerations, and that he cannot just copy and paste content from one page into another. Nick 14:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of that administrator decision over Sherzo's fate? TorstenGuise 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This has been running for two days since it was started below. He's been given a final warning, can he please be blocked? CR7 (message me) 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archive of a previous entry to this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section.

Resolved

Hi, I requested that the article British Student Television be moved on its talk page. So far Sherzo has been the only objector. He is reverting the main page as if he owns it and is also being very uncivil about the 'discussion' about the renaming - eg. you thought it meant northern ireland despite saying Dublin? don't they teach geography in the UK anymore? outside of fringe of vocal lunatics on the internet the british isles is an oft use term in the rest of the world. Please can someone drop into the talk page and make a definate decision and/or can Sherzo be sanctioned? On another note he's also been edit warring on List of United States Presidents by military service against Bluecord. CR7 (message me) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that discussion is sitting on WP:RM's backlog. Obviously not the best model chosen for discussing a move proposal. I'm closing it as inconclusive.--Húsönd 01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo refuses to accept that Ireland is not part of Britain. The name of the article is geographically and politically incorrect and is as such unneutral. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo continues to vandalize List of United States Presidents by military service. His vandalism is biased and politically motivated. Ronald Regan served in the U.S. Army Reserve and on active duty during WWII. George W. Bush served in the U.S. Air National Guard during Vietnam. He continually deletes Reagan's service because it offends him that Reagan served in Hollywood making propoganda and training films for the Army. Reagan is not the only WWII veteran that recieved stateside service. He can not help that he was ordered there by the Army. He continues to revert Bush's status as AWOL even though that is still under dispute. My contention is, being a History teacher and a veteran myself, that you can not take service away from someone and both of these men served no matter what your personal feelings are of that service. There are clearly questions in relation to the service of some democrats, most notably Clinton and his deferment, however, Sherzo does not even want to admit that. This is what makes this a political point of view on his part. He is basically revising history to meet his own personal beliefs. He also leaves pretty nasty messages on other peoples talk pages.Bluecord

That's pretty ridiculous; especially the Reagan part. I've watchlisted the article. --Haemo 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I've also watchlisted it, and since he's changing it from the original content without a concencus, his edits in question will be considered vandalism by me. -JacќяМ ¿Qué? 02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a previous discussion in this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section.

References

• GUST debate.Talk:Glasgow University Student Television
• British Student Television debate.Talk:British Student Television
• Abuse on TorstenGuise talk page. User_talk:TorstenGuise#British_Student_Television
• Complimentary debate to the above abuse User_talk:Sherzo#British_Student_Television

Changes to White people by User: Baron von Washington

Resolved

 – User indefinitely blocked.

Good evening. I've noted that User: Baron von Washington seems to be trying to push a non-neutral point of view. He will alternate between listing an image of a Schutzstaffel soldier as an example of a "typical white man" and removes Image:Light skin colors.jpg. Please see the edits listed:

• [14]
• [15]
• [16]

I'm passing him off here to avoid a revert war. The picture of the SS soldier is designed to be inflammatory, and the second picture removed is a valid one.

Thank you for your attention.

-- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

His tactics have escalated. There is a report on WP:AIV since it is a clearcut case of POV pushing and vandalism. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all referenced, the article is being hijacked by cajuns, possibly Communist spies. --Baron von Washington 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And finally, a WP:3RR violation. -- Irixman ^{(t) (m)} 03:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He's been indefinitely blocked, which I fully support. MastCell ^Talk 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I second the block, someone got him just before I did. DarthGriz98 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Communist Cajuns? That's a new one. Clear trolling. Good block. Corvus cornix 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User InfoCheck Violating 3 Revert Rule

Esteemed collegues:

If you examine:

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

You will see that InfoCheck has repeatedly, much more often than thrice, inserted a link in the "See Also" section, despite the consense to leave this link off of the Gothic Chess page. This user is insisting that a chess variant that he devised is very similar to the game of Gothic Chess which has been in existance for seven years. He is therefore requesting links back to his personal home pages, his personal PDF files, and his personal analysis, none of which has undergone the peer review process common in academic circles. Gothic Chess has been so scrutinized, and has been published, in both hardback textbooks and other periodicals dealing with Artificial Intelligence. References of these published works are provided on the Gothic Chess page.

The user InfoCheck repeatedly imposes his own links, vioating neutral point of view, and violating the 3 revert rule as previously mentioned. Judge not only the history of posts, judge the two games for yourself:

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Gothic Chess of which a great deal of material has been published.

	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j
8											8
7											7
6											6
5											5
4											4
3											3
2											2
1											1
	a	b	c	d	e	f	g	h	i	j

The game of Optimized Chess which has no followers aside from its creator.

It is obvious that:

1. Only the kings are in the same place, on the f1/f8 squares. This is the only similarity between the two games.

2. The Queen in "optimized chess" starts on the wrong color (White Queens are always on light squares, Black Queen are always on dark squares.)

3. The Knights and Rooks in "optimized chess" have exchanged places, not even on the same relative squares as regular 8x8 chess.

4. The Bishops in "optimized chess" can't reach the "long diagonals" (a1-h8 via being placed on b2, or j1-c8 via being placed on i2.) Placing Bishops on long diagonals is a very common motiff that chess players strive to do fairly often, and Gothic Chess players enjoy it as well.

5. The Bishop on the Queen's side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

6. The Bishop on the Kings side in "optimized chess" is on the color opposite of what it should be.

With so many obvious differences, myself and several others feel this user InfoCheck is doing nothing constructive. He is just trying to publicize a game of no interest at the expense of detracting from the Gothic Chess article.

I recommend him for banning for the 24 hour period for all of the aforementioned reasons.

ChessHistorian 04:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"You and several others" refers to a gang of Gothic Chess fans, about three editors here. At least equally many neutral editors are for the inclusion of the Optimized Chess link. You yourself have been violating the three revert rule at least equally much as InfoCheck. You even just deleted InfoCheck's arguments for inclusion from the talk page (accidentally, I'm sure), without an explanation. Luckily I have just restored them. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 05:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You're calling the inventor of the game a fan? You're calling only one of four people in the world who won a game against the inventor (who has over a 96% win ratio) a fan? You're calling me, a reporter for two city newspapers a fan? It would be more correct to say that 2 biased, anti-Gothic Chess people, with no interest in the game, no talent for playing the game, are just trying to detract from it by playing the role of spoilers. Well, guess what? We're sick of your illogical remarks. We're sick of you sub-standard, low-achievers claiming superiority over a published artificial intelliegence researcher who has several college degrees. You can't just insert meaningless links to a well constructed page and say they belong there. That other variant is complete crap. You were asked to find ONE PHOTOGRAPH of anybody playing that game, and you couldn't do it. So drop it. Go somewhere else. You're not wanted on the Gothic Chess page. You're not needed. You're statements are biased, inaccurate, and ludicrous. But we gave you your voice, however wrong it is, you have said what you needed to say, and the the people have spoken. They said get your links off of that page. So do it.

ChessHistorian 06:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a noticeboard for violations of the three revert rule right here. We also have article talk pages for content discussions. This is not the place for either, and I also strongly encourage both of you to review the guidelines on civil discussion and personal attacks. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 06:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Protected Gothic chess: Enough edit-warring. Discuss things on the talkpage, wait for this to expire, or visit WP:RFPP [edit=sysop:move=sysop] (expires 06:50, 19 August 2007 (UTC))" Please note that The Wrong Version of this article has been protected. Please do not request unprotection on my talkpage. ~Kylu (u|t) 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't tell if chesshistorian is claiming to be the inventor of gothic chess or not, but that rant above with all the NPA and CIV vios seems to also be admission of a CoI. Anyone else reading it that way, or is it just late and I'm tired? ThuranX 09:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

ChessHistorian is not the inventor of Gothic Chess, User:GothicChessInventor is. (PS. I decrypted the bunch of acronyms that you just threw in by adding links to them, hope you don't mind. :) —ZeroOne (talk / @) 16:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind. Thanks for the clarification. ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

I am the inventor of Gothic Chess. I got a call at about 4 AM from a Gothic Chess player from Australia letting me know what was going on at the Gothic Chess page regarding these edit wars. While I did appreciate his diligence, this is not how I would like to be informed when the Gothic Chess page is being vandalized by other variant authors. ChessHistorian is a newspaper reporter from the Baltimore Sun who interviewed me a few weeks ago when the game of checkers was announced as being solved. If you perform this google search you can find him:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Ed+Trice%22+%22Baltimore+Sun%22&btnG=Search

Anyway, it looks to me like the correct version of the page is protected now. Thank you for this.

If I may shed some light on this from my own observations: Gothic Chess is a very popular chess variant that tens of thousands of people play. Other variants are virtually unknown. Sometimes a person that creates a new chess variant tries to force a "piggy back" association with another variant as a means to try and "trick" people into thinking it is played much more widely than it really is. This is clearly the case here. InfoCheck is the one who is trying to mislead Wikipedia readers with his announcement of an implicit strategic alignment between my game and his.

Objectively speaking, and as cited above, of the 10 pieces in the back row of each games' setup, only the Kings are in the same location.

The games are completely different. There is no reason to have his variant mentioned on the Gothic Chess page.

Furthermore, whereas I have gone through the recalcitrant process of obtaining a patent on my game (due to its uniqueness and the potential desire for many other chess manufactures to try and get a hold of it) and had several scientific periodicals print my published analysis of artifical intelligence papers that I had written on this (and other) subjects, the person known as InfoCheck has merely created a PDF file that he has on his website, and he continues to claim that his information is more accurate, "better", more realistic, etc., than my own. When I offered to submit his paper for him to the artificial researchers I know that would review it, he then reverts his claims, and stop spewing forth his ill-found rhetoric.

So we have a clear case of InfoCheck just looking for a soapbox on which to stand and say a great deal of things that are untrue, unproven, and just plain unfactual.

He is using Wikipedia as a means to broadcast this misinformation, the highest form of treason.

The administrators have the power to positively impact the material presented herein. I have a great deal of respect for your constant vigilence in countering page vandalism. I urge you to support ChessHistorian and understand some of his retaliatory remarks are just a function of his own weariness in dealing with InfoCheck. We have people on three continents agreeing that the material submitted by InfoCheck just does not belong. We also have people who are jealous of the popularity of Gothic Chess and try to do anything to detract from it. I do not understand these people. Just by reading their comments on the History page, you can see they are nothing more than unsupported conjecture that has no basis. As one of the Gothic Chess supporters summarized:

You can call a cat a fish, but it will not swim.

That is their case in microcosm: They furnish false statements without any backup. It is as if they are trying to tell Wikipedia Administrators that cats have gills and live in the water.

In closing, InfoCheck violated several Wikipedia policies, and should be dealt with accordingly. The people whose comments on the History page are nothing more than ignoratio elenchi will be easy for the administrators to find. I know you will do the right thing and take the appropriate actions.

I thank you for your time.

Inventor of Gothic Chess, Ed Trice

GothicChessInventor 16:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarifications. (by the way, I didn't do anything to protect the page, as yout talk page note seems to suggest.) Now that we've got someone claiming to be the inventor, who claims to have a clear view of the situation, I guess the only thing left to do is validate his identity to support his claims, then edit the page accordingly? thoughts? Have I oversimplified? (standard IANaAdmin). ThuranX 17:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my position that I was baited into violating the 3-revert rule by a small gang of editors on the Gothic Chess page who were repeatedly throwing-out Optimized Chess which is indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant. These few people are zealots (not merely players) who are extremely prejudicial and unfair to other chess variants. It is significant that in tandem with this malicious action against me, a malicious attempt to have Optimized Chess, despite its established significance, thrown-out of Wikipedia is also underway.

All of these acts are financially-motivated to prevent a free game of excellent quality Optimized Chess from being available to people on Wikipedia who casually look at a commercial product Gothic Chess. This agenda violates the charter of Wikipedia to the extreme. To be sure, you are being lied to on a large scale in every paragraph by the opposition on this issue. You must spend some time and effort to discern exactly how and when.

The bizarre edit history and talk page entries at Gothic Chess and Ed Trice as well as Optimized Chess and Embassy Chess say much more than I can concisely about what honest editors go thru daily in fighting-off the actions of dishonest editors. This is where to begin to investigate in order to discover the truth.

Frankly, I am unconcerned about being blocked for a time if Wikipedia administrators are locked-in by the rules regardless of the circumstances. I did what I had to under difficult, stressful, unjust conditions. However, I am certain that I am normally a responsible, conscientious editor who acts constructively and should not be blocked. My edit history proves that.

