Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive361

Request for action in an Afd

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have further discovered these statements [1] and [2] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

[WikiEN-l] mailing list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know how it is appropriate for editors to make defamatory comments about other editors on Wikipedia mailing lists with an expectation that the editor being defamed will most likely not see it. For example, User:Ansell found it necessary to refer to myself and User:Pedro as "irresponsible" parents for posting images of our children. Not as if magazines, TV ads, billboards, books, websites, etc don't have images of children. But somehow, in posting an image of each of my children in bathrobes makes me an irresponsible mother to the point that someone that doesn't know me from Eve feels vindicated in telling it to a group of my peers behind my back. I'd like to know if this sort of behavior is endorsed by the community. Lara❤Love 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was the first one to post on his talk page. I was just flabbergasted by the lack of regard for other people's feelings as well as the quick jump for moral superiority. In fact, if it wasn't for someone telling Lara that the post was made about her, she wouldn't have known. I find that very shady. It wouldn't be acceptable if he told her to her face that she was a bad mother; why would it be acceptable on the mailing list? Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. And, I've told him so. That sorta thing doesn't really have a place here. SQL^{Query me!} 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Given that many of us have already commented at his talk page, I’d like to hear a response from him first – although I agree he was way out of line. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not LaraLove, but I definitely don't want to hear justifications or him trying to defend his words, because they're totally indefensible. Mike H. Fierce! 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I kind of want to know what makes him think that these images make me an irresponsible mother. And what makes him think it's acceptable to voice that belief on a mailing list of my peers knowing that not only am I not there to respond, but no one was notified from the BRC that we were even the topic of discussion. They just started editing my subpage before someone else contacted us. Lara❤Love 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In case my edit is the one being complained about here, I apologize for editing first and commenting on the talk page second. All I did was remove the title override and I didn't think that'd be a major issue, it didn't occur to me until afterward that you and the others who worked on the page might not know about the mailing list thread and some of the other stuff being talked about in it. Sorry about that. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• LaraLove, I agree that (at the very minimum) you should have been informed of the thread at wiki-en-L, preferably by the person who started it; and I too find that bald statement to be inappropriate. In fact, it never occurred to me that you hadn't been made aware, otherwise I might well have contacted you myself on reading it. I'm sure you're a fine mother. However, I am not sure if you are aware that a photo of Boy Scouts, hosted here and uploaded by a respectable editor, was recently found to have been used by another "adult oriented" wiki in a manner in which many people (myself included) found unacceptable. Indeed, it is my understanding that there were multiple complaints about the content in this wiki (there were other images of children involved) to the point that it has been at least temporarily removed from public access. The use of this photograph by the other wiki was perfectly legal; because of the licensing requirements of Wikimedia, anyone can use any of our photos in any way that they wish. While no doubt most people using Wikimedia or Wikipedia images does so in perfectly reasonable ways, there are sadly some people whose uses of these images would make your hair curl. From that perspective, and assuming the photos are indeed hosted here, you might wish to reconsider. That isn't a comment about your parenting, as I really think Wikipedia and Wikimedia could be a lot more forthcoming on the fact that once uploaded, the "owner" of the photo essentially gives up all control as to how it is used. Risker (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lara, the kiddie porn industry *loves* new pics of kids, and they often take kids' heads and put them on to naked bodies to create more porn pics. Just an FYI, besides that it was inappropriate for someone to talk about you behind your back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lara, suggest you read this regarding the wikia Risker mentioned. To be honest I was horrified and I don't even have kids. Viridae^Talk 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see this has nicely been packaged into a revision of the 'if she wasn't wearing that outfit...' scenario. It's not about a sodomizing pedophile with access to Photoshop, it's about public domain and other free-licenses. the_undertow ^talk 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, all I know is that the few people I have approached to provide photographs have asked me if I was out of my tree when I explained the GFDL license. I would certainly never post photos of children under the terms of that license. Then again, one of my friends is a cybercrime police officer. Risker (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't control what people do with any of my images. I upload them knowing that they can be used by anyone. However, I can't imagine my kid's images being photoshopped into kiddie porn legally, considering kiddie porn is illegal. The issue, regardless, is that I am not an irresponsible parent, nor is Pedro, for posting images of our children. Lara❤Love 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I wasnt trying to say you were. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to you. Merely refocusing the point of the thread. Lara❤Love 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say. I stand by my comment that it is dangerous to put childrens pictures on the internet. Honestly didn't see that as causing a fuss, particularly as it was said two days ago on the mailing list and noone said anything there. Ansell 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• You in essence passed moral judgment and called LaraLove and Pedro bad parents. Who are you to pass judgment on another person's parenting skills? And the fact that you defend your words, that's just so utterly contemptible. It makes me sick. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• And might I add, you said it on the mailing list and not to LaraLove or Pedro directly, which just reeks of cattiness. If you're going to go for the jugular, why try to keep it from them? They clearly weren't aware, and the fact that you more or less don't care that they're offended by your statement says a lot about you as a person. That's my moral judgment. Don't like it? Don't dish it out. Mike H. Fierce! 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• This photo re-use stuff is scary. Anyway, one should not comment on the parenting skills of another. The person(s) making such comments should apologize. TableManners^C·U·T 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Right, the comment on "parenting skills" is completely out of place. There is another reason for not posting kids pictures online (especially not if their names are easily googled and/or Mummy or Daddy's pages have a high page-rank. The kids grow up, they turn into rotten teenagers and are (rightly so) horrified when their peers find these pictures that they feel are inappropriate. Trying to remove them from Google's cache is extremely difficult. But who thinks of this when uploading pictures? Better to put a picture of a tree or a stone on you page :) --WiseWoman (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the comments seem to be coming from people in countries where the faces of children in public are covered. Well, it is winter in Canada right now, so maybe they're seasonal comments. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ansell, when it was said is irrelevant. I was notified on this night. Perhaps no one caught it amongst the whiney mess regarding the BRC and the "css hack" that displayed a harmless redirect to a joke subpage which was advertised no where outside of Wikipedia and it's IRC channels. Your comment was inappropriate and defamatory. And WiseWoman, I seriously fail to see that as a realistic situation. Lara❤Love 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why everyone is putting up a big fuss. If I was someone who was prone to taking offense to general comments I might be offended by people saying that because I don't say things to people face I am "catty" and a bad person. I still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants, provided somewhere they provide a link back. Absolutely no protection means any change is legal from a copyright perspective, even if it is illegal under child porn laws. GFDL'd childrens pictures are dangerous, full stop! That was the essential message to established editors who can be presumed to be aware of freedom of reuse and modification as the complete basis of wikipedia/GFDL.

As far as commenting to their face, I would have if I was made aware by anyone at all on the list that the comment could be taken in a bad way personally attacking the particular parents, instead of just expressing a humble, if objectionable, opinion (ie, humble as demonstrated by the way I finished the comment off in an abrupt fashion, that has been mistakenly taken for non-chalance to them as people, here). Personally it is quite distressing to have people attack you randomly two days after you make a one-sentence off-topic statement on the mailing list. Please don't jump to conclusions so much.

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list. Ansell 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list.

That is such a "bitchslap" apology if I've ever heard one. "Sorry, but, you know, I don't feel bad." If you don't feel bad, then don't fake it. But be prepared for people to not like your opinion. Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read it that way, but it sounds to me that Ansell is making perfect sense. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give everyone who doesn't comment on this now pointless section a barnstar. John Reaves 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that helpful? Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, an attempt to quell this pointless cat fight. John Reaves 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions regarding the personal traits of others are always screened and I'm amazed that this one wasn't. I imagine it's because you were smart enough to bury it deep in your message and the mods overlooked it. I'm shocked and horrified, not merely by your initial comment, but by the fact that you don't regard it to be out of line. The issue is not what Lara or Pedro are doing. The issue is you daring to call out people you don't know about a fundamentally sensitive subject such as how they parent their children. You would be censured for accusing people about their sexuality, gender or nationality, and I can't see how this is any better.

That said - I don't see this can be solved here, and mailing list mods should be contacted. That place is a cesspool anyway and things like this just make it worse. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr, what ever happened to people not being so freaking sensitive? Was it kind of rude? yeah. It's something where LoraLove should tell Peter "hey, that's not cool". Making a post on ANI about it... dude, get over it. If Peter wants to apologies, he will. If he doesn't, get over it. Move on, it's not that bad. Somebody called you a bad parent behind your back? Quick, somebody call the waaaamubance! (see, that's uncivil. What Peter did was harsh, but not necessarily uncivil). -- Ned Scott 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove has been called a bad mother on Wikipedia in the past. Considering her past experiences, I don't think it's "sensitive" of her, and honestly, your comments don't help and just piss people off more. Was that your goal? Mike H. Fierce! 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, damn, Ned. Who knew that someone could be bitchier here than Mike. Well played. Now go back to obviously not being a parent and let the adults talk. Lara❤Love 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(to Mike) Past experiences? I am unaware of what you seem to be hinting at. Peter said that he believes that anyone who posts pictures of their underage kids on Wikipedia is being irresponsible. He did so in the middle of a discussion where LaraLove's pictures were being talked about. I'm just going to take a guess here and say... the comment wasn't unique to her, but just something that Peter felt in general. And you know what, that's not such a crazy opinion to have (I don't agree with it, but it's not "out there").

Some people think that stuff, it's not the end of the world. I'm religious, and some people think that religious people are stupid for believing such things. I flip them off in my mind and move on. My best friend is one of these people. Hey, what are ya gonna do.