--InfoCheck

ThuranX (and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia admins), please do not make up your mind on this issue based on what is said on this page only. Fully read Talk:Gothic chess starting from, say, the Number of example games section. Then see how User:Oli Filth was attacked using a mediation request which was correctly denied by the medcab people and then rightly deemed as ridiculous and pointless by a neutral third party, User:Boricuaeddie. I know all that is a lot of reading but I find it necessary to understand the extent this edit war has gone to. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 17:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Whoa, whoa. Please check your facts before making claims such as this. Firstly, I did not deny that request; the people at WP:MEDCAB did. Secondly, I did not attack Oli Filth. In fact, I agreed with him. Thirdly, it was ridiculous. The first party wanted to "ban" the other from editing the article; that's ridiculous. Therefore, creating a request for mediation because of this is pointless. Please assume good faith, man. --Boricuaeddie 21:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see we have some misunderstandings here. I admit I thought you denied the request, sorry for that. I did not say you attacked Oli Filth (and of course everyone knows you didn't), I just said he was attacked. I'm with you here, I think your judgement that the case was ridiculous is completely right. I also agreed with Oli Filth, I only used your comment to bring up the other point of view to this whole mishmash of an edit war. See, I said that the case was judged as ridiculous by a neutral third party. My point is that if a neutral party judges it as ridiculous, it must be ridiculous. If one of the involved parties would've judged it ridiculous, there would obviously be a conflict of interests and it wouldn't mean much. I've now reworded the message above to avoid any further misunderstandings. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 22:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --Boricuaeddie 23:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

---

InfoCheck clouds the issue. The point is, that the chess variant does not belong on the Gothic Chess page. Of the 20 pieces that are not pawns, only 2 are configured identically. The claims being made that is is a "indisputably a related Capablanca chess variant" are absurd. With only a 10% correlation of the pieces matching where they are placed, how can it possibly be related? Despite several authors asking this same question, no satisfactory answer was ever given. There is a reason for this: The games are not related at all.

We have asked the "supporters" of this extremely unusal variant to show us one picture of someone playing the game. None have been provided.

That speaks to the issue. Over 50,000 Gothic Chess sets have been sold since the year 2000. There are thousands of archived games on the GothicChess.com website (for example here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/all-players-games.php ). There is a free program for downloading at http://www.GothicChess.com/vortex.zip that destroys every other program and player on the planet.

There are photos such as this one:

http://www.gothicchess.com/images/GCACheck.gif

..showing someone being paid $5000 back in the year 2000 for winning a big tournament that was played at the Marshall Chess Club in New York. There are boards and pieces for sale on the website. The inventor went to Iceland to meet Bobby Fischer shown here: http://www.gothicchess.com/iceland_news.html

In short: Gothic Chess is not just an enterprise, it is a thriving one.

If the game that InfoCheck claims is better than Gothic Chess, how come he can't show one picture of one person playing the game? And, if his game is so much better, why wouldn't the "lowly" Gothic Chess people actively seek to have their game linked to his?

It is plain to see that the reverse is being sought. InfoCheck is desparately trying to attach his game to Gothic Chess and thereby "prove" something. I have no idea what that is. All I know is, that game he is trying to promote is worthless, nobody plays it, there is no dedicated website for it, there are no example games of it, there is just one PDF file where he claims it is the best thing out there.

You have to call it like you see it. That other variant has no followers. Even the game's creator has no photograph of him playing it since he can't get one other person to play it with him!

Compare that to Gothic Chess where they raised $15,000,000 last summer had the interest of Anatoly Karpov and Bobby Fischer to play a match.

I ask you: How can anyone be fooled by the nonsense of InfoCheck ??

ChessHistorian 06:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

---

ChessHistorian- If you successfully raised $15 million US, then why was the tournament that would have immortalized Gothic Chess cancelled?

Wikipedia administrator(s)- Can you imagine what it is like to deal with this caliber of nonsense upon several Wikipedia pages nonstop?

--InfoCheck

I can answer this question. First off, ChessHistorian is just a newspaper reporter. He had nothing to do with raising any money for the match. He knew nothing about Ed Trice until the game of checker was solved. Secondly, Anatoly Karpov signed the agreement to play as shown here http://www.gothicchess.com/images/Karpov_Signature.jpg so the match was underway. Thirdly, if you read their blog at http://gothicchess.blogspot.com/ you will have all of your questions answered in time. It was a very long process to get this match put together, over two years. The short answer why it came undone: Fischer wouldn't sign anything, typical Bobby. That's all. Trice and Fischer have had contact since the match fell apart. He was there to wish Fischer a happy 64th birhday for example.

GothicEnthusiast 16:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

GothicEnthusiast- While The Gothic Chess Federation was trying to make this event materialize, I read information provided by Ed Trice that Susan Polgar was lined-up as an alternate in case either Karpov or Fischer backed-out. So, what happened?

--InfoCheck

---

ChessHistorian, the relationship has been explained to you a few times, the latest time probably being shown in this diff. Of course, you later deleted the explanation, which could be why you have the mental image that no one has explained it to you. —ZeroOne (talk / @) 08:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This situation is a mess. There's definitely a highly involved, tighly agreeing group working the gothic chess pages. I'm concerned by things like [[17]] this, where the owner/creator/promoter advocates letting him have more control of the images released about his own prouct. The talk page at gothic chess reads to me as thick with CoI, and not particularly willing to listen to new ideas from outside their group. Are these two ugly cousins closely related enough to be on each other's pages? Sure looks like it to me. SHould they be on each other's pages? either all of the Capablanca chess variants can cross-link freely as appropriate by article, or none of them should, instead referring readers to a list of Capablanca Chess variants. As it is unneccesarily cumbersome to avoid referencing other variants, I'd say let them be discussed freely. That a group works together to block edits ot the page by spreading their reverts around isn't ethical, it's an end run around the 3RR. When the talk page is likewise a bullying ground for a few closely aligned thinkers, it's even tougher. I don't think the 3RR Violation is blockable at this point (preventative, not punative; and editor in discussion regarding issue), I think the editor in violation should've brought the whole mess to one of WIkipedia's resources for assistance before. Probably not AN or AN/I, but maybe help desk or village pump. It's tough to hlp edit when you're hitting serious, and CoI-based, resistance. ThuranX 15:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ThuranX I looked at [[18]] and I just don't understand the concern. What was so morally indefensible about that discussion? It's just people chatting about an image of a board. And what is "thick with Col"?? I don't understand this terminology.

By the way, many of the people you say are "unwilling to listen" are more than willing to listen. But there is nothing of substance being offered, and the people to whom this is demonstrated do not furnish backup for the things they're trying to add to the page. For example, that one nuisance who insists on claiming his chess variant belongs there.

Why does it belong?

He claims it is similar to Gothic Chess. He, the person who made it, the person was has a POV.

The following people did not merely say "it should not belong", they offered reasons:

ChessHistorian a reporter for the Baltimore Sun

Andreas Kaufmann a highly skilled variant player from Germany who is 1 of only 4 people to have defeated the game's inventor

GothicEnthusiast myself, a strong Gothic Chess player as you can see from here http://www.gothicchesslive.com/one-players-games.php?id=174 I am just one rung below Bobby Fischer on the site, which you can see sorted by rating here: http://www.gothicchesslive.com/players-games.php

GothicChessInventor who published several important papers in artifical intelligence, helped solve the game of checkers (see http://www.cs.ualberta.ca/~chinook/thankyou/ ), who invented the game of Gothic Chess, and who understands the game and those that are similar to it more than anybody in the world.

Please note:

All of us agree that Embassy Chess belongs on there, as does Capablanca Random Chess. All of us agree that the other variant DOES NOT belong there, for the numerous reasons cited here and on the Talk page of Gothic Chess.

That other variant is a Capablanca Random Chess variant. It has no bearing, similarity, or likeness to Gothic Chess.

All of the other ranting and raving is moot. It's not the same. It doesn't belong.

Where does it belong? On the Capablanca Random Chess page. It is a CRC variant by the author's own admissions.

Let it stay there, where it belongs.

GothicEnthusiast 16:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's not. The inventor of the game is advocating that HE be in control of the images used in the article. HE regularly monitors and edits the product for his own page. HE states that HE will take the pictures to be used, and so on. This is a CoI, a Conflict of Interest, in which a person with significant financial and commercial interest in the article is shaping the way it is written, to the level where other people's contributions are being critiqued one by one and reviewed like this is an advertisement. Finally, as described above, There is the Set of Chess. there is subset, chess variants, subset Capablanca Variants, subset Gothic, Subsets Embassy and capablanca Random. As Capablanca random is a subset of Gothic as you describe, and Optimized is a subset of Capablance random, then the subset of optimized Chess is also a subset of gothic. don't see why it wouldn't belong. ThuranX 03:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ed Trice is not saying any of those things that you mentioned. You are obviously misreading the thread. He asked people which images they liked. In effect, he called for a vote. When there was an agreement, he said he would put the image up on Wikipedia. Have you ever communicated directly with him? I have. He said he only looks at the page when he gets calls from concerned people or if he is "emailed to death" (his words) by Gothic Chess players who see something awry. Your hierarchy of sets and subsets seems off. It should be something like this

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Chess Inspired Variants (This is Gothic Chess, Capablanca Random Chess, and others)

At which point we have other branches at this level, and also below the level

Chess

All Chess Variants

Gothic Chess

Embassy Chess (Embassy was invented as a means to circumvent the Gothic Chess patent only, so it "springs from" Gothic, even though, otherwise, it would be at the same level if it was invented stand alone)

Another path would be

Chess

All Chess Variants

Capablanca Random Chess

Optimized Chess (this descends from CRC and neither Gothic nor Embassy, because Gothic pre-existed Embassy, Optimized Chess is very different from both Gothic and Embassy, and Optimized Chess came after CRC, and one can only say that Optimized Chess looks like an ordinary, random, CRC creation.)

For the above reasons, from a historical perspective (of which I am very aware) the sets you mention are not 100% reflecting the accuracy of the variants' respective chronologies.

ChessHistorian 03:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't addressing the subsets in terms of chronolgies, but nice attempt to recast my commentary. have to be bluntly honest here. This tactic which I've noted in the talk page there, and the AN/I here is to come back with a variant move on any ideas proposed. I address admissions of how the games evolved relative to each other, you reply that my list doesn't go chronologically, which I never implied it had. Not really an endearing behavior, but I've noticed this sort of You're talking about A, so I'll put you on the defensive by interpreting and responding to B.

To all interested parties, a related AfD is found here, regarding the Optimized Chess article, and in the discussions, the future of many, if not all of these minutely differentiated variations on the theme. ThuranX 05:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Qst sockblock review: Rännilar (talk · contribs)

I blocked this user indefinitely after I spotted him using TWINKLE to troll UAA. Not only that: checking the contributions before blocking, I realised this was an obvious abusive sockpuppet; he'd added TWINKLE into his monobook on his 3rd edit, in addition to making edits like this. As to who this abusive sockpuppet might be, IMO this is community-banned user Qst (or, less likely, Molag Bal). If anyone wishes to request checkuser, they have my blessings. Moreschi ^Talk 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I have quite a knowledge of this case (as do you Moreshi, that is for sure), and Rlest/Qst's final statement on his talk page seemed to indicate that he was no longer interested in Wikipedia diff, and he has been on a downward spiral ever since late July - I can't see him picking up again and reverting vandalism as normal. Still, might be worth a look. -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He has said many things in the past which have turned out to be rather untrue. He suggested he wouldn't use sockpuppets again shortly before creating Ds.mt and said he was going on a break until September time, again, untrue. The account Moreschi blocked is clearly a sockpuppet and Qst is a very likely candidate. I'd like a checkuser to confirm though, it'll give us some idea as to whether Qst intends to circumvent his ban. Nick 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Nick's right; he's said many things, and, lately, most of them have not been true. The editing pattern is very similar; nobody installs TW as their third edit and starts reporting usernames in their first day of active editing. I agree with the idea of a Checkuser. --Boricuaeddie 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Note: A checkuser has been filed. --Boricuaeddie 16:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

←Boy, I missed all this...I support the bannination, by the way, and this account seems to fit in with the editor's pattern. My recent interactions with (now-blocked) Defender 911 (talk · contribs) reminded me of Tellyaddict or the Retinio Virginian account, too...Did anyone else get that feeling? — Scientizzle 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, I hadn't thought of that - I don't think so, purely because more bile would have been thrown in my direction if that were the case. Daniel Bryant reckoned that account was User:Geo.plrd, which is probably a closer guess. Kind of fits. Moreschi ^Talk 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The user has been cleared by checkuser (see [19]). I really thought Qst was this one also. The evidence was pretty convincing. --Boricuaeddie 20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

However, whoever this user was, he was part of a massive sock farm that Voice of All caught and blocked indef. Moreschi ^Talk 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist

[20]- It seems defamatory to me without a specific neutral source saying that a particular living person is anti-Zionist, but I don't care, so I'll leave it to you guys to sort out and will refrain from reverting this IP editor again. Cheers, Alec ✉_{﹌ }^۞ 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's my general guideline that unless they say they're Anti-(whatever) or Pro-(whatever), it's not right to claim that unless there's a source which describes them as such; and it should be phrased as "Considered by X to be a Y" or so forth. Allowing biographies to contain (seemingly as fact) contentious information is certainly against BLP. .V. _[Talk|Email] 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP's edit summaries are becoming more hostile, [21], and a look through the history of just that page shows the sort of slow boil exception ot the 24 hour period that 3RR requires. Perhaps a block is in order? diffs: [22], [23], [24]. I realize it's four over four days, but the same sort of reverting removals of the category appears on other pages as well: [25], [26]. the editor is likely to continue, so perhaps a week long range block? longer? he has used: [136.186.1.19], [136.186.1.186], and [136.186.1.187]. ThuranX 06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information

Two articles, List of Iranian states and empires and List of Turkic states and empires have had sourced information continuously removed from them.