(to Lara): You want to pretend to know about my family life, go ahead. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the past experience of already having to hear that a Wikipedia editor thought she was a bad mother, seemingly for no concrete reason at all. And honestly, I don't believe that he mentioned that "as a coincidence." He knew who was in discussion, and he made the comment. Whether you think it or not, it's absolutely rude, tacky, tasteless, nasty, catty, bitchy, etc. to actually voice it at someone. Plus, unless you're willing to have someone scrutinize how you raise your kids, they should just step the hell off. Mike H. Fierce! 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as inherently counterproductive to resort so directly and abrasively to ad hominem attacks when complaining about a vague comment that's already been apologized for. Getting cliquey is not going to solve this. Throwing around more insults is not going to solve this, much less so the same sorts of unfortunate comments about family life that got this whole thing started. Why don't we all calm down just a notch? Yes, bad things happened; no, we don't need to make that any worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry this is so distressing for you. First of all, you people are so concerned with the BRC but not concerned enough to mention anything to anyone who actually participates in it? Throwing around speculation and concern over a joke page that doesn't affect you, not bothering to get any details from anyone who actually knows anything about it. Then you have this genuine concern for the well-being of my kids and Pedro's, but no inclination to actually inform either of us of this important concern? You "still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants", I am "the person". Hai, I'm Lara. I already stated I am aware. Still so concerned, yet no desire to ask me. That doesn't make sense. Lara❤Love 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Re-focussing this thread back to Lara's original complaint. Had we been libeled as "poofters", "niggers", "religious nutters" or any other disgusting attack we'd probably be seeing a lot more direct input here.... However, I take great exception to being called a bad parent, and I take even further exception to the way it was done, where I could never have seen it and have a chance to reply (not that I'm going to even bother defending my parenting skills). I am appaled that this editor was too cowardly to address either Lara or I directly on our talk pages about his "concerns". Nevertheless, I think on reading the above the community agrees that it was an ill-considered comment and I would prefer to move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not having the conversation in a better place, that, and not being alerted to the fact by others who potentially saw something hurtful in the statement, make for a very confusing discussion of this issue. One, I don't like the fact that this was not taken up with me personally before it was brought here. (Leaving posts on my page and then coming here anyway before I respond doesn't impress me. Please don't take offense to that, I just prefer to discuss things in less public places, at least at first, as it doesn't create large amounts of confusion). I apologised on the mailing list and here. What more do you want? People were telling you about the dangers of this, as demonstrated by the wikipedia review link, before I got a chance to reply, but you are still asking what the dangers are. GFDL=Freedom=Loss of control=Children's pictures anywhere anytime without any explicit permission=Reflection on image poster. Thats what I was really trying to get at by my short off-topic comment which was not pursued by any of the participants, and I doubt even moderators, seeing as other participants left it alone, would have felt the need to sanction me for it, as they would have asked for a retraction/apology immediately if they saw fit to. I am not one who enjoys firestorm reactions to short comments. Cheers, Ansell 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, and briefly as I can, as this is going off topic again. I don't care about a perceived issue with someone photoshopping a picture of my boy's head onto a naked child for the sexual gratification of peadophiles. I've often thought there's money to be made in flogging my parents entire collection of me in the nude at ages 1-5 to the sickos, as frankly I don't give a toss if they get their rocks of over it. The point is simple - if you were that concerned about "the dangers" why did you not approach Lara and I directly? Basically, you weren't, you made a throw away comment and you are now trying to defend it through a spurious argument that you are doing the best thing to protect our children - which is actually coming over as ever more offensive than the original comment. I said it above - you've made a mistake or error of judgment as it were, you seem to accept that it was a poor choice of words and that's it. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi just surfing in with another view. I didn't read Ansell's post on wiki-en, and whether he really did call people 'bad parents' in those terms. Some people are more guarded than others on the internet, and they can be shocked at what others willingly disclose. So I can see that he might have concerns about it, and the parents concerned might not- that's not either side's 'fault' or wrong perception though- just that people have different degrees of relaxation about what they disclose on the internet (for instance I would never share my legal name on my user page etc, but some people do so happily.) Anyway my point is, I can't form an opinion unless I have seen the post concerned by Ansell, and the language he used, whether he said 'bad parents' or instead 'I can't understand a parent doing that' or something. If you ask his opinion I'm sure he would let someone quote the relevant bit of his post here- as people are being asked to make a judgement/opinion on ANI, without knowing the wording (in context) of that on which they are commenting. If you are discussing it here it should be written out here or people who aren't on wiki-en list can't form an opinion, and no I don't want to join wiki-en, though I'm sure it's lovely, I'm on enough lists.:) As to it being Ansell going behind Lara and Pedro's backs- that's obviously a bit rude- on the other hand it could be that he wanted to discuss general issues rather than them specifically, which I imagine is a good use of wiki-en. But if he just wanted to use what they did as an example in discussion, he could have been more tactful and not named names. You see we really can't tell without having read his post. Merkinsmum 09:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're looking for? Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here. "

And just to point it out for many people here, note how he specifically comments on the photo issue. He does not say that anyone is a bad parent over all, or makes any judgment for anything other than uploading pictures of them under a free-license. It's a very specific comment, and one that has been incorrectly translated as "bad mother". Doesn't make it ok, doesn't make it whatever, I'm just saying that the comment is being read into far more than it should be. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to lack the ability to read sentences placed between other sentences. It's okay, I'll pull it out for you; "It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that." I said "irresponsible parent". Regardless, you appear to be completely oblivious to the point. If you're not offended, good for you. Step off, because of the two editors specifically referred to (the thread is about the BRC page, which includes three images of children; my two kids and "Son of Pedro"), both are offended. And both happen not to appreciate the "apology". kthxbye, Lara❤Love 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any admin action required here? Otherwise take it to the mailing list. Relata refero (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the picture issue itself... can you spell "moral panic"? The GFDL (and any other license someone might place a picture uploaded here under) is a copyright license, it does not constitute a waiver of other rights [such as personality rights] nor does it allow people to do things that are illegal with the picture. Moreover, if bad people are inclined to do illegal things with pictures, copyright isn't going to be something that will stop them from doing so. —Random832 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

User:Egasa

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. Lara❤Love 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Lumberjake

Lumberjake (talk · contribs) is on a prod removal spree, using nonsense edit summaries and not even completely removing the entire subst'd prod template. I left a message asking for valid edit summaries, and was ignored. Corvus cornix_talk 22:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked him for 24 hours. This might encourage some communication. John Reaves 23:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I have nothing useful to contribute to the conversation, but I would ask that you retract your allegation that the lyrics to Bohemian Rhapsody are "nonsense". Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request, just FYI. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I'm not sure "removing valid prods" counts as disruptive since prods are, in some sense, there to be removed. I'd suggest that he be unblocked if he commits to using proper edit summaries when removing them in the future. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I hereby retract the allegation that the lyrics are nonsense (I love Bohemian Rhapsody), and caveat by saying that they're nonsense in this context.  :) Corvus cornix_talk 23:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wonder why he duped the page Rabbit bites to User talk:Lumberjake? Looks a bit like he's trolling is talk--Hu12 (talk) 23:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I would have agreed for the prod to be restored, as it was seriously disputive removing every remaining prod from the category with idiotic edit summarries. Secret ^account 21:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I could go on and bitch about how unfair this is, but I think maybe I needed a day to calm down and sort myself (other things going on IRL too). I'm cool with it, in the past. Happy end. Lumberjake (talk) 06:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice sought re JohnSmith's apparent conflict seeking, and wikistalking

John Smith's (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and myself have a long history of bitter conflict, edit warring, and we seem to disagree with each other about just about everything. This ongoing conflict eventually escalated into an Arbcom case where we were both put on a revert probation. There was wikistalking as an issue then. My concern is that JohnSmith’s appears to be back to wikistalking me, seeking to continue the old pattern of provoking conflict and drama, that is objectively disruptive to the articles where this occurs between us. I advise for him to follow the first suggestion of dispute resolution and avoid me--not go out of his way to clash with me. So I’m here to ask for guidance and bring it to attention of admins who might be able to help before things continue and get worse.

My positive good-faith comment to JohnSmith, "...I hope your participation here is genuine and not a repeat of your past wikistalking. In fact given our edit warring history resulting in arbcom (and the fact that we seem to disagree about just about everything) don't you think that it is odd that in all of wikipedia's thousands of articles you choose the one that I'm most active in? The first step is dispute resolution is simply to avoid the other person. I think that it would be wise, even if your intentions are good, to disengage from here since it will most likely just embroil us in further conflict, and we both have had our share of that by now, I'd hope.:)"

But JohnSmith's replies this way:“As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”[8] Why he comes to the one article I mainly edit to engage in conflict with me, is my main question.

Same thing with other articles: John Smiths appeared for the first time right after my edit and request on the talk page. See my request on talk here: [9] I restored a section taking out by User:Raggz, and provide a citation for support. I left a leave a message on the talk page asking editors to please hold off on making any more deletions as I am working to provide references to support the rest of the claims, of which I am familiar with.This is respected by editors, but guess who shows up? John Smith’s, for the very first time to this article. And what are his very first action to the article? To to ignore my request and delete a section: [10] I then respond to him on the talk page with this question but he ignores it:[11]

I’m disturbed by this pattern of engaging with me in endless arguments. I think someone should tell him Wikipedia is not a battleground, and that out of the over 2 million articles, why must he choose the main articles that I am working on, esp. given the very predictable negative result is that we end up in endless and asinine bickering?

Even if his intentions are good, it’s just a bad idea given our history, and it appears to other editors that he is doing this just to fight with me. I’ve asked that he disengage and avoid arguing with me, but he seems addicted to argumentation--with me. I’ve raised this point several times and asked him but he responds back by making personal attacks and assuming bad faith: “As for seeking conflict, it is something you delight in by making snide comments about me, reverting once on an article so as to annoy me but ensure you won't get in trouble and so forth.”