On List of Turkic states and empires, User:Lima6 has continuously removed sourced information: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34]

On List of Iranian states and empires, User:Denizz and User:A.Garnet has continuously removed sourced information:

User:Denizz: [35] (commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [36] (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [37] (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information), [38], [39]

User:A.Garnet: [40], [41], [42]

Please look into this, this seems like vandalism.Hajji Piruz 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Speaking as an Admin, this seems like a content dispute to me: one side claims that the Ottoman Empire should be grouped as one of the "Iranian states", the other reverting those edits. Discussion ongoing at Talk:List of Iranian states and empires. If asked for my opinion, I might even go a little further & say that this claim is a novel interpretation of facts & therefore original research -- but no one has asked me for my opinion, so I didn't say that. However, if another Admin is asked for an opinion, don't be surprised if she/he actually does. -- llywrch 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

No, no claim like that is being made at all. No one is claiming that the Ottomans were an Iranian state (as in the nation of Iran) but rather an empire which was culturally and partially linguistically Iranic (as in Iranic culture, civilization, etc... see Iranian peoples, as sub branch of the indo-Europeans, which includes Kurds, Persians, Tajiks, Talysh, Ossetians, etc...), which is an undisputed and undeniable fact which is even heavily sourced. None of the Turkish editors even deny this fact.

Some users are distorting what the article is actually about and simply removing sourced information. This is not just about List of Iranian states and empires but its also happening at List of Turkic states and empires.

Its simply a matter of confusion which, after a talk with Deniz, is hopefully cleared up, but still, this seems like borderline vandalism. Sourced information should not be removed like that until the issue is discussed. It would have been different had the information not been sourced, but in this case the information was heavily sourced.Hajji Piruz 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Public records legal threats?

Resolved

 – blocked⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Admins may need to look into this edit to see if there are any legal issues or practical issues for Wikipedia (protect the article, block the IP, etc.). --ElKevbo 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And also send its editor back to grade-school English class. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly a sock of Psthi (talk · contribs) who apparently feels he has a right to spam us; and who seemingly makes threats, which this (reverted) may be an attempt to carry out. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Resolved

 – Page semi-protected by another admin. -- Gogo Dodo 19:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

On King Edward VI Aston (I'm about to step away from my PC). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks

User:Azizbekov is attacking others at [43] using inappropriate language. This user has been registered for merely a week, and already made a number of accusations against users who were blocked 4 months ago [44]. So it's quite likely that User:Azizbekov is a sock of an experienced contributor. Atabek 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Given the amount of socking and revert warring we've seen from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest. Obvious sock. Unfortunately, I'm not acquainted with the edit war; you would know better than I who it is. The Evil Spartan 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that Azizbekov is definitely a sock, most likely it is User:Fadix or User:Robert599. He is too knowledgeable for a newbie, and urgent admin attention to this user’s editing is necessary. Grandmaster 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[45] - checkuser report including User:Artaxiad, User:Fadix, User:Robert599 with User:Azizbekov, where admin commented that obvious cases don't need a checkuser. Atabek 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Since an arbitrator said it's an obvious sock of a blocked user, I've blocked the sock. --Golbez 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please advise

See: 81.79.203.71 not sure if this is related to a similar problem I had Here that I reported the other day but I have another anon IP reverting my edits again.--padraig 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I've asked for page protection. Obvious sock. The Evil Spartan 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.--padraig 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And another one [46] this is getting beyond a joke now.--padraig 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket

Hello. User:Squash Racket is currently involved in a revert war, in which he/she has already violated 3RR. This violation despite a warning on the user talk page has been reported by User:Roamataa.[47] Squash Racket has not been blocked yet and he/she is using his/her time to post personal attacks on my talk page. The attack can be found here, my response, in which I asked Squash Racket not to resort to personal attacks here. As he/she keeps reverting my removal of the personal attacks on my own talk page, I would like to ask someone either to block him/her, so he/she has time to cool down (Squash Racket has already violated 3RR anyway) or to protect my talk page against his/her spam. Tankred 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

3RR aside, I think you really need some form of dispute resolution rather than administrator intervention here. Nick 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting done by "Diesel 10"

The user User:Diesel 10 (whom hasn't yet created his userpage) has been reverting the formats of the episode lists for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" to sloppy versions that:

• Give away too much of storylines
• Carry redundant and unsorted information, as well as original research
• Used insults and rude commands to stop the edits (Please see his comments in the history page for Thomas and Friends - Season 8.)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty5 (talk • contribs).

See dispute resolution, or leave a message on the episode list's talk page to arrive at some form of consensus what to do. Miranda 02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Need help dealing with disambig image, FUR

user:The Matrix Prime continues to revert Optimus Prime (disambiguation) to include an Image:Allops.JPG. The two posts to the talk page are, first, me asking TMP (or anyone) to provide an explanation for how a collage of a dozen+ characters helps someone who hits that disambig. page choose between the three listed there and, second, a summary for RfC that's not been responded to. Additionally, the image -- which TMP uploaded -- does not have a FUR for use on the disambig page, only the main character article (where it is not included). I've tried engaging this editor repeatedly on his talk page,[48][49][50][51][52] pointed him toward relevant policies regarding images on disambig pages and the need for FUR on all non-free images, and suggested an alternative home for his image (i.e. on the Optimus Prime page, for which the FUR applies). However, other than an early initial exchange,[53][54][55] his responses have been confined to his reverting[56][57] edit summaries, when he includes them, that (to use the most recent example) assert that the "picture is self-explanitory as is the fair-use rational". Some of the diffs above are me trying to explain that there is no such thing as a "self-explanatory" FUR, and I disagree with his assertion earlier in the edit summary that the image's presence "has already been discussed".
Anyhow, as I mentioned, the RfC has not been Ced upon. I have become frustrated trying to explain the fair-use policy -- and, in other circumstances I'd be happy to write the missing FUR myself, but I really don't think the image should be on the page. Anyone out there with more experience have any particular pointers? I'm almost to the point of nixing the disambig page and just adding some seealso's to the top of Optimus Prime, but I think that might just be me being spiteful, esp. after a similar move AfDing a List of... over which TMP and I had similar back-and-forth about "implied fair-use rationales". Anyhow. Help? --EEMeltonIV 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. Since disambiguation pages aren't actually articles, fair use images shouldn't be used because of WP:NFCC #8 & #9. A fair use rationale for usage in a disambiguation would have to explain exactly why a copyrighted image is necessary, but that would be impossible because disambigs, by their very definition, already offer a GFDL text explanation of the information provided by said image. The logical conclusion, with respect to policy, would be to disallow Image:Allops.JPG. If TMP wishes to use the image, he will have to gain consensus for it at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree over your opinion that this is an "interesting situation." Why does a disambiguation page need an illustration at all? Only after someone explains why one is needed for a specific disambig page (I won't deny that it is possible that one could need an image, but I'd insist on a plausible explanation first) do we reach the paradox you are fascinated by. -- llywrch 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I can't really think of any reason to illustrate a disambig unless it serves to, well, differentiate between closely linked but distinct ideas. However this reasoning isn't even applicable to the Optimus Prime disambig. I guess my fascination was more with how no current policy (aside from common sense) addresses the feasibility of using fair use claims to illustrate disambig pages in articlespace. Maybe WP:NFCC#9 should include an explicit restriction on usage in disambigs to avoid similar conflicts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that's a good example justifying having an image on a disambig page -- & your reasoning for it is spot on. It does appear that you & I agree that using a Fair Use image on a disambig page has two hurdles before it: convincing enough people that an image is needed in the first place, & that a Fair Use image is the best choice available. Also, seeing how the whole Fair Use/No Unfree Content dispute has been so bitter lately, I'd lean towards putting emphasis on that first justification so we don't further stoke the fires of that dispute. -- llywrch 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, TMP restored the image and added multiple bluelinks to the disambig items, although the disambig MOS (to which I've provided links on his talk page; I can dig up diffs if you'd like) pretty clearly discourages that. I previously provided a link here on his talk page, and after reverting the disambig page to the last version by user:Anetode, once again asked him to abide be policy, guidelines and consensus. This is getting annoying -- I'm sounding like a broken record, and he's shown minimal interest in engaging in discussion beyond edit summaries (when he uses them at all). --EEMeltonIV 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA, CIVILITY, EDIT WARRING, refusing to accept DR involvement

Resolved

Jmfangio starting an RFC per WP:DR Navou ^banter 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I continue to have problems with Chrisjnelson. I have been attacked (blatantly) several times and reported his actions here and through all of the stops at WP:DR. I'm asking someone to please step in and have this person leave me alone. His latest attack is to title a section on my talk page and title it "Childish behavior". [58] It was a refractored comment from this page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

You accuse everybody of doing every bad thing possible, when you're the one who instigated this whole thing. I tried to have a discussion with you about a content dispute we had, and you deliberately refused to even listen to me. This carried over to Talk:Brett Favre; Aviper2k7 and I tried to discuss a content dispute with you, and again you refused to have part of it. You're the one who has issues with the content, begin a discussion about it, and then refuse to even listen to us. It makes me wonder what's the point of even talking with him? You have caused me a lot of tension, no doubt, but I haven't even done anything wrong. You accuse Chrisjnelson of doing something, when you're no cleaner than he is. You cause everybody a lot of tension with your very disruptive behavior, and then try to turn us in. I don't see how you can accuse anybody of anything when you're the true instigator. Ksy92003(talk) 22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ksy92003 - I am giving you an opportunity to leave me alone. You too have been ridiculously uncivil as has the other person involved. You guys are bullying me and being so incredibly obnoxious. Leave it be please. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What did I ever do to you? The only reason I came here is because I'm trying to defend myself and Chrisjnelson. I honestly don't know what he, me, or Aviper2k7 has done to you, and speaking for Chrisjnelson (I've been e-mailing him recently), both him and I feel that you've caused us a lot more tension than we feel we've caused you. I don't feel I've been the least bit uncivil, and I'm certainly not bullying you nor being the least bit obnoxious. I even have been trying to help you on numerous occasions. Ksy92003(talk) 22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A User Conduct request for comments may be useful here for the editors. Respectfully, Navou ^banter 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Been there and done that, but I'll go do it again. What's most frustrating though is that this has dragged on for so long that it's getting very difficult for me to dig up all the information. I just want to be left alone and when people engage in discussions - they need to adhere to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• sorry - not really the way to respond, just frustrated. Thanks for the advice Navou, I will proceed forward with that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox

Is User:Muntuwandi an editor who uses it as such? Few talk page examples: [59] [60] [61] [62]

Few of his edits in the article: [63] (he kept putting this pic by edit warring) and adding pic of Barack Obama to the top of white people article [64] or irrelevant edits such as "have the same eye shapes as most black Africans in that they" [65]