I bring it here because I can see it getting worse again, and resulting in general disruption to actual editing work on improving articles, which is the purpose I edit on WP. If nothing is done, at least I want to be on record here of trying to do something about it before it gets out of hand, and continues on into another arbcom case.Giovanni33 (talk) 10:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Your achilles heel is your longwindedness. El_C 10:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Take a Wikibreak go edit something else, forget your WP:POINT, leave the man alone and he will leave you alone. Igor Berger (talk) 11:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll try, thanks! El_C 11:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

El_C, I think he was referring to Giovanni. I don't think anyone could accuse you of WP:POINT and needing a wikibreak after a single sentence. ;) John Smith's (talk) 12:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Giovanni, the message you posted in italics was not good faith. If you had been truly meaning to say something pleasant you would have said something like "I hope that we will be able to put our unfortunate past behind us and work together on this page". What you did was to bring up the arbitration case (which put the same controls on each of us) and past allegations of wikistalking when there was clearly no need to.

Need I remind you that the only editor not involved in the page and who has no history with either myself or you who commented on my peer review request said that the didn't agree with Bernard's allegations against me being on the page because of you and suggested he strike them.

You are implying that if you edit a page I am not allowed to get involved with it. That is nonsense. I can take an interest in something with you not being an issue. Indeed your prescence on the Allegations article was not an issue until you made it one. I was talking things over quite happily with Stonesky and others. I have also been aware of it for a long time, but only recently felt I could move off the articles I've frequented in the past (e.g. Jung Chang) because you appear to have moved on from them and stopped edit-warring there.

You frequently complain I do not assume good faith but you do not show it yourself. If you want to avoid conflict, don't talk to me. If someone Bernard makes a snide comment as he did either don't respond or say that you think he's being hasty. Don't jump on the bandwagon because you think it's fun to have a swipe at me.

As for not responding on the other article, I was hardly going to stay up past midnight (my time) in the anticipation of you leaving a message. Or do you regularly stay up past 1am and expect others to do the same? And why was I on the page? Maybe because it's related to the allegations page? You are also misrepresenting what happened. You posted a message there well over 12 hours before I removed the text in question. How is a gap of 12 hours "right afterwards"?

If there's any drama it has been created by you. Take Igor's advice - wikibreak and then just leave me alone. John Smith's (talk) 12:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I must disagree. While JohnSmith has largely been civil on that page, i must also agree with Giovannni's representation of the affair. The page is a magnet for Wikipedia activists who would like to see it deleted and -- in light of Giovanni and JohnSmith's past experiences -- JohnSmith has made some suggestions that bring up contentious issues from a very long time back. He has, unfortunately, also approached the page primarily from the perspective of someone who would like to see it or much of its content deleted. While we may be still working out these points of contention in a civil manner, i see nothing in his behavior or attitude that suggests exemplary mention for tolerance, cooperation, or contribution. Meanwhile, Giovanni's comments were direct, to-the-point, and based upon what must be a very sensitive subject for the both of them. Giovanni pointed out only that there were disagreements between the two of them that had resulted in disciplinary action and an agreement by each to try and avoid the other one. When Giovanni pointed this out, JohnSmith's declared that he had somehow been "personally attacked". His reaction seemed to me quite exaggerated and dramatic; moreover, Giovanni has been a more-or-less continuous presence on this page for a couple of years, whereas this is the first time i have seen the username JohnSmith's appear. Thus, it would seem to me that if JohnSmith's were truly seeking to avoid Giovanni then "Allegations...U.S." would be one of the very few places he would avoid like the plague.

Having said all of that, JohnSmith's has done nothing to personally attack me. His suggestions for the page have been met with our usual appeal to Wikipedia protocol and guidelines. Yet even so, if it is the case that he has agreed to avoid Giovanni then it would seem that he is now reneging upon that agreement in an egregious fashion. Stone put to sky (talk) 09:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For the record, there was never an agreement to avoid editing/commenting on pages the other has worked on. I would not decide to go somewhere because Giovanni was there, but his prescence on a page has never really been something I have thought about - if I am interested I will take a look at something and maybe edit. Generally speaking I do not seek to interact with him, preferring to discuss matters with other users if possible.

If he so wishes to have an "official" agreement that we stay away from each other, one that can be enforced by administrators, he should propose it in whatever place would be appropriate so that it can be discussed. John Smith's (talk) 13:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As I just noted on a user talk page where John was complaining about Giovanni, both of you need to chill and quit trying to get the other party in trouble. Either ignore each other or engage constructively. I'm sick of watching this disupte rampage all over the 'pedia. You're both better than that, and I think everyone who's been exposed to this pretty lame dispute is sick of hearing about it. You are both to blame (note: this means that no one is going to be persuaded by any argument either of you make to the contrary), and both of you should make the choice to "squash the beef" as they say and either work together civilly or avoid all interaction. If that cannot happen Gio and John might have to be forcibly separated in some fashion - hopefully without going through the whole rigmarole of a new ArbCom. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 22:44, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Entry for Millard Fillmore currently being vandalised

Millard Fillmore entry vandalism in progress now.

Edits include:

'Millard Fillmore is a fag'

'Millard Fillmore has no penis'

'Buttmuncher'

etc. etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.132.240.232 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Semiprotected. --Golbez (talk) 21:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sigh... as if it's not enough to have been associated with something called the Know Nothing Party, or to have been the inspiration for tired political hackery in a duck suit... is there no end to the indignities to which President Fillmore is subjected? MastCell ^Talk 23:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I don't know; on the other hand, has two of the most famous rock venues in the world named after him, so that's some compensation. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

He's also the only president who arguably came to power because of too many cold cherries. Take that, Lincoln!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 04:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not exactly... Chester A. Arthur's sub rosa connections to the iced cherry lobby, which dated back to his tenure as head of the New York Port Authority, were a major factor in his failure to secure the Republican renomination in 1884, ultimately leading to Grover Cleveland's rather narrow victory over James G. Blaine. It is commonly believed that if not for Cherrygate, Arthur would have wiped the floor with Grover Cleveland's sorry, philandering, inferiorly mustachioed ass in the general election. The role that iced cherries have played in American politics has generally been underappreciated by mainstream historians. MastCell ^Talk 19:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for action in an Afd

I do not believe this Afd should have been raised as it does not meet any of the criteria for listing. I have said so, but the debate appears to be proceeding. Can an administrator please either close it, or tell me how or why my intitial objection was wrong. MickMacNee (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An early close would not be appropriate. Let the discussion run for the requisite five days, and a non-involved admin will close it as it needs to be closed. Corvus cornix_talk 03:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

An AfD discussion may simultaneously refute the rationale of the nominator and urge deletion on unrelated grounds. An AfD can be called up for with any reason, within limits and common sense. —Kurykh 03:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have further discovered these statements [12] and [13] by the Afd nominator on the football project talk page. I think these demonstrate a bad faith nomination. Additionaly, this Afd was raised 1 hour after article creation, with absolutely no recourse to discussion or use of the established tags for resolving the (now of questionable faith) stated reasons for nomination. MickMacNee (talk) 03:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Purported procedural errors by the nominator do not have any impact on the existence of the discussion. If you're trying to get the discussion closed because the nominator is not acting in good faith, then the short answer is no, we will not close it. All of those arguments are supposed to be in the AfD, not here, and are arguments against deletion, not against the existence of the discussion. —Kurykh 04:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why have any policies describing how, when and why to list an Afd at all, let alone general policies such as good faith and use of discussion? I now have to both object to the nomination on policy, procedure and good faith grounds, while simultaneously validating them by having content discussions as well, when the article talk page has never even been started nor a single tag (bar Afd) has even been placed on the article. MickMacNee (talk) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ganging up on AfD participators doesn't help your case. JuJube (talk) 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How am I ganging up? As I said above, the raising of this Afd means I now have to have a discussion on 3 different levels covering different issues, some relevant to an Afd, some not. Or would you rather I didn't try to defend the article's existence at all? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be substance in the discussion; by all means, continue to make your case for inclusion, continue to work on the article to address concerns if you can, but is there some reason the discussion shouldn't be allowed to continue? – Luna Santin (talk) 07:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have no willingness to edit the article if the possibility exists that it will be summarily deleted in 5 days, and this then introduces the possibility that votes could later be cahnged, but the voters never return, giving an innaccurate picture of consensus on the final state of the article. I have already wasted enough time on it for it to be trashed after existing for 1 hour. Plus, there are already conflicting ideas on how to proceed, so there is no direction in which to proceed editing until the Afd closes, therefore the spurious nomination serves to kill developmentr for 5 days, meeting the nominators stated aim of bad faith discussion. Afd is not a venue for content discussion, which most of the Afd comments allude to. The principle is, why should an Afd nomination be allowed if it's creation violates several WP policies at the same time? Just how spurious does a nomination have to be? How did Afd process become elevated over all other considerations of collaberative editting? MickMacNee (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:TigerManXL for United States presidential election, 2008

User continues to make substantial edits to this page without providing any readily available, cited source. Reverts any undoing of his edits, proclaiming that whatever he claims is true can be substantiated by "turning on CNN." Is persistent, stubborn, and rude towards other editors. Has a track record of similar offenses with other articles, and has been blocked before. --Nkrosse (talk) 04:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to note that he violated the 3RR rule numerous times over today.--Nkrosse (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here are some examples of his contributions to Wikipedia: [14] [15] [16] [17] [18]

He also violates the W:NPA rule here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nkrosse (talk • contribs) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Egasa

Egasa (talk · contribs) has created a plethora of articles on non-notable magazines that read to me as borderline spam and starting to clog up CSD and AfD. The spam to me is not blatantly bad but I fear none of the articles would survive AfD. I am not sure if this constitutes disruptive editing. Any ideas on how this should be dealt with? -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've warned the user. His talk page shows that he should be adequately aware of his disruption. Another poor creation will result in a block. Lara❤Love 05:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also like to know the rationale User:Catchpole used for calling nearly every one of those articles "valid stubs" when no guidelines were even remotely met. DarkAudit (talk) 15:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Rangeblock needed

Would an admin who has experience with rangeblocks please investigate the jumping-IP vandalism of 75.100.xxx.xxx. Two of the IP addresses he used tonight are User talk:75.100.84.36 and User talk:75.100.80.190. In the first talk page, he admits to jumping IP addresses to avoid blocks, and continue to vandalise. We need to nip this in the bud. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Are there any other IPs that have been used? It's better to have a narrow block than one that could possibly affect innocent users.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, those are the only two I have tripped over so far. The threats to jump IP addresses were what caught my attention on the first one; and the second one shows that he went through with it. It looks like it has stopped following the second block; but its a situation we should keep an eye on pending further problems. Consider it a "heads up" at this point. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Also add User talk:75.100.87.206 and User talk:75.100.90.73. Mr.Z-man 07:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, after consulting with Alison on IRC about possible collateral damage, I've blocked 75.100.80.0/20 for 24 hours. So far all the IPs used have been in this range. Mr.Z-man 07:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Recall

(cross-posted from WP:AN) Hello. This is to notify you of a formal request for recall concerning my use of admin tools, specifically, protection. I hate to stir up drama so soon after the most recent request, but I have decided to honor User talk:100%freehuman's request. You may view the process here; if the threshold for requests for me to step down is not met within 24 hours of the complaint, the process will proceed; comments are welcome on the talk page, litigants may post on the formal page, I only request notification on my talk. Thank you all. Regretfully, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This user has just registered today. Revert it. And, ignore it. Seriously, Wikipedia's community has enough drama. miranda 08:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You do realize that there is a chance that this is either a user you blocked or a common troll trying to create drama, right? - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. 100%freehuman's edits to date do not look like those of a newbie, and I agree with Caribbean H.Q. that this may well be trolling. -- The Anome (talk) 08:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoah here, hold the phone. How about users opposing recall? Keilana is one of our better admins, if it were up to me, she stays. This sitch looks more and more like a troll with an axe to grind... Edit Centric (talk) 08:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The guy was editing under an IP and has a problem with a protection I made. I'm calling it valid and good-faith, if I really screwed up it'd succeed, no? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

With due respect (and I think you're an awesome admin!), I seriously think you may need to tighten your recall criteria. This one is largely vexatious, IMO - Alison ^❤ 08:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Alison, I'll look over things. I actually significantly tightened them recently. Thanks, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 08:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. If this can happen then the recall criteria is seriously flawed. It takes less than 10 minutes of going through your admin actions to see that this recall request is frivolous. Don't assume too much good faith. EconomicsGuy (talk) 08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So he created a SPA for the single purpouse of having you desysoped? that should be enough to dismiss the recall request and try to discuss drectly. I really respect your honor code but the least we need are 'suicidal' admins, in this case a single protection doesn't justify a desysoping, everybody does mistakes and this certainly wasn't one, the user was trying to push potentially libelous material into the article, [19] protecting a page if there are BLP issues is common practice. - Caribbean~H.Q. 08:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

That editor appears to be posting comments everywhere. Just other people's to other pages.[20][21] To be honest, I can't make out quite what (s)he's trying to achieve here - Alison ^❤ 08:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

They are most likely the registered account of an IP that tried to insert this into the article of a Hillary Clinton associate. Pairadox (talk) 09:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, the IP that I begged people for over an hour to block on two noticeboards yesterday? And then had to go on IRC to try and get done? Relata refero (talk) 14:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Screw AGF. Why not just block this obvious troll account (100%freehuman)? I mean, just look at its bizarre edit history. JuJube (talk) 09:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support a permablock on 100%freehuman (talk · contribs) for trolling. I also support Keilana significantly tightening up her recall criteria to prevent every Troll, Dick and Harry from creating drama every few days. The words "editors in good standing" added somewhere to the recall criteria would do it. Or just totally get rid of the drama-magnet that is recall. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 09:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Revert the recall request, it's an obvious troll. The user's account should be reblocked indef. --Coredesat 11:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually after seeing that the user is also impersonating the one that he is asking to recall [22], I support a indef for disruptive trolling. - Caribbean~H.Q. 11:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Blocked indefinitely; if all the above requests were actually sarcasm, and I failed to pick that up, then feel free to unblock. · AndonicO ^Hail! 13:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't believe that was an attempt to impersonate. It was more likely just a poorly executed quote. The comment that was added with Keilana's sig was actually part of a comment left by Keilana here. --Onorem♠Dil 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello I know Im new anddont no much or really near anything about everything I am doing the best I can since contributing to an article I have been wrongly blocked and band by Dreadstar and Keilana its all gone really crazy not at all how i thought adding to wikkipedia would be I dont know what iformation i should and should not put so Ill wait till im asked i guess. Thanks Kate 100%freehuman (talk) 13:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Reasons why recall is not a good process includes this type of action. Mercury (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The very fact that you were so willing to be recalled Keilana shows that you clearly don't need to be--Jac16888 (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, 100%freehuman is requesting unblock. I strongly oppose unblocking- see this attempted forgery of comments. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 14:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This would appear to be a similar situation to what I noted above. Keilana left that comment on User talk:AndonicO. It's a poor attempt at quoting, not impersonation. --Onorem♠Dil 14:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I agree that all the evidence supports that 100%freehuman is a SPA for trolling and the additional evidence collected by Nwwaew supports a permanent block. Jeepday (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC) Clarify that even if it a poor attempt at quoting it still looks like trolling. Jeepday (talk) 14:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I could do a little clarifying myself. I'm not supporting an unblock. I just want to make sure that impersonation isn't used as the main justification for people supporting the block. --Onorem♠Dil 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Block/Unblock Requests of User:100%freehuman

---

100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

I'm struck by the discrepancy between this block and the one being discussed in the thread just below ("Personal attacks by User:Koalorka"). Here we have a new editor, unfamiliar with the Wiki-way, copying and pasting comments in what seems to be an attempt to collect evidence for a case for recall. Indefinite block. Below, we have somebody using highly inflamatory language and accusing an admin of racialism fresh off a 24 hour block for similar comments, and they get off with a warning. Yes, it was a bad initial edit, and the subsequent edit warring didn't help, but it appears she was doing her best to abide by policies and guidelines and just didn't get the parameters of reliable sourcing. She's expressed contrition and confusion and a willingness to refrain from editing until more knowledgable. Anybody else see this as a case of biting the newbie? Pairadox (talk) 15:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I support an unblock. I think people are blowing this way out of proportion. If you go back and look through the history of this dispute, I think that 100%freepeople was all along requesting clarification as to why the edits on a certain page were considered "vandalism" and thus resulted in semi-protection. Keilana did make some attempts to explain this but mentioned her willingness to be recalled so often that 100%freepeople took her up on it. In fact, Keilana's responses brought up recall much more than they addressed the vandalism and semi-protection part of the question. I think that's not only not blockworthy, it's not even abusive, and may even be a valid reason for requesting recall with Keilana's lax requirements, not that I think this shows any need whatsoever to remove Keilana's admin bit. I just don't want to unblock without consulting at this point. Mangojuice^talk 15:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblock and watch. This seems way out of proportion, and a new user is very confused by this kerfuffle. Suggest someone with patience offers to mentor her, or point her in the direction of WP:ADOPT. Let's assume good faith. Neıl ☎ 15:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Two parties above appear to support unblocking. I tend to agree with that idea. Also, for what it's worth, I have offered to be an adopter, although no one's been stupid enough to accept me as one yet. I third unblocking the editor in question and offer adoption if that user wants it. John Carter (talk) 16:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. It has already been hashed out that this was an SPA created for the sole purpose of de-sysopping Keilana. I have read through the edit history, the comments and the talk pages, and I don't buy this "I'm new here, I'm confused" line for one NY minute. (Sorry, I usually hold AGF high on the list, but this one has drawn a modicum of my ire...) If you unblock this account, keep a weather eye on this user. Edit Centric (talk) 16:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

But this was not an SPA for harassment. The article this user was interested in was semi-protected, so she registered an account, probably to be allowed to edit the article again. When she found that she couldn't edit the article right away, she went to Keilana to complain about it. Mangojuice^talk 17:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oppose unblock. 100%freehuman (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) seems to be requesting an unblock, Keilana's desysopping, and unprotection of Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) mainly for the purposes of adding a reference to Huma Abedin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) implying some sort of relationship with Hilary Clinton. I don't know why someone in Australia is so interested in adding this rumor, but we have to be careful of WP:BLP violations here. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 16:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I don't think an indef block is warranted here. It was a good faith error on the part of the user to incorrectly quote, it was unfamiliarity with adminship and the recall process that led to user to request recall and it was a mistake on Keilana's part to agree to it (again) and begin the recall process on the complaint of a brand-spanking newbie who clearly doesn't understand what is going on. ^Avruchtalk 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, based on the above discussion, I'm going to offer the user a set of terms for being unblocked. Mangojuice^talk 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I do however note how the user is capable of writing grammatically and correctly spelled "Thank you for correcting your misunderstanding." even including a :), and then going on to at best nongrammatical and poorly spelled sections. Curiouser and curiouser. John Carter (talk) 18:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking's not a good idea. Have a look at the conversation on WP:BLP/N#Huma Abedin: this is not someone who is willing to listen, this is not someone who has more than one thing they want out of this, this isn't someone we need to indulge. Relata refero (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd support unblocking if he agreed to Mangojuices terms (listed on 100%'s talk page); however, he doesn't seem to want to do this... · AndonicO ^Hail! 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd also support unblocking if they'd be more coherent and civil. As I'm directly involved in Mango's terms, I'm not going to comment on the ones in which I am involved; adoption would be a good idea. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1px image DoS vandal is back