Another editor thought he had an afrocentric agenda [66] and I agree. Is his behaviour within rules? KarenAER 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, an editor who thinks that race doesn't even exist and that Barak Obama is white. Yes, this would be a problem, without a doubt. The Evil Spartan 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind, though, that the existence of race is in some debate right now. -Amarkov moo! 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd say he's within WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and maybe sometimes has a bit of a problem with WP:AGF at times, beliefs set aside. However, I would say what you're bringing up is strictly a content dispute and as such, has no place at WP:ANI. I believe the correct route would be to ask for informal mediation, at WP:MEDCAB.--Ramdrake 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Besides, has anybody told you yet that canvassing is usually frowned upon in such circumstances?[67][68][69]--Ramdrake 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

(ec)I don't know. Someone adding a picture of Barak Obama to a page on white people seems to be far enough out there that it's more important to protect the encyclopedia than process wonk with Medcab. As Rama once pointed out when people were trying to add a really really bad POV: you don't reference absurdities, you remove them. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

However, User:Godongwana is the one who added the picture first, and it was reinserted once and removed twice. It's not in the article anymore, and nobody complains about this... Is there still a problem under those conditions?--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Godongwana may be his puppet. It's new, with similar edit history, african name, similar positions. [70] KarenAER 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not a content dispute. For ex, here: [71], he acknowledges the definition of white people but DISPUTES it. Editors' job is not to try to change descriptions as they see fit, but rather use it as they are used by citing reliable sources...KarenAER 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

He acknowledges that he can tell a white person. He does not acknowledge any specific definition that I can fathom. As far as RS are concerned, there are many, diverse definitions of white, and while they agree on many points, there are many important differences. But yes, it is still a content dispute, fundamentally.--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then you havent read all the links? Why are you commenting then? "The problem is one of taxonomy, who are "white people". We have assumed that white people are only Europeans, that is the traditional classification." [72], he then goes on and on why this SHOULDNT be the case ACCORDING TO HIM. Based on that political perspective, he's making edits on the article and the talk page, disrupting the whole process. KarenAER 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a message at User_talk:Muntuwandi#White_People_Article about various policy and practice issues. KarenAER, let me know on my talk page if these issues continue. Ramdrake, continuing your dispute here on ANI is pointless. KarenAER wanted admin attention to to an issue. A continuous tit-for-tat about why you think this is just a content dispute and couldn't possibly be a content dispute with attendant policy considerations does not help. Usually an indication of what the problem is and where is enough, because sysops investigate claims before acting on them. Thanks.--Chaser - T 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if I broke decorum, it's just that I had seen almost identical complaints on ANI very recently (there's one from yesterday even, I believe) be commented upon as a mere content dispute. It looked to me as this was more of the same stuff. I apologize if I've been disruptive myself.--Ramdrake 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and I appreciate your conciliatory tone. It's tempting to get in the last word, but usually additional comments are only necessary if there is relevant evidence that someone missed in posting to ANI. Evidence is always more persuasive than comments.--Chaser - T 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there is more to it than a content dispute. Muntuwandi's conduct, on both the article and its talk page, has been quite disruptive and counterproductive. Muntuwandi, apparently thinking that the "white" classification involves nothing more than skin color, seems to be trying to 'discredit' the racial category through forum-ish talk pages discussions and disruptive article edits (such as this WP:POINT-violating OR comparative image).

I can understand that there may be some ambiguity over the "one-drop rule," but Muntuwandi doesn't seem interested in just writing about different RS takes on it. Instead, he makes a talk page section where he basically complains and criticizes its application based upon his personal beliefs (see Talk:White people#One drop rule on the white people article). There are numerous other such soapboxing and forum-ish posts by Muntuwandi that aren't really geared towards the article's coverage of RS but more towards discrediting the racial category itself.

In sum, I agree that there Muntuwandi has been soapboxing, and I think that this has been carried not only on the talk page but also in the article itself. I may post more examples of this disruption here (if I feel like it). The Behnam 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

"Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"

Done. Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi KarenAER 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is largely a content dispute, I have issues with the way the article was being presented. I admit though that some of my views are sometimes provocative and i occasionally enjoy swimming against the tide of popular opinion. Should one jump off a cliff just because everyone else is doing so. I am not a sock and the checkuser will exonerate me. I can recall we were editing around the same time. If User:Godongwana and I agree on some edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I share KarenAERs concerns. The topic needs to stay on topic and not ramble, overdwell, make odd comparisons, or be a soapbox. There are other topics for peripheral issues. Its not a content dispute as KarenAER noted, its more soapboxing. The topic doesn't need to be a soapbox against the topic. Thomas Paine1776 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

serious problem with two other editors

Hi there, I need some serious intervention/comment/third opinion/i don't know. but what's happened is that while discussing a term on the talk page of Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Usage. (See Usage of sophomore and [Sophomore usage (again)]. We came to a consensus during the first discussion, and then again during the second. But suddenly User: Violetriga has been arguing with me about it, still, and reverting the page for MUSTARD/Usage and Sophomore back to what they prefer the two to look like. Not only that, but this person, and all of sudden User: Melsaran have been following my contributions and reverting them, even on matters that don't concern the discussion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27N_Sync&oldid=150834794%7C This edit, for one) It's become a real headache, and I need some help here. I don't know how to get these two to calm down and see reason. Thank you in advance. Bouncehoper 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, they seem to have blocked me in at the MUSTARD page, as if I revert it to what was agreed upon and correct, I could be cited for the 3RR rule. If someone could please help us work this out, that would be so wonderful. Bouncehoper 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the administrators' noticeboard. There is nothing that administrators can assist you with here. Try resolving the matter with us first. Melsaran 10:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Request review, protection of John Howard

I have temporarily protected this article due to BLP concerns, specifically the insertion of material which is presented negatively and is only tangentially relevant. [73] Bringing here for wider review, as I'm sure someone is certainly going to disagree. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I think we're talking about people adding cited information, rather than any willful destruction of the article. And the issue with the cited info seems to be not about its accuracy, but how it is presented, or how relevant it is. Personally, I think if people add cited information to this article (whether it makes the subject look good or bad) is a good thing, as the article is lacking cited info. The article currently consists of entire sections that are controversial and uncited.

It's almost impossible to add any cited info to the John Howard article, as a small group of editors always delete it immediately it is posted. I think they are trying to protect John Howard's reputation before a coming election. My opinion is that we need to encourage people to add verified and properly cited info, which the article desperately needs. Lester2 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that the criticisms are sourced, the more important policy consideration issue here is undue weight. The BLP policy incorporates NPOV as a consideration, so a 24-hour protection is acceptable, but effort ought to be made to determine if this is significant enough to include before extending that protection, as this is a weak case involving a national leader with at least one major newspaper story on the issue (more such stories would give it proper weight for inclusion).--Chaser - T 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is blocking & deleting the best way to handle it? Sure, if it is libelous, it should be deleted. But we're talking about presentation and undue weight, even though the 'AWB Scandal' was one that enveloped Howard's government. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the issue with other editors first? At least the content had a reference, unlike much of the rest of the John Howard article. I don't know what the block will achieve. 124.168.7.125 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

"a scandal enveloping Howard's government" is rather gilding the lily. In fact the government's only participation was to commission the Cole Enquiry. Trying to link John Howard to the misdeeds of a private company is drawing a very long bow indeed. --Pete 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250

See WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins, where the relevant comment has been copied.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

In Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a related thread going on at WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins, started by WAS 4.250. You might want to keep the discussion together. Just a note... —Kurykh 00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He didn't inform me of this. Has I known I would have posted there. I will do so now, can an admin close this, as per move to WP:AN#Animal liberation POV pushing by admins? Thanks! --Cerejota 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Serial sockpuppeteer vandalising my user page

After I blocked a vandalism-only account which vandalised WP:AN earlier today, the vandal has started to attack my user talk page. Although it's semi-protected, he's got around this by using multiple sockpuppet sleeper accounts, all of which appear to have been created on 16 April 2007. So far he's used Greyvalid (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Jokeshift (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Wantslunch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Validclaim (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). He's claimed in his messages that he has "thousands" more sleeper accounts. -- ChrisO 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

And I do, too. But rest assured, I'm only going to use one hundred at the very most today, after all I have work in under eight hours time! Onesanode 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked that one, needless to say. I wonder if this is the Manchester vandal again? -- ChrisO 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You can try Checkuser. —Kurykh 00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You could... or you could just ask for my IP! No, I'm not the Manchester vandal, at least as far as I'm aware. And by the way, as should have been clear, there were two of us. I stepped in to assist with the campaign started by Mr. Lister, and provided him with some accounts (I also apologise for some of the incivility he used). Nothing too exciting about it, really. 81.158.32.82 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP!

Someone vandalized a MW: namespace page! Now all editing screens and talk pages are centered and italicized! !??!!!?? 68.39.174.238 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed now, what on EARTH was that? 68.39.174.238 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably this. The problem has been fixed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, it was this. A div that made all text 80% smaller and aligned right was accidentally not closed, and since MediaWiki:Anonnotice is at the top of each page, all text in the page was enclosed by the div. At least it looks that way. Just a mistake, though—and it's been fixed. Gracenotes^T § 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to get sign smaller to fit on the Main Page, and obviously by my edit summary reverting, I fucked it up (sorry). I reverted that edit, but the new change is still retained. It is there because there is a bug that prevents anons from seeing the new messages bar. Maxim 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Maxim? Why doesn't he have a userpage? Man this anono-admin thing is frustrating. --W.marsh 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless I've missed something (in which case someone will and should surely refactor this comment), his name change was and continues to be transparent (although, of course, as W.marsh notes, not mentioned at present on his userpage or user talk page); he is the former Evilclown93 (RfA here). This name change, while not of the troublesome "longstanding admin moving to username that will not be readily recognized by most users" or pernicious "admin is sysopped under a new username with his previous identity known only to a few users" type, was nevertheless a bit confusing for me; we already have a User:MaXim. Joe 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair treatment from Administrators.

I would like to report admin. JodyB for unfairly dealing with me. I have made mistakes on here in the past and I am a newbie and I am trying to learn the ropes. I have apologized to everyone on here I offended, several, several times and all I want is a second chance. But I have no voice and even today JodyB told me "I need no protection".

I had a complaint about someone vandalising my work, which is blatantly obvious as this user Edward321 is obsessed with ruining me and has compiled a list on me miles long. Edward321 has never made a contribution to the article I was working on until he has had this feud with me. And the only sentence Edward321 changed was the one I was working on. I went to report it to JodyB and he told me it is not my article and I have no right to complaint...He didn't even look at the complaint and he is well aware of me and Edwards321 past.

Please read how he responded to me on my user page and please look to see how blatantly obvious what Edward321 did to me on the Italian People history section. I am being treated like a dog and I want protection and a committee to review the actions against me, I can't take this mental abuse anymore, I haven't slept in weeks from this mental torture and I am going to have a nervous breakdown, I am so sick to my stomach, I haven't done anything to deserve this. All I am trying to do is fix these article that mean so much to me, and I have brought in referenced, facctual material. Despite my past I deserve to be treated equally and I have not been at all, please, please, help me as I can't take it anymore, I just want to do good, please help, thank you. Either block me for good or give me the fair and equal treatment everyone else deserves, I just can't take it anymore, I am so depressed.(Scipio3000 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

If Wikipedia is making you lose sleep and have mental breakdowns, then you need to take a break, or leave permanently. In the whole scheme of things, Wikipedia doesn't matter. Your welfare in real life is more important.

Back on topic, asking for a personal "committee" seems a bit...self-centered, no? Administrators have other responsibilities than "protecting" users. Sean William @ 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to sound self-centered but the admin. JodyB and El_C and user edward321 have made my life impossible on here, and are abusing there powers. I made mistakes in the past, but I am trying my best for a second chance. These articles mean alot to me, and I only use referenced, factual material. If the administators won't help..how can I contact higher authority or the people in charge, A site this large has to have higher authoority. I beg you, I am being treated so horrible it is inhumane, Please, I don't know what else to do, thank you(Scipio3000 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Scipio let's see if we can help defuse the situation rather than complicate matters. I've made a post to your talk page. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

JodyB already told me I could come to him for help, when I did he instead berated me, told me I need no protection and instead yelled at me for writing on an archive section, which was a pure accident, why would I do otherwise? I am new here and everything is confusing. JodyB knows the past me and Edward321 have and he did not even look into the matter, instead he condemned me. Edward321 has a list on me a mile long and follows me to everywhere I go. He had no interest in this article until he started his feud with me. And the only thing he changes is what I write, How is THis a Coincidence? All I want is equal treatment, I apologized for what I have done, I served my block. Where can I go to higher authority as no one seems to be able to help me? I say either block me for good or give me equal treatment like everyone else has, thank you(Scipio3000 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

Please follow the steps of Juan. In parallel, try to communicate w/ Edward or Jody. If that won't work, please come back here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left a note on the user's talk page, there is nothing to make a block or warn either of the users alleged with vandalism or attacks. I suggest talking it out as the other users have suggested. DarthGriz98 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is far more complicated and deeper than it may seem on the surface, But this doesn't matter anymore, it is not worth getting deeply depressed over, my sun will still rise and fall regardless, so I am taking a break....I can't take this anymore, all I was doing was improving articles with facts and referenced material to back this up. I have a great deal of knowledge on my material and If I was given a chance without constant harrassment and condemnations from JodyB, El_C, Edward321, I would have created a superior and proffessional page that would have been of the highest standard, but I am not going to fight the world, because people are offended by facts.

History is what it is, it is not to be changed or molded by personal views, beliefs, or propaganda. It can not be something it is not! The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events. It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations Thank everyone who helped and for your concern I truly, truly appreciate your concern and kindness, thanks again and best wishes.(Scipio3000 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC))

This editor is very passionate about the articles he edits and that is a good thing. I believe he can be useful but he must make some adjustments. I appreciate anyone making any suggestions to help him or for me. --JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Is the peformance of Admins monitored in any way? Aatomic1 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Formally, no, we are not monitored. Informally, every single one of our actions is closely scrutinized by involved users, other admins, uninvolved users, and stalkers/trolls.-Wafulz 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

So far, there have been four admins involved. El C has blocked Scipio 3000 twice, for ‘Attempting to harass other users’ [74], and ‘Attempting to harass other users: still attacking other users’ [75]. Persian Poet Gal has blocked Scipio3000 once, for 3RR, [76]. JodyB investigated Scipio3000’s report here and said ‘There was no substance to the report’ [77]. Darthgriz98 also found ‘no merit’ to Scipio3000’s accusations [78].

It seems to me the problem is not lack of oversight of the Admins. But you should decide for yourself. Take a look at the edit history of [Sicily] and the other articles, take a look at Scipio3000’s edit history and those of the other editors involved and decide for yourself. Edward321 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

All I can find is a user that is very passionate about their work, and that causes problems when other users edit said work. But I can't find anything that leads me to believe any of you harassed Scipio3000 and he won't provide me with specific instances. DarthGriz98 14:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel article

Resolved

This issue may be better handled by community sanction, dispute resolution or some other forum, but it involves content dispute, edit warring, 3RR and a general issue with a new, foreign-language user that I feel is a bit complicated for any one of those places. Any advice on where to take this next would be greatly appreciated.

New user and single purpose account Frikkers has engaged in continuous edit warring on the Boerboel article. This is a little-known South African breed of dog largely unrecognized in Europe and the Americas, but which has a devoted following in its home nation. For some time, Frikkers simply reverted a whole series of changes that were made by myself and others under a variety of policy and guideline, including adding information that is patently false and controverted by provided citations. I have detailed a talk section for each individual issue on Talk:Boerboel. Since Frikkers completely refused to discuss the dispute to try and reach consensus, he was blocked twice (here and here) for a violation of the WP:3RR. After his second block, he has continued to revert with impunity, as he has added a single general talk statement. I hesitate to revert further, as though he has violated 3RR again, so would my reverts be since he has technically engaged in discussion. The following is his revert history after the last block.

Before his talk comments on Aug 8:

• Aug 6
• Aug 6
• Aug 6
• Aug 8

Myself and other users (including admins) have attempted to explain in-depth about consensus building to no effect. My response to his comments was simply deleted, and he reverted without responding to my retort. Frikkers has not only deleted and altered warnings, notices and conversation without reason from his own talk page, but has deleted other user's talk comments in article talk space. I realize blanking one's own talk is not a violation of any policy or guideline, but it isn't conducive to an attempt at consensus, and I see it as trying to hide or ignore conversation in general. Sadly, I think the user has good intentions, but is seriously hampered by the language barrier. Their English is rudimentary and their computing skills also seem to be primitive. As, after blocks and warnings, the user has clearly demonstrated their disregard for Wikipedia's process, policies and spirit of collaboration, I feel some stronger recourse is desperately needed. But considering their new status, the language problems, and what seems to be their general ignorance of Wikipedia, I feel just another time block is both unfair and (obviously) ineffective. Thank you for your attention VanTucky ^(talk) 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You say it is a content dispute. Administrators cannot do better than yourselves. Try WP:DR. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just a fight over content, it's that a debate hasn't taken place because of one user's refusal to do so and their violation of policies such as 3RR. Since this user has completely ignored attempts to engage from "regular users", I feel the weight of an "official" voice may have an actual affect. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, after using my microscope, i gave that user a 48h break. You know why? Because they never tried to talk. Reverting never solved anyone's issues. All their talk namespace edits were removals of warnings. Thanks for bringing this to the AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift response and advice, much appreciated. VanTucky ^(talk) 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate edit summary

Resolved

note left with editor Navou ^banter 14:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this type of edit summary appropriate? [79] I happen to think it is not. Fighting for Justice 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it is. It essentially reverts this edit: [80] and I fail to see how the editor in question is a known - you-know-what. x42bn6 Talk Mess 04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I sent the editor a note. Thanks, Navou ^banter 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit itself is good, the summary's trolling for a fight, unless that editor has some special knowledge to base his assertion on. XavierVE cites a wikia site as his source. That's probably not sufficient to get him out of the Libel dangers here at WP, though. And for the record, a website where anyone can say you're a pedophile? Probably not the best application of the wiki concept. Seems like too much dmaage could be done by pranksters folks with grudges. ThuranX 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit is fine, the summary sucks, and that name sounds familiar as a player in the whole pedophilia debate....might be friendly note time (if navou hasn't got there first) ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Navuo got there, but perhaps a further note stating that this AN/I exists, and multiple editors aren't happy about his action would get his perception opened a bit? ThuranX 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This editor's obvious bias against pedophiles doesn't make him seem like a very neutral editor. Calling out pedophiles isn't a problem but assuming their edits are automatically wrong? Seems like he's done that a few times. Definitely not a good trait in an editor. Editmaniac 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It starts as "remove editorial" which is always a good think to do, and was what he (she?) was actually doing. That an unnecessary personal dig was thrown in is bad, but I don't see any need for admin action. If you're upset by someone's edit summaries, leave a note. If it's persistant incivility, we can talk. WilyD 13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is calling out a paedophile "not a problem"? --Spankr 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He's the owner of Perverted-justice.com, according to his userpage. Sarah 14:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

My my, there is a little WP:COI eh?--Isotope23 ^talk 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough, his response was to continue the pedophile comments. As such, I have blocked him 24 hours. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thuis comment where Fighting for Justice accuses Xavier of having accused an innocent wikipedian who did not make any POV edits is equally out of order, IMO. FfJ knows how to work wikipedia and her incorrect and bad faith accusation isnt really acceptable either. At best wikipedia should remain neutral on this issue and not run to help a user who appears not to be acting in good faith, SqueakBox 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually side with FFJ on this one. While the text of the revert is no problem, the edit summary is ridiculously inappropriate. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. comment looks more like notifying another attacked editor than anything else. The level of COI, and POV activism from the owner of PJ would be as big as that of the pro-pedophilia activists here. Not sure if anything can be done about this stuff though, the number of zealot-edited articles and topics on WP seems to be increasing, not decreasing. ThuranX 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about the general problem, I'm not sure if this is the forum to discuss it. I do feel that we as a community need to make it clearer that POV pushing is unacceptable and will not be allowed. WilyD 01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dissectional & User:Revan ltrl

Hello. There has recently been an editing conflict over the System of a Down article, most specifically on the genre of the band. While myself and others have discussed the genre issue on the talk page and reached a reasonable consensus for the different point of views, users Dissectional and Revan ltrl prefer to edit the article against consensus and insult other Wikipedians on the talk page, respectively. Here are some of the diffs:

• 1 - User:Dissectional removing a genre from the infobox, despite the debate not being over on the talk page.
• 2 - User:Dissectional blanking a section of the talk page.
• 3, 4, 5 - User:Dissectional blanking other sections of the talk page (but I'll AGF in case (s)he meant to archive). There are plenty other diffs on the talk page where this user blanks sections.
• 6 - A very long comment left on the talk page by User:Revan ltrl. To give a little summary, the user calls me a "fool", calls my points "stupid", "ignorant", and "cheap", and even implies that Bush lacks intelligence. But the most important part is this one: the user threatens to disrupt another article (that of Tool) if his point of view is not supported. This is a clear threat that violates WP:POINT.
• 7 - One of User:Revan ltrl's contributions, which shows clear uncivility.

I did not reply to User:Revan ltrl's posts, and when I was messaged by User:Dissectional about the post, I only replied about the user's uncivility, putting the genre dispute to the side. See 8.

Thanks in advance for watching these editors, for their edits could get quite flamey. ^^

Zouavman Le Zouave 06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've put warnings on both user pages. CitiCat ^♫ 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ^^ Zouavman Le Zouave 13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when i was insulting other wikipedians? i don't remember doing that. also, based on the discussion, more people think the genre which i removed, nu metal, should be removed. Dissectional 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:BIGCANDICEFAN

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Падший ангел blocked.--Atlan (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've posted this once, to which I got no reply. So I'll post it again. He's only here to make trouble and he also has several other accounts involving the name "Candice". He also vandalizes and removes comments. I suggest looking at this for once and perhaps a ban would be the way to go. He frequently disrupts articles and article talk pages by adding in unnecessary information which myself and other users have already stated was unnotable. Падший ангел 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We needs some diffs please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one removing his comments. This was the "discussion" these two were having on the Dylan Postl talk page, right before I removed it. However poor BIGCANDICEFAN's edits may be, Падший ангел is way out of line there himself. Also, Падший ангел's edits are contentious at best. He claims he knows people in the wrestling business and it is therefore wrong to revert him or question his edits.--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims? Excuse me? I'm the one supplying Wrestlezone with all their TNA related news pal. I knew about Dustin Runnels "Black Reign" gimmick for the past couple of weeks. Падший ангел 12:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a claim.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, bite me. Падший ангел 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that nice remark, and now this completely unrelated personal attack to someone you have no business with after being warned. Can someone block him please?--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats - please banhammer

Resolved

editor blocked for legal threat

Jacksbernstein (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has not retracted the threats after being informed (in reply to such threats) in accordance with WP:NLT. See [81]. MER-C 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Account blocked, that diff was definitely a legal threat. Please feel free to unblock or pursue a different course, I don't want to interfere with any official action. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

You beat me to it. I support keeping this one blocked, all his other edits were disruptive anyway. I have redacted the personal attacks and threats.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What about this vandal anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? --BOT2008BOT 15:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu has nothing to do with this... please don't crosspost your report into other threads.--Isotope23 ^talk 15:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation Front (Macedonia)

I think, there is a problem with cleaning of sourced info and political propaganda from a user "Revisionist"! Jingby 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I need help and administrative mediation in resolving the problem with vandalism by user Лилјак and some others who are constantly vandalising and spaming all articles related with Macedonia. The article that I wrote National Liberation Front (Macedonia), was moved several times, and Nazi propagandist pictures were being imputed. Also there was constant three-revert rule violation on the article National Liberation Front (Macedonia) by users Jingby and 124.168.106.129. Needed administrative mediation. Revizionist 21:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam campaign

User:Marchartzman is creating a spam campaign to promote his book, he is leaving a misspelled link to his webpage that is broken since it is misspelled. He has done a dozen or so. See: [82] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I have cleaned the additions. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Anonimu's harrasment, edit wars again, sockpuppetry

Anonimu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was blocked for harrasment and edit wars. Now he lounched himself again in edit wars. He accuses the others as socks. He was blocked for one week. Should be blocked for a month or 2. He pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at talk pages, using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See his talk page. He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. --BOT2008BOT 15:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• 15:45, 25 July 2007 Jersey Devil (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anonimu (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 1 week (Attempting to harass other users: User continues to put personal attacks on userpage, has been warned before see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive274)
• 11:02, 30 June 2007 Seraphimblade (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anonimu (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 72 hours (Three-revert rule violation at Soviet occupation of Bessarabia and Northern Bukovina)
• 08:52, 10 May 2007 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anonimu (contribs)" (account creation blocked) with an expiry time of 48 hours (3RR violation on Gheorghe_Flondor)
• 10:08, 22 December 2006 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anonimu (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3rr on History of Romania since 1989)
• 11:06, 23 August 2006 Alex Bakharev (Talk | contribs) blocked "Anonimu (contribs)" with an expiry time of 24 hours (3RR violation on the Satu Mare article) --BOT2008BOT 15:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that he was blocked for harrasment before for one week. He also has socks that help him reverting.--BOT2008BOT 15:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[83]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will ^(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not an indefinite block, I don't support it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Springeragh (talk • contribs)