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

Pages that need deleting:

• [23]
• [24]
• [25]
• [26]
• [27]
• [28]

This is a deliberate attempt to DoS Wikipedia through the massive use of 1 pixel images (sample. I'm still trying to find the original thread where this cropped up before, it wasn't that long ago. Thanks. MER-C 11:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've deleted the pages and blocked the culprit. I don't understand the situation fully, but trust MER-C's judgement on the matter. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I get it now - I just couldn't see the images at first! It's quite sneaky it's got to be said. Ryan Postlethwaite 11:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Mp3tt (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Pages:

Another one, from a couple of days ago (see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive359#User:Mp3tt - not the thread I'm looking for). These pages are safe, but you'll see the characteristic pattern in the history. I'll see if checkuser can refresh my memory. MER-C 12:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Kinda surprised the user wasn't blocked - done now. Pages deleted, just in case people get jumped looking through page histories. Doubt we need that sort of charming individual hanging about. ~ Riana ⁂ 12:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From Jan 22nd, I think this was also Zzttr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who I indef'ed then. Pattern appears to be the same. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser result is in - IPs are now blocked but there are a bunch of accounts to be dealt with, if anyone wants to. The IPs are hardblocked for a month, so there's no hurry :) - Alison ^❤ 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

bugzilla:12855. MER-C 02:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Nakon has deleted all the pages, and I have blocked and tagged all the ones that hadn't already been blocked. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

31 JAN 2007 Non Tor or Non exit unblock

Resolved

 – all done.

Good morning. I have todays daily batch. These IP addresses are blocked as Tor, and are no longer Tor nodes and have been tested at random times, cross referencing the most recent Tor network status documents. Thank you for your help. Mercury (talk) 13:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

#37 still identifying as a TOR node Dureo (talk) 13:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, User:74.208.46.15 is still a TOR proxy and should remain blocked. However, the first 36 should be unblocked. — Save_Us † 14:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Tazlk pages need clearing (just delete them if there's nothing but a {{tor}} tag). I would but I've got my own list to plough through! Neıl ☎ 14:18, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Done. Lara❤Love 14:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Mercury, are the IPs on your list (User:Mercury/UnblockNonTor) the same ones that SQL auto-identifies with his bot daily on User:SQL/Funky TOR? Neıl ☎ 15:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I copy them then queue them for testing by my process. Then I post them, but if your going to work those directly, I'll stop posting them. Many thanks for your work. Mercury (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Posting chunks here will help get the backlog cleared quicker - I'd recommend carrying on. Neıl ☎ 23:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I think that someone should look into user ScienceApologist behavior on the Deadly Nightshade page.[29] He is continually claiming WP:PROMINENCE as a policy when in fact it does not exist. It is disrupting some editors and they have asked him to stop, but he continues.[30] He even went so far to create the page WP:PROMINENCE (currently under AfD) which is a redirect to WP:UNDUE. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And another slagging of ScienceApologist. No admin action required except to maybe ban Anthon01 from homeopathy articles for a period of time for constantly causing provocation on homeopathy articles. Lawrence § t/e 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon01 has been blocked 24 hours for attempted harassment. Lawrence § t/e 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And apparently unblocked. . .Ronnotel (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It was an 8 minute block. Quack Guru 21:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

There appears to be no actionable violation of the probation. Let's move on. MastCell ^Talk 23:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

---

ScienceApologist has made two reverts where no consensus exist, one at 14:23, January 31, 2008[31]and the second at 19:29, January 31, 2008[32]. Finally OrangeMarlin has made the same revert once, [33] however ScienceApologist and ScienceApologist often work in tangent to further their POV. I request that the probation warning be enforced and the page be rollback to where it was at the time of the posting of the probation message. Anthon01 (talk) 20:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to carp on so, you may find the forthcoming probation enforcement to be to your displeasure. east.718 at 21:35, January 31, 2008

No, an admin has rewarded his "carping on so" with a barnstar.[34] Sic transit Wikipedia. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please clarify what the rules are here. I asked the admin who gave me the barnstar if I could placed this on AN/I without fear of getting blocked.[35] He responded yes.[36] I don't feel like I am being treated fairly. Anthon01 (talk) 22:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You posted the same question to me,[37] and I suggested not stirring the pot.[38] Admin shopping and selective reporting of the facts is sort of disruptive. I recommend we look beyond it this time. Jehochman ^Talk 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 'n' how many times must the cannon balls fly, Before they're forever banned? PouponOnToast (talk) 22:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Who is they? Anthon01 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that Anthon01 posted the question to Jehochman after he had started this thread and was chided for doing so by east. I don't think "admin shopping" is a proper characterization here. I believe that he was confused by east's warning and thus sought clarification from Jehochman. Anthon01, feel free to correct me if I am incorrect with my assessment.

I don't find PoupOnToast's comment here particularly helpful in any way. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's probably because the article prohibition encountered and failed it's first hurdle (which most pundits had predicted). Not really surprising that those who monitor these things have seen the same admin responses over and over again and when the Community tells them to act better....they don't. So the cynicism level increases. Shot info (talk) 23:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which admin response are you commenting on here? Anthon01 (talk) 00:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Please don't close this yet as I have a commnet I am preparing. Anthon01 (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I ask Bearian if I could place notice on AN/I without having to worry about getting blocked. 21:08 [39] Bearian had commented that he was going to take a break. So when he didn't respond,
• I asked Jehochman thinking Bearian was gone at 21:19.[40]
• Bearian gave me the go ahead on my talk page at 21:23.[41]
• So I started posting it right after and with an edit conflict interspersed I finally posted it on AN/I at 21:26.[42]

• On Jehochman's page he posted his response at 21:22 asking me to wait. [43] I didn't see Jehochman message until later. I wasn't admin shopping. Anthon01 (talk) 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think everyone is jumping the gun? Are the "cards stacked against me?" Is there a presumption that anti- alt-med editors are automatically right? My assumption was that content disputes don't give a anti-homeopathy editor rights over a pro-homeopathy editor. Since the probation warning yesterday I have not touched the Deadly Nightshade article. However an anti-homeopathy editor has reverted twice in the span of a few hours without any consensus. He has ignored editors on the talk page that are trying to work towards an agreement. Before yesterday I would have reverted his edit at least once. But due to the warning I avoided the article page completely and focused my attention on the talk page. Instead of touching the article page, I brought the issue to AN/I. What have I done wrong? Anthon01 (talk) 23:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthon1 and I are on opposide sides of most of the issues at play in the homeopathy article, but he clearly hasn't done anything wrong here. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Block review requested, if you please!

Clearsight (talk · contribs) - blocked this one indef, reasons given here. Only thing I didn't say there was that he'd managed 3 separate edit-wars in under a week. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 22:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I rolled back a couple of past edits while reviewing, as seems to be a singular POV SPA. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I just rejected his unblock request. So yes, I endorse this block. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He wrote, "User Stephan Shulz has been active on the same talk page from a differing point of view". I am just curious to know if you have been involved in this article in any way? He seems to be of the opinion that you shouldn't have reviewed the block as you're already involved and wants a completely uninvolved admin. I don't think that's terribly unreasonable to ask for. Bstone (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You can always look through Stephan's contribution history, which is public. I see no edits to Talk:Holocaust denial and one to Holocaust denial in his past 1,000 edits. I didn't go back further, but you're welcome to. MastCell ^Talk 23:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I've last edited the talk page on September 5th. This user arrived here on January 25th. I've certainly discussed the topic previously, but I've not been involved with the user (well, with the account) in any way before this encounter. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I endorse this block. --John (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, I think this was a good block. The less editorial time consumed by querulous Holocaust "revisionists", the better. And since the Vermont Public Library editor is revving up again... MastCell ^Talk 23:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

From his talk page, he seems to be rather upset about being blocked and is expressing true desire to continue editing in earnest. Perhaps the block can be for a specific time (two weeks? one month?) and also require him to be adopted with probation? I believe we have an opportunity here to build a bridge. Thoughts? Bstone (talk) 23:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, he would be. This edit is enough for me, thanks. Good block. Black Kite 00:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. That is indeed extremely disturbing. Bstone (talk) 00:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support per his trolling and that edit linked by Black Kite. Lawrence § t/e 00:15, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec, response to Bstone) None of the other folks who have commented, here or on his talk page, have found the block particularly disturbing. I suppose if an admin willing to unblock and mentor this editor can be found, then that might be an option to be discussed. Still, given the finite nature of volunteer time and effort, and the historically disappointing returns on mentoring this sort of editor, I would be pessimistic. If you're looking to build bridges or help fledgeling editors (which is a noble endeavor), surely there are more worthy potential beneficiaries out there? MastCell ^Talk 00:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey, a Vermont based vandal. There aren't too many people in our Green Mountain state, heck I probably already know the person! ^Avruchtalk 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, if you're in the library and you see a guy on the computer next to you simultaneously denying the Holocaust, global warming, and HIV as the cause of AIDS, it's him. Tell him to stop. He's destroying all the goodwill towards Vermonters that your delicious cheddar and maple syrup would otherwise engender. MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

He sent me a pleasant enough email, that I responded to on his talk page, asking me to look into this. I guess he thought I was an admin (I'm not). The section right above my response includes him saying WP has libeled him. Legal threat? Lawrence § t/e 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. "This is libel" isn't a legal threat. "You're libeling me" isn't a legal threat. "I'm going to sue you for libel" is a legal threat. The block worries me a bit, but mostly only procedurally; needless to say, I'm biased. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians

There is a never-ending edit war at MOWA Band of Choctaw Indians. I tried to stick in an oar to leave it at a sourced version, but I don't know enough about this information to know whether the edits are valid or not. Nobody violates 3RR, but there are repeated reversions that need to be stopped. I'm backing out as I don't want to get into the war, myself. Corvus cornix_talk 00:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's clearly a POV push about the identity of the MOWA people as Native American, not Cajun. the editor in question, User:Uuu987 is a single purpose account who clearly uses POV language to disparage any and all text about the white/black racial identity of the MOWA, in favor if the Choctaw identity. Although he has some sources, his writing is not the best by any means, and his aggressive disputation with the facts of the page is in no way helping. Other editors have appeared to remove unfounded material, but he seems intent on sticking it all back in. ThuranX (talk) 00:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Uuu987. Corvus cornix_talk 00:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

help with murray's dictionary

Just created article. The "D" in "dictionary" should be capitalized. Please help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Upperdoes39 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Seems to have been moved; however, shouldn't this just be redirected to Oxford English Dictionary? GlassCobra 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

See talk page for discussion Talk:Murray's_Dictionary--Upperdoes39 (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

An Issue with an Admin

I am only posting this because I believe that the admin has become too personally involved, and that if someone else steps in, she will revert to being a good editor again. The admin in question is User:Vary. After editing on Cloverfield (creature), Vary had become involved in discussion over the naming. After injecting herself into a dispute about the use of the term "Cloverfield" to describe the creature or not here [[44]], she went over to another thread that I was in here: [[45]]. Following another user who you are in disputes with to another thread like that is exactly what is written on WP:STALK when it states: "Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption."

Why is that true? Because the information she removed were from properly cited sources who verified the opinion of another writer. The section was on the controversy over Article 11. According to WP:NPOV, both sides need to be stated to be fair. The paragraph even starts out saying: "According to author John Eidsmoe, who teaches constitutional law at Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, ratification of Article 11 of the The Treaty of Tripoli cannot be taken as Congressional assent of its statements.[4][5]" It is only appropriate to have other sources verifying that this his opinion and reinforcing his assessment on the importance of the Article. However, she removes the information and states: "v - the tone is clearly innappropriate - 'mere treaty'?" Instead of fixing the tone and making the paragraph appropriate, she just deletes, which goes against Wikipedia policy. When someone points out that "If tone is an issue, why not rewrite instead of removing sources that are proper and verifiable? " and actually rewrites the paragraph, she claims: "No. It's innappropriate to use this information in this way. " even though WP:NPOV makes it clear that it is appropriate.

The editor continued to remove wholesale properly cited information that is from those who do have multiple doctorates and published by groups like Oxford University Press, which is deemed verifiable under the verifiability guidelines. This continued until she provoked a 3RR, and then made claims of sock puppetry. After that, she then complains here [[46]] that she is being reverted over something that was deemed unverifiable. She used a citation that came from a member of the Rottentomatoes page: [47] for the document and [48] . The person, who she claimed: "There are blogs, and then there are blogs; not everyone who publishes content online is 'just a blogger.' My source for the 'claim' that Paramount published these notes is a reliable online film site, one of several which publish them as the production notes distributed to the media" although the only cite she uses is by a blogger page ([[49]] his home page is from a blog cite, and he is admittedly not a professional) and there is no author or copyright information to verify that it was from Paramount. Furthermore, the citation in question as not from a direct quote in the source, but an off hand comment written by an unknown source.

After pointing this out, she claimed "The way you're talking you'd think I was arguing in favor of beginning the article "Clover is a monster that first appeared in..."" [[50]] even though I have made it clear that I was only justifying how the term "clover" was not appropriate to be used in the context that it was used in the article, and nothing about renaming the page. I made that constantly clear, but Vary continued to claim over and over that I stated otherwise without providing any evidence to that.

I believe that the admin has become personally involved in this issue. Can someone help sort out this issue? Thank you. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottava Rima, Wallbuilders is a known unreliable source. The owner of this company, David Barton has been criticized for making up quotes, and placing them in the mouths of the Founding Fathers. When challenged to support his made-up quotes he is cited as believing he saw it somewhere, or that he thinks it's what they would have said. I support removing anything they state as unreliable. If you'd like to discuss that particular aspect more, we have a reliable sources noticeboard here. Wjhonson (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wallbuilders was not the only one being challenged. If you notice, the next one is David Homes, "publisher=Oxford University Press" which is a very reliable source. Another, "American Gospel", is by "|publisher=Random House" [51]. Those are two sources. Please notice that there were four books removed, and only one is needed to verify the statement that was removed. Ottava Rima (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• You're going to want to try dispute resolution. This is a content dispute and does not need admin intervention. Shell ^babelfish 01:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree here with Shell Kinney. From a cursory review of the associated Talk page, the issue appears to be the relevance, and undue weight, of the included sections and not so much specifically their reliability. If you feel the issues cannot be resolved on the article's talk page, you might want to review our policy on undue weight, and/or open a discussion at the associated Talk page for Neutral Point of View.Wjhonson (talk) 01:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Assistance to close an Afd early and userfy

I believe I have the agreement of the nominator User_talk:MickMacNee#The_Entertainers and a couple of involved admins at this Afd for early closure and userfication without prejudice, as per the suggestion sub heading. Am I correct in my terminology here? (my first time at such a non trivial Afd). I believe an independent admin can now close the Afd debate as delete without prejudice and userfy it to my space? I intend in future to recreate the article after a major edit of the userfied copy, under the same name, without prejudice. N.B. I'm unclear on the references to histories and talk pages in the userfication policy. MickMacNee (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

We've already had this discussion. The AfD is not going to be closed early. Just relax. Corvus cornix_talk 03:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Thamarih - Personal attacks and edit warring

Resolved

 – user blocked for 3RR--Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This user is again engaging in personal attacks and threatens continued edit warring. [52][53] [54] [55] [56] This exchange is typical: This was in response to this admonition to follow policy on conduct and editing.

The user has already taken two blocks for this behavior. MARussellPESE (talk) 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User was blocked for 3RR violation. Considering the length and depth of the problems noted, there is a likelyhood that he may be taking an unhealthy ownership of the articles. If this continues, please make a note of as MANY problems as you can (diffs are GOOD. And article diffs are better than talk page diffs) and we will investigate further. However, please wait until this block expires before doing so, so that we can extend good faith to the user that they may return and stop after this block. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Political mess?

I'm a bit concerned by many of the non-cinematographic contributions of user:Telecineman, given current political goings-on in the US.

Could I have some people help me out in checking his stuff for BLP and NPOV compliance? Thanks. DS (talk) 03:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Of who? -- tariqabjotu 03:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleh. I meant, user:Telecineguy. DS (talk) 03:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[57] —Preceding unsigned comment added by DragonflySixtyseven (talk • contribs) 03:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Image renaming

per several threats against me, I have finished (mostly) a bot to rename images. primary testing will be on commons. please comment on commons:Commons:Administrators' noticeboard#Image renaming if all goes well I plan on porting the bot over here. if people are interested please help in the transwiki of related pages/templates. β^_command 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

TTN

• TTN (talk · contribs)
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters
• Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

User has been continuing to mass remove pages (redirectification) and revert war (such as the one on Bulbasaur) despite objections and disagreements. His actions are not based on consensus and are WP:POINTy at best. Admin intervention is necessary as wikipedia is not a battleground.

-- Cat ^chi? 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• So you want us to block all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft and then war with TTN's efforts to prune it down to manageable (and cited and policy-compliant) proportions? Good plan, but they will howl bloody blue murder, just as they do every time a massive uncited article on an item of fictional trivia is removed. Guy (Help!) 22:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  Revert waring is disruptive. TTN revert wars among other things. -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• I believe an injunction made by ArbCom to restrict these actions would be beneficial, in the meantime, I do not see precisely what admin intervention could be used? Please feel free to suggest something in particular, GDonato (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• White Cat, wait for the arbitration case to end. This is outside of the purview of this board as he is currently the subject of a new ArbCom case.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:51, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

  TTN is continuing to mass blank articles and continuing to revert war. That is disruptive. The presence of an RfAr is NOT a license allowing further disruption. It supposed to be the contrary. The RfAr may last for weeks or months. Tell me one reason why I should not mass revert TTNs reckless mass blankings (as per Wikipedia:Be bold#… but don't be reckless.). -- Cat ^chi? 03:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because they aren't 'blanking', they're redirecting, leaving all content available to editors who want to improve a page, and because until the ArbCom plays out, any such actions, esp. in light of your un-archiving this section, which cautions you to let ArbCom settle out, will be seen by many as tendentious, pointy editing. You are not some neophyte, but an editor well aware of how Wikipedia works. You know that provoking others with POINTy reversions will only serve to draw out the ArbCom, by spurring on more and more commentaries, many of which will speak about your actions here. It is often said that patience is a virtue. I recommend you take that to heart. Since you asked for counsel before acting, it's no longer likely to be seen as BOLD. that's a few reasons not to do what you're considering. I hope you think about hem in depth before pursuing your plan. ThuranX (talk) 03:42, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  It is blanking. All content s removed. If a person redirects by removing all content on a random article (Say redirecting Canada to United States) we revert it. That person will most likely be treated like a vandal. Please do not insult my intelligence any more like that.
  Yes I know how wikipedia supposed to work. That is with consensus not through brute forcing ones own will. TTN is not acting based on consensus.
  If TTN's edits are perfectly fine as if it were a copy edit - something completely non-controversial, why is it a WP:POINT violation if I commit similar edits?If TTN's edits are not perfectly acceptable and even disruptive, I am quite baffled why the community refuses to act on it.
  -- Cat ^chi? 03:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  see User:SirFozzie/Get It Right for my feelings on it. An article merged for a couple days or even weeks is not cause for despair, anger, and yet another edit war that has already taken too much time of the community's patience and time. SirFozzie (talk) 03:55, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Yes, 1 article is manageable but hundereds more is just problematic. Had TTN ceased mass blanking pages at least for temporarily there wouldn't be anything for me or someone else to revert. I am not trying to escalate the matter and on the contrary I am seeking to prevent further escalations by TTN. It isn't like I am in the business of mass revert waring on multiple pages. My comments were intended to be a figure of speech. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Because the community tried, and failed. That is why it went to ArbCom the first time. Now it's back at ArbCom, again. Something gets decided there, and the community works with it. If that doesn't work, it goes back to ArbCom (sadly). There's no action to be done that won't be stepping on the toes of the committee.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

  Well, at least now I have something to refer to arbcom that may or may not compel them to a temporarily injunction. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The ArbCom needs to do something about TTN—a temporarily injunction against continuing his redirect campaign while the case is ongoing would be tremendously helpful. If the ArbCom will not do this, we need an admin to step in and block him for disruption if he continues. Everyking (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, ArbCom could give him a medal. And do you really think that an Admin blocking over ArbCom's decision would help the situation, or blow open a can of big fat worms? most, if not all of ArbCom IS admins, so you'd be looking at some sort of wheel war mess. Why can't the peopel spending so much energy on fighting this just go and find assertions of notability in the real world for the shows they want to keep as articles? I'm helping a guy right now fix up an I Love Lucy article. If episodes from 50 years ago can still have supporting evidence, then so can far more recent shows. If you really want to improve them, head down to the library, hit the various periodicals catalogs there, many index all the topics going back years if not decades. Since most of the shows being defended most vociferously are recent shows being defended by editors who grew up with them, those shows are most like to be the ones whose articles were indexed as they came out, and should be easily located in the library's archives. Photocopy the half dozen pages, note the publication info in the margin for citation, come home and include it. Heck, sign on AT the library and do it all from there. This is not rocket science, and I'm really sick and tired of the blanking accusation being trotted out every time TTN is accused, when we all know how redirects work in the history. ThuranX (talk) 13:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

See, this culture of people (same people) going out of their way in defending TTNs behavior while making every attempt to prevent any kind of review of TTNs behavior is adding to the disruption. Also the state and quality of the said articles is not the issue here. People are not given medals for revert waring. Arbcoms rulings are rather absolute. I presume you are new to the inner workings of wikipedia and what arbcom is. Per the rationale behind WP:POINT:

If you spot an article lacking proper secondary sources citation

• do attempt to find a source and/or bring the issue to the attention of the general community
• don't remove all content on all articles laking secondary source citation without even bothering to skim through the pages

-- Cat ^chi? 13:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I don't agree with you, I must be new? ArbCom didn't issue a cease and desist, or even a loud 'knock it off' to TTN, or that would be that. He's got policies and guidelines on his side, wide support for his actions, and at least some Wikiprojects and editors are listening, accepting redirects, and then working to edit towards better articles. That's all ideal results for using policy. ThuranX (talk) 05:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to send him an e-mail or something. Some of these situations are no big deal, but some of them are concerns that need to be looked at. At the very least, we need TTN to not appear as aggressive. Appearances are half the battle on Wikipedia, and his actions don't just effect him, but people's views on the guidelines being cited. That's not to say he needs to put up some fake smiles or anything like that. I understand TTN's frustration. I should have followed up on this more before we got to the point of needing even the first arbcom case. There's a lot of things.. timing and the way things are said.. that could be easily improved and allow things to go much smoother. And yes, on several of these he does need to just stop and discuss, but on several he's also citing legitimate discussions that back up his actions. It's.. a complicated headache. -- Ned Scott 09:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not a battle. Wikipedia is not a battleground. -- Cat ^chi? 12:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

side comment.. "X are/is half the battle" is meant only as a phrase. -- Ned Scott 08:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Which rather invites the question why so many people fight so hard to keep material that abjectly fails policy and content guidelines. You seem to be missing all the battling going on on one side of this dispute. Guy (Help!) 19:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't agree that it "abjectly fails policy and content guidelines". And honestly, it seems like people opposing TTN do very little of anything that could be described as fighting. The response has actually been, for the most part, pitifully meek. Everyking (talk) 21:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just TTN, but it's the other side harrassing the living hell out of him. Just stop this bs and let's edit the wikipedia. As for characters and espisotes, I agree with TTN there, but this is too much reverting, and little discussion. Secret ^account 21:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Why edit if the material could potentially be gone within a few years with just a simple button press? It's far easier to remove information than it is to add information on Wikipedia. TTN has shown me the light, and many others. With deletionists running the show and Guy berating 'fancruft' contributors with his always civil wit, adding to the any part of the mainspace is a waste of time. 75.65.91.142 (talk) 23:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Weather you agree with TTN or not, to put it mildly, is none of my concern. A lack of discussion is exactly the problem. TTNs edits are not based on consensus even if they may be the best thing since sliced bread. TTN isn't prone to discussion and instead to revert warring among other kinds of disruption.
There are many articles in violation of many and sometimes contradicting guidelines. In this case weather or not a guideline is violated or weather if such a violation is punishable by immediate and unconditional blanking/redirectification itself is disputed. Should we mass remove all articles that violates some random guideline? How about doing so while avoiding or making an effort to avoid all discussion?
If TTN is getting harassed, I'd like to see the evidence for that. Him getting harassed however is no excuse for TTNs continuing conduct.
-- Cat ^chi? 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletionists don't have time to put forth the effort to have a discussion. Discussion is too much work. Deleting and merging things like mad while having deletionist admins do all the work for him, sticking up for him no matter what, is the way to go. Maybe he'll make one comment on the thread to make it seem like he's listening, but nah, that's as far as it goes. Reading is too much effort. It's already been proven time and time again that he won't ever be punished for this behavior since so many people with the tools supports his every action, so there's absolutely no point for him to listen to these. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

In this spesific case nothing is merged despite the merge claim. -- Cat ^chi? 17:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not a content issue

People seem to confuse or intentionally overlook the rationale behind this complaint so allow me to rephrase:

• This entry is over the user conduct of User:TTN NOT over the content of the articles. Content of the articles is beyond the scopte of this entry.
  • This isn't the first time wikipedians had to deal with articles that may or may not have a problem with them. Resolving such issues requires the participation of the entire wikipedia community not just "inclusionist fans" and "deletionist anti-fans"
  • Articles neither have any legal nor urgent issue with them such as WP:BLP violations.
• TTN is mass removing content despite objections.
  • Weather you call TNN's actions redirectification, blanking, mering, etc is besides the point
  • Weather or not the information is in the history log is besides the point. Thats like saying it is fine to randomly delete (via admin delete) articles which have some sort of non-critical problem with them just because they can be undeleted.
  • Creation of such redirects creates problems. Such problems include
    • The mass orphanage of fair-use images which creates a back log for admins
    • Possible mass creation of double redirects which may be hard to reverse as once bots process them they'd have to be dealt with individually.
• Users actions are NOT based on consensus no mater how good or bad they may be
  • There is no agreement that all bad episode articles are to be purged on sight. If so please cite such a consensus.
  • There isn't an overflow of new entries given the current Writers Guild of America strike, and even then the rate of article creation had never been any way near at the rate of TTNs removal.
• User revert wars (see history of Bulbasaur)
• User avoids discussion on the "real matter"
  • User does not take part in the WP:DR process. User only has a single 2-line post in the previous RFAR and has no participation whatsoever in the current one.

-- Cat ^chi? 18:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Heh, check this AfD close reason by an admin. Even he knows that TTN gets what TTN wants, so there's no point in opposing him. It's sad, but this is what the project has become. 216.37.86.10 (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• "all the idiots who fill Wikipedia with cruft": Again, one user's cruft is another user's important matter. For example, I have no interest in football, and to me most football matter is footballcruft, and when reading the newspaper I skip over it, and when it starts in the morning TV news I often switch off; but I do not maraud around Wikipedia deleting or redirectifying the football articles. (And I suspect that someone will have to go through TTN's contributions list reverting his redirectings, if this discussion's verdict allows it.) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[WikiEN-l] mailing list