Trolling at Talk:Holocaust denial

Can someone please look over the last 50 or so edits of Talk:Holocaust denial and take whatever actions they think are appropriate? I'm involved, so I prefer not to act myself. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on a user's talk page. Remember, a smart fish doesn't take the bait. Raymond Arritt 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pionier

Hello, I am reporting this case as I am tied up and cannot keep an eye on him. He is an extremely persistent vandal originating from Lithuanian Wikipedia, where he was blocked for personal attacks, distruptive editing, POV pushing, and absolute refusal to engage in productive discussions. He used to edit via multiple IPs on en wiki, usually to vandalize userpages of Lithuanian editors primarily active on lt wiki (see history of user:Windom, his favorite, user:Knutux, etc.) This week he moved to make massive edits on variety of biographies: adding Category:People of the KGB to people related to Venona project, {{soviet-stub}} to all people born in the Soviet Union, Category:Jewish atheists to randomized selection of articles on Jewish personalities, etc. While not something "horribly" bad that someone else would notice from first sight, it is sneaky, distruptive, unsourced and in many cases offensive. I have indef blocked the first known user account. Yesterday I bloked two of his IPs for 24 hour period. Can someone please go over and revert user:Pioner contributions and keep an eye on those articles? Thanks. Renata 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back most of the contributions.-Wafulz 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked User:XavierVE

Who recently today had become the subject of an AN/I complaint regarding his penchant for calling other editors pedophiles. (The user is the owner of perverted-justice.com. Enough is enough. He has had multiple warnings, significantly more than most editors ever get, and refuses to change his behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours and warned him that if he continues to call other editors pedophiles and take his crusade against pedophilia onto wikipedia, he will be further blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Their response is very disheartening, but hopefully they can use the next 24 hours to consider what is or isn't appropriate behaviour. Editors who are willing to seek out and keep out POV pushing on pedophilia articles are very valuable (since most of us steer clear of the topic, especially at work), but there still are behavioural standards to adhere to. WilyD 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. His response:

Whoopty doo. I'll call pedophiles what they are whereever I find them. Thanks for the block though, it is a stark confirmation of the allegations against Wikipedia :) And check me out when the block expires, I'll note a few more pedophiles afterwards and then you can block me again. Oh, and crusade is such an ugly term. I'm an Atheist. Use campaign or something. We're not marching with the holy cross to Jerusalem, after all. XavierVE 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

diff ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Disheartening. Maybe I've just too much faith in people, but I always hope they can reform. Someone's response to a block 5 minutes after it happens can be different from their response a day or a week later. I offered a little bit of counsel - I'm not sure how much good it'll do. WilyD 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However much we may support (or not) the off-Wiki work of this individual, his on-Wiki behavior has been extremely confrontational and uncivil. If he could change his behvaior he could be a helpful editor. If not, he may be too disruptive. WP:TIGER appears to apply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ILIKEIT votes, Simtropolis

Simtropolis was nominated for deletion, though not by me. The problem is that the web site has been canvassing votes. What's the best way of dealing with this? The person who nominated it for deletion has suggested perhaps a semi-protection of the AfD discussion page would help but neither he nor I are sure this is a good idea. I have never dealt with a situation like this. I've seen warnings placed on AfD pages before indicating that it isn't a vote, if you've been asked to come here and vote, please don't, etc., but I'm not sure which template that was. So, suggestions? --Yamla 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it for the moment. Unless the page is being barraged by vandalism, it's fine. At worst we'll have a lot of repetition in the discussion.-Wafulz 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned them about canvassing on the website. His username is TheListUpdater, as it said on the website, and I think he should get blocked for canvassing...  Jonjonbt 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

here's a tip - if you go offsite to "warn" people off - do it in a polite manner, your post over at their forum You guys are doing what we in Wikipedia call canvassing, and that will get you blocked. I will go to the extra mile to get you blocked. Either stop canvassing, and get the page deleted, or you can continue canvassing, and you will be blocked. I am Jonjonbt on Wikipedia, and feel free to attack me on my talk page. It'll get you even closer to a block! Have a nice day! Jonjonbt PS... I know a few admins who can block you... comes across like a bullyboy and does no favours for wikipedia. --Fredrick day 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded to Frederick day - that was an extremely poor choice of words by Jonjonbt. Миша13 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I recommend you go and edit your post if you can.-Wafulz 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am current engaging with the community over there and trying to help them establish what reliable sources are there plus explain why canvessing and WP:ILIKEIT type !votes would not be help. Any block of TheListUpdater would be puntitive rather than preventive at this stage so that would not be help and I would Oppose such a move. I see no further action required at present and no need for any admin intervention at this stage. --Fredrick day 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell

[84]. Another editor is reverting all changes made to the article, back to their versions. All my changes are documented and involve formatting references and wikifying names. It is now at the point of 3RR. Can someone intervene and see if the changes are justified. Their side of the story is here: [85] --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, it's just about preferences in listing references and citations. At this stage, it doesn't involve administrator attention.-Wafulz 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user:Klaksonn

Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have indefinitely blocked Klaksonn for persistent disruptive editing, incivility, refusal to seek consensus, and repeated sectarian personal attacks on other editors. Full explanation with links at User talk:Klaksonn#Indefinitely_blocked; admins may also want to review a previous ANI discussion on Klaksonn, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273#Bigoted_comments_on_my_talk_page.

Some admins may regard an indefinite bock as an excessive step for a single admin to take, so I am happy for the block be lifted or shortened if there is a consensus here to do so. However, I would ask other admins to please review the history of Klaksonn's conduct before reaching any conclusions. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the block (before this was posted here) and found it appropriate. That said, I do not have much familiarity with the articles in question here. It is clear to me that this user is abusive and does not even attempt to reach consensus, or even to seriously discuss the matter (see, for example, this where the discussion involves Klaksonn states, "Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)"."). --Yamla 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this edit in response to the denial of his unblock request, shows he has no regard for other Wikipedians. → AA ^(talk) — 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This individual's participation is a net negative to the project. More admins should have your fortitude. Raymond Arritt 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Klaksonn has now been protected by me due to continued incivility and personal attacks after warnings. --Yamla 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well done - I would've done it myself after one more edit in this manner. There must be a line drawn somewhere, after which it's enough with "second chances". My only reply to people who "have things to do other than [...] edit an already untrusted encyclopedia", is "then get the hell outta here!" Albeit uncivil, hits the spot in cases of continuously disgruntled and counterproductive people such as Klaksonn. Миша13 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with the block. In principle, I generally feel that indefinte blocks are ineffective as they lead to sockpuppetry. I prefer shorter blocks, perhaps a month of 45 days. Saying that, I won't shorten the block. Pepsidrinka 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If a person wants to use socks, that person will use socks no matter how long the block is. —Kurykh 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive behavior

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has quite recently been involved in several content disputes, which he has instigated. The issue began at 20:57, August 9, 2007, when Jmfangio was blocked for violating the three-revert rule. During the duration of this block, I requested an edit on the protected Peyton Manning article, which was fulfilled. The edit was to merge a separate section which was on another page back to the main article. Jmfangio began a discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning, saying that per WP:CONSENSUS, he had a consensus to split up the article. I kept asking him where the consensus was, but he denied my request. He later said that he could do what he did because seven other articles followed the same format, and he said that gave him consensus. I was being friendly and was trying to help him understand what WP:CONSENSUS was; I was trying to help him understand something that it didn't appear that he understood. In this edit ([86]), he asked me to "stop attacking [him]," when I haven't even attacked him once. His exact words were "stop attacking me, I know exactly what this means." His previous posts showed that he didn't know what it meant, and I was only trying to help him clarify this. Jmfangio eventually leaves the discussion, saying it's not going to help anything.

This spread over to Talk:Brett Favre, but on another issue with that article, completely unrelated to the content dispute discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning. Aviper2k7 made a comment, "Can we agree on the section names? Can't we do both for now? Are you skirting this?" Jmfangio then replied with "Stop making uncivil statements - nobody is skirting anything here and you guys really need to stop with those comments. I do not want this to end up at WP:ANI because of personal attacks." Nobody was making any civil attacks on him, so it's beyond me why he responded this way. Later, he says "Okay guys - i'm done discussing. I didn't say you personally attacked me. I said these comments are drifting toward personal attacks. Your edit summaries and your comments are creating a hostile environment. All three of you do the same thing. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Either discuss the content or move on," a comment which is even more bizarre because he created the discussion to "discuss the content," then leaves the discussion when we begin to "discuss the content." His final comment was "I don't agree with anything, I'm removing myself from this conversation because you have an inability to discuss things without saying things that are down right uncivil and rude." Still, nobody left a single rude or uncivil comment or personal attack.

At the ANI page, in this edit ([87]), he said "Ksy92003 - I am giving you an opportunity to leave me alone. You too have been ridiculously uncivil as has the other person involved. You guys are bullying me and being so incredibly obnoxious. Leave it be please." The comment I left before was in response to his original post at ANI, an edit in which I was defending myself, and Jmfangio declares me obnoxious and bullying because I'm defending myself. Ever since his block expired on Friday, his behavior has been completely bothersome to me; he's accused me of civil attacks, bullying him, being obnoxious, etc. when I haven't done anything at all. All the discussions were once that he instigated, and he leaves the discussion because all of us (besides him) share the same opinion, and he accuses us of being rude, uncivil, making personal attacks, etc. It is really disturbing, and his behavior has disturbed me so much. Ksy92003(talk) 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Might I recommend a User Conduct request for comments? Then there is this and this. An RFC might be the way to go from here. Respectfully, Navou ^banter 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I've looked at the WP:RFC format in the past, and I'm not at all clear on how to even use that. If I would have to do that, I would need somebody to help me understand what to do. Ksy92003(talk) 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Instructions are here. Please feel free to ask for help on the format on my talk page. You will probably get better results on RFC then here vis a vis this dispute. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine... I suppose I'll go there. Navou, if I still have any confusion on this, can I ask you for assistance? Ksy92003(talk) 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll assist on the format. The merits, will be yours however. Navou ^banter 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all that I'm asking. Thank you, Navou. Ksy92003(talk) 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I take no position on the underlying controversy, but admins should note that the accused user responded on this page and Ksy92003 has deleted his response. THF 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I accidentally removed that part of the discussion. Here is the removed comment, in whole: Ksy92003(talk) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think I've restored it with the formatting intact, if I did not restore your comment, please restore it. I tried my best. Navou ^banter 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't even know what to say other than you guys have been nothing but rude and I have gone out of my way to try and get those discussions focused on content and not report you for your WP:UNCIVIL behavior. I'm sorry that you are disturbed so much. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• And one point of clarification, I did not say that because WP:CON is what led me to expunge the information. WP:LENGTH and WP:SS (which are a result of WP:CON being in place) did, and this was complimented by the fact that other articles had the same thing done to them and it was accepted by multiple editors. You can see them at Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What other steps in Dispute Resolution have been employed and exactly what are you asking administrators to do? --ElKevbo 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone to Dispute Resolution yet... I don't know what can be done about this situation, but it's just so frustrating to be accused of something when I haven't done anything bad. Jmfangio has been really disruptive to both me and Chrisjnelson in the past couple days, including claiming consensus, and then refusing to show the consensus, accusing other users of making personal attacks and leaving rude, uncivil comments when there weren't any, and threatening to take me and Chrisjnelson to ANI for those uncivil comments. In my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable, and the way that Jmfangio has gone about this situation has frustrated both me and Chrisjnelson. Jmfangio still maintains that we (I and Chrisjnelson) have done more wrong things than he has, and hasn't even been able to say what it is that we have done to him, like what we said that offended him. I took the view that Jmfangio just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, and as far as the rude, uncivil comments and personal attacks, I don't know where he got that from. Nobody has attacked him in any way whatsoever, yet Jmfangio maintains that he has. His behavior hsa been completely disturbing to both Chrisjnelson and myself, and is completely unacceptable. Ksy92003(talk) 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• ElKevbo None, although I suggested that very early on and was told this was not an issue for dispute resolution. I told them I would gladly participate in the DR process. I'm a bit warn out on the personal attacks and uncivil edits, so I'm not sure how long I'd be willing to go with it at this point, but I'd give it a shot if someone else wants to start the process. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Jmfangio... I'm gonna ask you something very calmly, and if you answer calmly, then that would greatly help out... could you please tell me what are the personal attacks and uncivil edits you have referred to? I need to know so I can understand your situation. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI to others - this is being discussed now on Ksy's tp. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:Jmfangio using the name of a dead celebrity in his signature? Corvus cornix 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't. His signature is Juan Miguel Fangio not Juan Manuel Fangio. Perhaps it's his real name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm sorry. Never mind. Corvus cornix 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quick interjection - Funny thing is - JM Fangio is awesome so my sig and my user name is a "lose" tribute to him. I didn't want to "copy it" for that exact reason. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) says that this is being discussed on Ksy's talk page; however I see nothing there, so I will just post here. My first encounter with Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was on Peyton Manning, when he redid a large portion of the article. While most of the changes he did unquestionably improved the article, there are a couple that have been disputed. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) changed the link for "College Team" in Manning's NFL Box to link to University of Tennessee, as opposed to the more specific Tennessee Volunteers football, its original state. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) repeatedly tried to revert this change, but Jmfangio (talk · contribs) kept reverting this back, with comments such as "STOP IT!!!" and "Please do not edit articles while someone is currently working on them.", showing definite signs of WP:OWN. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs) eventually got the article protected due to the edit warring, but not before Jmfangio (talk · contribs) made another controversial change. The awards and honors section was split off into another article without discussion, although it has since been restored. On Talk:Peyton Manning, Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has tried to give rationale for this change, although none of the reasons he gives make sense. WP:LENGTH was cited has the major reason, despite the fact that the article was nowhere near long enough to warrant splitting the article. WP:CON was also cited, as he claimed he had consensus for such a split. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) repeatedly asked for a link to show consensus for such an action; Jmfangio (talk · contribs) never provided an such evidence, and instead complained the Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) was becoming "hostile" (he was not). As an additional note, W.marsh (talk · contribs), who has edited Peyton Manning on several occasions in the past agreed that there was reason for the split to occur. Looking at Jmfangio (talk · contribs)'s edit history, I noticed he had made the same changes to Michael Vick and Brett Favre, both of which were reverted. Looking at the discussion, I noticed a similar pattern to what occured at Talk:Peyton Manning. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) falsely claimed multiple Wikipedia policies as supporting his edits; when others pointed out that the policies cited said no such thing, he would complain that he was being personally attacked, and then leave the discussion. The same thing happened in another Brett Favre discussion here.

While Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has certainly contributed to Wikipedia, it seems clear to me that he has trouble working with others, often falsely citing Wikipedia policies and claiming that he is being personally attacked when he cannot get his way. This cannot be allowed.

Dlong 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing that this keeps happening. Dlong - you are the one that engaged in uncivil behavior. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I made changes that do fall under the guidelines laid out at WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. You failed to adhere to WP:CIV and WP:AGF and all i did was move on. There is no revert war, and as I told you - I left the conversation. As for that user's talk page - he refractored the entire conversation. You can easily see it in the history of his tp. I don't have trouble working with others, I have trouble working with others who don't want to politely discuss things. For the most part, I just move on - but in certain cases, I try and have the situation dealt with by outside users. You can call me disruptive all you want, but I can provide edit history backed by guideline pages and other editors WP:CON. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have been constantly trying to discuss the issue at hand. Your remarks are the ones that provoke us. We have all tried to politely discuss those, and despite you being involved in the conversation, we all have remained calm and civil. We haven't been uncivil at all, thus we are adhering to WP:CIVIL, and since there was no reverting at all and no harmful edits, none of us could've possibly violated WP:AGF. And we all agree that the article isn't long enough to be affected by WP:LENGTH.

And I did remove the discussion from my talk page because I only had that because Jmfangio wanted to know why I made those quote/unquote "personal attacks." I replied to each claim he made, and you can look my edit history for that information. Ksy92003(talk) 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Impersonator

Can someone please indef block 82.53.117.47 as he is impersonating me, see this. Davnel03 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A pretty minor issue for an indef block, no? — Moe ε 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked 4 days ago for an issue 4 days ago. There's nothing much we can do now, except laugh at the IP's obvious stupidity. —Kurykh 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this, which could in effect get me blocked for no reason. Look at his contributions, the last six, which are on userpages, he is impersonating me. Davnel03 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians will look at both the edit and the person making the edit. They will realize a disconnection between your editing patterns. Anyway, we can't block IPs indefinitely in the first place. If worse comes to worse and you do get blocked for those edits, Checkuser will exonerate you, unless you edit via open proxies. You can make a note on your or the IP's talk page if you wish, but there isn't really anything we can do. —Kurykh 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They impersonated other users so its not just you Davnel03. Just ignore it and all will be fine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Davnel03 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, a quick perusing through the edit history would quickly show it was impesronation. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also consider it vandalism of my talk page. Bearian 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I, and I imagine more if not all other admins click on the mythical block button means we block the person who makes the edit, people have different names on their signatures, they often lead to a different account or userpage they're "cyber squatting" so it's always preferable to make a block based on who the software says is responsible for the edit rather than who the user says is responsible. So, to make a long story short, you've nothing at all to worry about. Nick 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Racially offensive words

User:Matthew has been continually adding the word Jebus to show his disgust at something over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK). I initially removed the word and placed a warning on his talk page, both of these edits were reverted-[88][89]. The user has continually re-added the word-[90][91] and has accused me of "trolling" for adding warnings to his talk page-[92]. Thanks, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What "race" or racial characteristic does "Jebus" make reference to ? --Fredrick day 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he should be blocked for at least a week until it calms down. He seems to of removed the warnings off his talkpage. Davnel03 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebus on Wikipedia. We're all in trouble if that's racially offensive. Furrfu. THF 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's a perfectly cromulent word. Will ^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... it's a Simpsons joke. I've no idea in what context Matthew (talk · contribs) was attempting to use it there, but honestly I don't see how it is offensive, particularly since it is linked for meaning. It isn't offensive, just pointless... though no more pointless than the edit war over it that is now happening at that FA request. Don't make me embiggin the both of you.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be offensive to people with bright yellow skin and/or giant blue hair. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that I know that it's related to the Simpsons (!!!) I don't think a block is required. Davnel03 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of context here as I'm familiar with the article being argued over... Matthew (talk · contribs) has been constantly counter-productive and patronising on that particular FAC page. Whilst this particular flare-up might not be anything to worry about, the overall situation definitely needs some intervention. Seaserpent85 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I alluded to above... the edit warring and removal of comments by editors that I see going on at the FAC page is a far bigger deal than "Jebus".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. Just slap the Sejebus out of him. Baseball Bugs 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. He's engaging in Wikiality. I thought that was just a joke used to incite vandalism. MessedRocker (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

biographylist.com copyright issues

After blocking Uromax (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for repeated copyright infringement and linkspamming, I did an external link search on biographylist.com. I've found that some links, like their entry on J. M. Barrie are extremely similar to our articles, and one is definitely copied from the other. I'm not sure if it's our entries being plagiarized, or us plagiarizing them. The article on Buckminster Fuller has similar content as well, but our content contains citations.-Wafulz 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that biographylist.com was only registered on April 24, 2007 [93] and our articles (at least the two you mentioned) existed in their current format before that, it would seem that we're being copied and not the other way around. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

More personal attacks from Para

Paradisal (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks, as reported here previously. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an administrator matter only as far as noting that whenever Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is involved in anything that requires admin attention, the admin needs to have the patience to go through the entirety of the issue, including the repetitive bludgeoning. I don't think that's what's happened in the {{coord}} modification proposal so far for example, as it's still on hold because of the bludgeoning, despite the supporting majority. On this accusation here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Andy_Mabbett_twists_WP_policies_for_his_own_ends highlights this NPA-yelling-behaviour quite well. The arbitration committee has found his behaviour disruptive at least once already, and soon yet again. Everything on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors indeed matches, in addition to referring to a crank. How clearly does it need to be pointed out before it sinks in? Must you bark every time someone brings it up, instead of accepting that that's how the Wikipedia community sees your actions, and try to change? --Para 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how right you are, I don't see how calling someone a loudmouth or a crank is either productive or compliant with WP:CIVIL. If the other editor is as disruptive as you say, then getting into a mudfight with him only makes it harder to recognize his wrongdoing. The fact that an editor has been in arbitration does not make him an outlaw for whom collaboration guidelines don't apply. Please be civil, avoid personal attacks, and use DR. Instead of calling someone a loudmouth or a crank, use DR and diffs to demonstrate improper crankocity. And be patient; it looks from the arb that he'll be banned for a year shortly. THF 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It only repeats what others have said before, in the same sense if not in those exact words. It is not a personal attack when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, especially when it's exact repetition of previously noted behaviour, and when it's someone with whom arbcom enforcement has already taken place and failed. Though I have lately just ignored most everything this particular editor has had to say and am not interested in mudfights, when someone brings up an issue where the resolution is blocked because of a loudmouth stalling things by making admins ignore not only him but everyone else in the discussion, I won't hesitate pointing that out and hopefully get some new views, dependless on which side they end up on. Formal dispute resolution and other remedies would come in due time, but in the discussions I've been involved in, that time hasn't come yet. I can't think of many things more unpleasant than going through anyone's correspondence with this particular editor, so I will not get personally involved with anything related to looking for diffs unless absolutely necessary. It is much easier copying diffs from others, who have for example noted that as a year's ban already failed as a remedy, another might not be effective, especially when the user has admitted[94][95] to using sockpuppets during his previous blocks. Be on the lookout for more socks. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, just stop stalking Andy's contribs, whether or not a ban is inevitable. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help that he does his damaging edits in areas I'm involved in. It's impossible to be patient and just watch the damage being done until the ban is effective. I could perhaps reconsider some actions if you point out what could be seen as stalking. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating {{kml}} nine minutes after creation. Will ^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's part of a WP:GEO project to reduce the number of geographical coordinate templates, and another to work on GeoTemplate design instead of forking other alternatives. That's standard procedure for cleaning out the cruft from Wikipedia, not stalking. But while we're on the kml topic, shouldn't good admins close deletion nominations with a reason that can be later used as a precedent? Such a long discussion did no good with this non-result. --Para 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the nomination, I'm talking about the timeframe. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by Totonaco and an associated IP address

Totnaco (talk · contribs) has been fairly consistent in repeatedly vandalizing Mormonism with the same basic phrase, emphasizing that Mormons and Catholics don't allow homosexual men or women to be priests or members. I and a number of other users have posted the series of vandalism warnings. Now that he's hit warning #4, which says "this is your last warning", the same vandalism is being made by 166.89.54.30 (talk · contribs). I suggest that both be blocked, as he's had numerous warnings over a period of months. In the past, he was active in similarly vandalizing Roman Catholic Church. –SESmith 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tomasthetankengine

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine found likely sockpuppetry between user:Elvisandhismagicpelvis and user:Tomasthetankengine. the clerk who processed the rfcu also commented at user|his talk page that

1. Moretimefor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Serendipitouscontributor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Grooveyyoutuber (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Tosserandmasterdebater (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Russellthelovemussell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Senibleconext (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are all the same person.

I also wrote at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis:

Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.

The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.

For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.

See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.

Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.

I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilful and repetitive POV pushing and incivility.

Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.

That pretty much sums it up - I'd like to see some action taken as this has been going on for more than a year and a half, with numerous editors (user:CambridgeBayWeather, user:Chuq, user:Tancred, user:Grant65 and myself to name a few) at different periods in that time spending vastly more time than should be necessary to correct her/his vandalism and disruption. Dibo ^{T | C} 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Obama disambiguation

I think this mess needs to be looked at by admins. At least six editors have said that they think Obama should continue to redirect to Barack Obama, and Barack Obama should have a pointer to Obama (disambiguation), with reasoned arguments given - including that the FA Barack Obama has been among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia in recent months, and is likely what people are looking for when they type in "Obama". The other opinion is that he is an unimportant "minor" American politician who is unknown in the rest of the world, that Wikipiedia is not a "tool of the USA" , and that the other uses of Obama are as well known - particularly the Prime minister of Equatorial Guinea who may or may not actually even be known as Obama - so they want Obama to go to the dab page. Other pages, like Chirac, Trudeau, Yeltsin use the same approach as Obama → Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the page has been changed back and forth and we're not getting anywhere. Tvoz |talk 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? This might appear to a suspicious mind to be canvassing... --ElKevbo 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, ElKevbo? Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, try not being suspicious then. I'm asking for some neutral help in sorting out a mess. If I were canvassing, I might not post it on an admin board, you know? Duh. Tvoz |talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that this could have all been handled much tidier. The initial change of Obama as a disambig page to Obama (disambiguation) occurred in Decmeber, 2006. That was reverted and re-reverted several times between then and May 2007, when I started to get involved. Due to the number of re- and re-reverts, it seemed like something which needed to be addressed in a requested move, since there were some feelings about the default link. Until a rational discussion could be held, I have been trying to keep the pages at their original locations (pre 12/2006; and, a majority of the time since then — where Obama was (or redirected to) the disambig page). For some reason, the proper move request was never brought up at WP:RM, and yesterday, shit hit the fan when a hybrid move was brought there. Despite the six editors mentioned above, a thorough reading of the talk page will reveal that more than six appear to favor the Obama as disambig: Neier, SRMach5B, SNPBrown, Midemer, Nihonjoe, Chrishomingtang, Endroit, and John_Smith's. So, I agree that something should be done. My opinion is that the "something" should be to restore Obama as a disambig page, and if someone wants to change it to a redirect, then the proper WP:RM procedures to move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) can be followed. Neier 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing holy or sacred about the state of a page ten months ago. Reverting that far back simply on grounds of "that's the way it was 10 months ago" makes no sense whatsoever. Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point. The status quo is that Obama is a disambig page. At various times, against process you and others have tried a controversial move without discussion and this has usually been reverted within several days. If and when a consensus is reached to change Obama into a redirect then this becomes the new status quo. Until then, it is wikipedia policy that controversial moves require discussion and editors oppose to the controvesial move are quite correct in reversing controversial moves that take place without discussion Nil Einne 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally misunderstood the situation but after more careful reading I think I now know what's been going on. Also I have never been involved in this move discussion before this AFAIK. I support Neier here. From what I can tell, the current mess is mostly the fault of Tvoz and others who support Obama as a redirect to Barack Obama. Obama started as a redirect to the city in Japan. When Barack Obama became popular, it was turned into a disambig for Barack Obama the US Senator and the Japanese city. Mostly the status quo has been Obama as a disambig since then. At various times, without discussion editors have gone agaisnt the status quo and turned Obama into a redirect. It should be quite clear to them that this is a controversial move as their move is usually reverted. Nevertheless, they have never started a move proposal in accordance with policy for controversial moves. Neier who supports the status quo finally took the situation into hand and protected the status quo while initiating a move proposal. However those who were opposed to the status quo refused to participate in this discussion so it was ended early. It is unfortunate that editors, particular those opposed to the status quo keep ignoring policy and trying a controversial move without discusion & refuse to take part when discussion is attempted. I have reverted to the status quo for now Nil Einne 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I again ask: Why is this being discussed here? What admin actions are being requested? This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've recused myself and stopped watching the pages. I also closed my attempt at coming to a consensus there as Italiavivi completely destroyed any sense of anyone being able to figure out what was going on. I'm sick of the bad-faith assumptions on the part of Italiavivi (right from the beginning, I might add). I have better things to do with my time then repeating myself over and over and over again to someone who refuses to even pay attention to anything I write other than to read more into my comments and actions than is actually there. So, have fun, all. Maybe I'll check back on it in a few months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Bird feeding

At Bird feeding, an anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting unsupported assertions (that bird feeding is controversial). The vast majority of the edits since about March 2007 are insertion or reversion of the material. [96]

After a warning didn't help [97], I was told [98] here at ANI to escalate the warnings and then take it to WP:AIV. But the IP started shifting around, so it didn't seem possible to leave warnings on the editor's talk page. I then requested semi-protection for the page but this was denied by WJBscribe, who thought the issue was a content dispute and said I should discuss before reverting more [99]. But I have attempted to discuss, and got exactly one reply which I couldn't make any sense of, and no reply after 13 days to my latest comment (see discussion). So yes, it started as a content dispute, but the anonymous editor's persistence against all four other editors, refusal to discuss, and lack of sources for the material now make it, to me, a textbook example of WP:DISRUPT. But that policy doesn't appear to address anonymous editors.

This kind of situation (disruption from a shifting IP) must have been dealt with many times before. What's the right procedure? Thanks for your help. --Nethgirb 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the article is one possibility. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Raymond. --Nethgirb 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

QuakeSim

I am a new user here at wikipedia and have been wanting to create an article about the NASA QuakeSim project. My complaint is about user:Ryulong who has been giving me reasons for deleting my article that I do not see as a problem regarding the QuakeSim article I had posted. I am an employee that works with the project and together with a group of fellow employees we created a document we would like to post on wikipedia as an article about QuakeSim. My complaint about user Ryulong is that he seems to present reasons for deleting the QuakeSim article that do not really have to do with the article. He mentions there are no secondary resources other than the quakesim.org and nasa site but there are and all the links provided there are to allow for people to obtain more information. When I presented him with this information that there are secondary resources he brought up the idea that the fact that I am an employee and writing the article on my own project has to do with the CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES that wikipedia.org has. This is when I felt a complaint was necessary because I felt insulted. My entire purpose for this article is to inform the public about the NASA QUAKESIM PROJECT. Nowhere in the article is there any signs showing or implying that I was doing this for personal benefit and personal promotion. I am not advertising nor am I asking for donations. I am merely providing information and resources for the QUAKESIM project and other geological information. Why I feel insulted is that user RYULONG, I feel, deleted the article without taking a couple minutes to read it and realize that the article's purpose is to inform the public and does not break any rules or policies presented by wikipedia.org. Also, user Ryulong never actually told me how I should fix the article content so that the "problems" he found would be corrected. I do not appreciate the difficult time I am having with this article because of USER RYULONG's comments and actions on the article. Please look into this matter because I want to be able to post the article without having to worry about it being deleted. I will be more than happy to send the content over and fix any problems it might have. I understand user Ryulong is trying to do that but the problems he is presenting do not make sense to me and it seems as though he does not want to help me in solving them so that I can post the article.

QuakeSim 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize this in less than 200 words. Admins are loathe to read long passages. —Kurykh 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My summary: QuakeSim is a NASA project. This NASA employee made an article about it which Ryulong deleted, citing conflict-of-interest and notability issues, and User:QuakeSim disagrees with the validity of these reasons. Personally it sounds okay to me; if some other editors joined in we could get rid of the COI problem, and surely NASA projects are notable. --Masamage ♫ 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't say "tl;dr" here. I will say that if Ryulong and you are having a disagreement on if the content belongs on Wikipedia or not, that you're having a dispute. Disputes are handled using Dispute Resolution, not asking admins to sort out your problems for you. If you insist on having an admin resolve the dispute between you two, then I'd point out that Ryulong is, in fact, one of our hard-working volunteer admins, and I doubt you'd appreciate it if he ruled in his own favor.

Your best bet is to simply follow the same dispute resolution procedures that everyone else has to follow. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issues aside, I'll just chime in and say that QuakeSim definitely is notable. I'm not in that exact field but I'm somewhat familiar with it. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the editor is a new at this, I'd say he's done well to get this far without finding his account blocked. Sorting out the dispute resolution is pushing the bounds of reasonableness. I've reviewed the article. It needs work, but that's nothing new. The organization is notable. The topic is notable. The project is leading-edge applied science. The information is sourced. As a result, I've restored the article. Rklawton 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally nominated it at AFD. I have no objection to it being speedy closed if a sufficient consensus of those just showing up elect to keep it, but let's not edit or wheel-war over this thing, please.--Chaser - T 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call! --Masamage ♫ 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now? I know my article is back up but there is still a chance of being deleted. I did have a dispute that needed ot be resolved but the reason I brought it to this discussion is because I did not like the way things were presented to me by the user. I understand there is another place for dispute resolutions but I felt I needed to bring it to this discussion for the reason mentioned earlier. I apologize for any inconveniences. I was not happy with the way things were presented to me and frustrated with the fact that my article was deleted and I was not told exactly why it was deleted and how to fix it so that it is not deleted again. Please update me on the status of the article and what I need to fix since one of the above users mentioned there is some work that needs to be done. Thank You. QuakeSim 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This incident is an example of how WP:COI violates the "comment on content, not contributor" principle. If the content is really bad, there is no need to call a COI. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely to be deleted; it's already got a lot of 'keep' votes. The nomination was just made in order to collect those votes so that we could be sure there was a consensus to keep the thing. --Masamage ♫

For those just reading, the nomination resulted in speedy keep. The Behnam 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Guitar and edit warring

Hi folks, I've blocked a couple of editors for 24 hours over their behaviour on Guitar and I've semi-protected the page to stop any of the two changing IP addresses and resuming (given an IP address is involved). I'm off for the night, so if folks would like to keep an eye on the article and make any unblocks or adjustments to the block as you feel necessary, you've got my full blessing. Nick 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Matt57 (talk · contribs) odd behavior

Since Matt57's participation in Elonka's recent RfA he seems to have become obsessed. First, he added articles about her ancestors to his user page calling it "Articles to clean up for Elonka" [100]. Today he's been going through some of those articles stubbifying them with claims of OR and the inability to verify references that do not host an online copy (newspapers from the 1940's so this is hardly surprising). Despite several other editors trying to reason with him and even cleaning up the articles and providing inline citations for clarity [101] he continued to revert. He's now created the sock User:MiiMiiM to continue reverting, especially since he'd reached 3 reverts on Antoni Dunin. It very telling that this new account responds "I can and I will" to me asking Matt not to remove references just because they don't have an online source (old Detroit News, New York Times etc.) [102].

I've been involved reverting his actions and cleaning up the articles, so I don't want to block him myself. Can someone take a look and help out please? He's feeling that everyone who's tried to talk to him so far is biased, so perhaps an uninvolved party can try reasoning with him before this gets further out of hand? Shell ^babelfish 04:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort this out. Matt57 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) stopped editing at 03:33 today, then MiiMiiM (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) was born at 03:37 and immediately began editing the same articles. Raymond Arritt 04:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked two socks and the main account for 48 hours.--Chaser - T 04:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted a few ofthe articles to before Matt57/MiiMiiM's edits, per multiple editors (across all pages) assertions that citation, not inline citation, nor online citation, is what is needed. since all articles seem mostly sourced, the use of a few cite needed tags is probably what is in order for contested areas, not rampant blankings... ThuranX 04:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The first edits of User:MiiMiis suggest that Matt57 may have been set up by one of our resident banned jokesters: this is hardly a credible slip-up.Proabivouac 04:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've now semi-protected affected articles and unblocked Matt57 until the checkuser comes back. There's a credible claim that Matt didn't create the other accounts.--Chaser - T 04:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I stand by my reverts though, as they address the underlying problem, that Matt57 seems to be 'after' Elonka, regardless of the actual policies about citation, which will continue to be problematic, regardless of sock activity and frame-ups. that issue should still be resolved. ThuranX 05:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, there's a growing issue here aside from this sockpuppetry. I would appreciate an uninvolved admin reviewing Matt57's recent behaviour regarding Elonka and articles connected to her. He seems to be alone in the approach he is taking to those articles, and willing to edit war with the numerous editors who have reverted him. In my opinion, at best he's being obstinate and heavy handed, at worse the narrow minded focus on an editor he has been in conflict with is amounting to harassment. WjBscribe 05:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Continous anti-german POV pushing by Rex Germanus

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[103], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[104], adding a bias to existing article [105] [106], moving articles with german words without comment [107], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was going to just warn him (her), but he's got a block log as long as my arm for past similar offenses. A month's R&R for now but looks like he's barreling headlong toward an indefblock. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody persuade User:Digwuren to follow WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA

I was trying to explain to User:Digwuren that it is uncivil to revert good faith edits of established user's with the edit summaries like that or that or to remove sourced info like that with the only explanation: "removing someditor's propaganda". I guess I failed. Since I have a few editorial conflicts with the user he might assume bad faith from my part.

It also seem to be a recurring problem. Recently he was blocked for a week for incivility then unblocked with the summary having consulted blocking admin, this user is unblocked to participate in RFC and/or mediation cases ONLY. reblock if user abuses this trust. I do not see much of a participation in the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Digwuren RfC mentioned, but see other admins complaining about false vandal accusations. Can some neutral admin do something about him? Alex Bakharev 05:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)