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I would like to know how it is appropriate for editors to make defamatory comments about other editors on Wikipedia mailing lists with an expectation that the editor being defamed will most likely not see it. For example, User:Ansell found it necessary to refer to myself and User:Pedro as "irresponsible" parents for posting images of our children. Not as if magazines, TV ads, billboards, books, websites, etc don't have images of children. But somehow, in posting an image of each of my children in bathrobes makes me an irresponsible mother to the point that someone that doesn't know me from Eve feels vindicated in telling it to a group of my peers behind my back. I'd like to know if this sort of behavior is endorsed by the community. Lara❤Love 04:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I was the first one to post on his talk page. I was just flabbergasted by the lack of regard for other people's feelings as well as the quick jump for moral superiority. In fact, if it wasn't for someone telling Lara that the post was made about her, she wouldn't have known. I find that very shady. It wouldn't be acceptable if he told her to her face that she was a bad mother; why would it be acceptable on the mailing list? Mike H. Fierce! 04:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Absolutely not. And, I've told him so. That sorta thing doesn't really have a place here. SQL^{Query me!} 04:57, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Given that many of us have already commented at his talk page, I’d like to hear a response from him first – although I agree he was way out of line. Ryan Postlethwaite 05:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not LaraLove, but I definitely don't want to hear justifications or him trying to defend his words, because they're totally indefensible. Mike H. Fierce! 05:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
  • No, I kind of want to know what makes him think that these images make me an irresponsible mother. And what makes him think it's acceptable to voice that belief on a mailing list of my peers knowing that not only am I not there to respond, but no one was notified from the BRC that we were even the topic of discussion. They just started editing my subpage before someone else contacted us. Lara❤Love 05:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In case my edit is the one being complained about here, I apologize for editing first and commenting on the talk page second. All I did was remove the title override and I didn't think that'd be a major issue, it didn't occur to me until afterward that you and the others who worked on the page might not know about the mailing list thread and some of the other stuff being talked about in it. Sorry about that. Bryan Derksen (talk) 06:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• LaraLove, I agree that (at the very minimum) you should have been informed of the thread at wiki-en-L, preferably by the person who started it; and I too find that bald statement to be inappropriate. In fact, it never occurred to me that you hadn't been made aware, otherwise I might well have contacted you myself on reading it. I'm sure you're a fine mother. However, I am not sure if you are aware that a photo of Boy Scouts, hosted here and uploaded by a respectable editor, was recently found to have been used by another "adult oriented" wiki in a manner in which many people (myself included) found unacceptable. Indeed, it is my understanding that there were multiple complaints about the content in this wiki (there were other images of children involved) to the point that it has been at least temporarily removed from public access. The use of this photograph by the other wiki was perfectly legal; because of the licensing requirements of Wikimedia, anyone can use any of our photos in any way that they wish. While no doubt most people using Wikimedia or Wikipedia images does so in perfectly reasonable ways, there are sadly some people whose uses of these images would make your hair curl. From that perspective, and assuming the photos are indeed hosted here, you might wish to reconsider. That isn't a comment about your parenting, as I really think Wikipedia and Wikimedia could be a lot more forthcoming on the fact that once uploaded, the "owner" of the photo essentially gives up all control as to how it is used. Risker (talk) 05:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Lara, the kiddie porn industry *loves* new pics of kids, and they often take kids' heads and put them on to naked bodies to create more porn pics. Just an FYI, besides that it was inappropriate for someone to talk about you behind your back. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Lara, suggest you read this regarding the wikia Risker mentioned. To be honest I was horrified and I don't even have kids. Viridae^Talk 05:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I see this has nicely been packaged into a revision of the 'if she wasn't wearing that outfit...' scenario. It's not about a sodomizing pedophile with access to Photoshop, it's about public domain and other free-licenses. the_undertow ^talk 05:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Well, all I know is that the few people I have approached to provide photographs have asked me if I was out of my tree when I explained the GFDL license. I would certainly never post photos of children under the terms of that license. Then again, one of my friends is a cybercrime police officer. Risker (talk) 05:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I can't control what people do with any of my images. I upload them knowing that they can be used by anyone. However, I can't imagine my kid's images being photoshopped into kiddie porn legally, considering kiddie porn is illegal. The issue, regardless, is that I am not an irresponsible parent, nor is Pedro, for posting images of our children. Lara❤Love 05:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• No, and I wasnt trying to say you were. Viridae^Talk 06:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I wasn't referring to you. Merely refocusing the point of the thread. Lara❤Love 06:13, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• I don't have much to say. I stand by my comment that it is dangerous to put childrens pictures on the internet. Honestly didn't see that as causing a fuss, particularly as it was said two days ago on the mailing list and noone said anything there. Ansell 06:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• You in essence passed moral judgment and called LaraLove and Pedro bad parents. Who are you to pass judgment on another person's parenting skills? And the fact that you defend your words, that's just so utterly contemptible. It makes me sick. Mike H. Fierce! 06:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• And might I add, you said it on the mailing list and not to LaraLove or Pedro directly, which just reeks of cattiness. If you're going to go for the jugular, why try to keep it from them? They clearly weren't aware, and the fact that you more or less don't care that they're offended by your statement says a lot about you as a person. That's my moral judgment. Don't like it? Don't dish it out. Mike H. Fierce! 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• This photo re-use stuff is scary. Anyway, one should not comment on the parenting skills of another. The person(s) making such comments should apologize. TableManners^C·U·T 06:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
• Right, the comment on "parenting skills" is completely out of place. There is another reason for not posting kids pictures online (especially not if their names are easily googled and/or Mummy or Daddy's pages have a high page-rank. The kids grow up, they turn into rotten teenagers and are (rightly so) horrified when their peers find these pictures that they feel are inappropriate. Trying to remove them from Google's cache is extremely difficult. But who thinks of this when uploading pictures? Better to put a picture of a tree or a stone on you page :) --WiseWoman (talk) 06:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Some of the comments seem to be coming from people in countries where the faces of children in public are covered. Well, it is winter in Canada right now, so maybe they're seasonal comments. -- SEWilco (talk) 06:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Ansell, when it was said is irrelevant. I was notified on this night. Perhaps no one caught it amongst the whiney mess regarding the BRC and the "css hack" that displayed a harmless redirect to a joke subpage which was advertised no where outside of Wikipedia and it's IRC channels. Your comment was inappropriate and defamatory. And WiseWoman, I seriously fail to see that as a realistic situation. Lara❤Love 06:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure why everyone is putting up a big fuss. If I was someone who was prone to taking offense to general comments I might be offended by people saying that because I don't say things to people face I am "catty" and a bad person. I still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants, provided somewhere they provide a link back. Absolutely no protection means any change is legal from a copyright perspective, even if it is illegal under child porn laws. GFDL'd childrens pictures are dangerous, full stop! That was the essential message to established editors who can be presumed to be aware of freedom of reuse and modification as the complete basis of wikipedia/GFDL.

As far as commenting to their face, I would have if I was made aware by anyone at all on the list that the comment could be taken in a bad way personally attacking the particular parents, instead of just expressing a humble, if objectionable, opinion (ie, humble as demonstrated by the way I finished the comment off in an abrupt fashion, that has been mistakenly taken for non-chalance to them as people, here). Personally it is quite distressing to have people attack you randomly two days after you make a one-sentence off-topic statement on the mailing list. Please don't jump to conclusions so much.

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list. Ansell 07:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for offending anyone personally. I didn't realise people were so restricted to expressing opinions in what is normally a very fussy mailing list.

That is such a "bitchslap" apology if I've ever heard one. "Sorry, but, you know, I don't feel bad." If you don't feel bad, then don't fake it. But be prepared for people to not like your opinion. Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you want to read it that way, but it sounds to me that Ansell is making perfect sense. -- Ned Scott 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give everyone who doesn't comment on this now pointless section a barnstar. John Reaves 07:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

How is that helpful? Mike H. Fierce! 07:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It's a joke, an attempt to quell this pointless cat fight. John Reaves 07:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Opinions regarding the personal traits of others are always screened and I'm amazed that this one wasn't. I imagine it's because you were smart enough to bury it deep in your message and the mods overlooked it. I'm shocked and horrified, not merely by your initial comment, but by the fact that you don't regard it to be out of line. The issue is not what Lara or Pedro are doing. The issue is you daring to call out people you don't know about a fundamentally sensitive subject such as how they parent their children. You would be censured for accusing people about their sexuality, gender or nationality, and I can't see how this is any better.

That said - I don't see this can be solved here, and mailing list mods should be contacted. That place is a cesspool anyway and things like this just make it worse. ~ Riana ⁂ 07:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

tl;dr, what ever happened to people not being so freaking sensitive? Was it kind of rude? yeah. It's something where LoraLove should tell Peter "hey, that's not cool". Making a post on ANI about it... dude, get over it. If Peter wants to apologies, he will. If he doesn't, get over it. Move on, it's not that bad. Somebody called you a bad parent behind your back? Quick, somebody call the waaaamubance! (see, that's uncivil. What Peter did was harsh, but not necessarily uncivil). -- Ned Scott 07:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

LaraLove has been called a bad mother on Wikipedia in the past. Considering her past experiences, I don't think it's "sensitive" of her, and honestly, your comments don't help and just piss people off more. Was that your goal? Mike H. Fierce! 07:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, damn, Ned. Who knew that someone could be bitchier here than Mike. Well played. Now go back to obviously not being a parent and let the adults talk. Lara❤Love 07:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(to Mike) Past experiences? I am unaware of what you seem to be hinting at. Peter said that he believes that anyone who posts pictures of their underage kids on Wikipedia is being irresponsible. He did so in the middle of a discussion where LaraLove's pictures were being talked about. I'm just going to take a guess here and say... the comment wasn't unique to her, but just something that Peter felt in general. And you know what, that's not such a crazy opinion to have (I don't agree with it, but it's not "out there").

Some people think that stuff, it's not the end of the world. I'm religious, and some people think that religious people are stupid for believing such things. I flip them off in my mind and move on. My best friend is one of these people. Hey, what are ya gonna do.

(to Lara): You want to pretend to know about my family life, go ahead. -- Ned Scott 07:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I was referring to the past experience of already having to hear that a Wikipedia editor thought she was a bad mother, seemingly for no concrete reason at all. And honestly, I don't believe that he mentioned that "as a coincidence." He knew who was in discussion, and he made the comment. Whether you think it or not, it's absolutely rude, tacky, tasteless, nasty, catty, bitchy, etc. to actually voice it at someone. Plus, unless you're willing to have someone scrutinize how you raise your kids, they should just step the hell off. Mike H. Fierce! 07:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It strikes me as inherently counterproductive to resort so directly and abrasively to ad hominem attacks when complaining about a vague comment that's already been apologized for. Getting cliquey is not going to solve this. Throwing around more insults is not going to solve this, much less so the same sorts of unfortunate comments about family life that got this whole thing started. Why don't we all calm down just a notch? Yes, bad things happened; no, we don't need to make that any worse. – Luna Santin (talk) 07:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so sorry this is so distressing for you. First of all, you people are so concerned with the BRC but not concerned enough to mention anything to anyone who actually participates in it? Throwing around speculation and concern over a joke page that doesn't affect you, not bothering to get any details from anyone who actually knows anything about it. Then you have this genuine concern for the well-being of my kids and Pedro's, but no inclination to actually inform either of us of this important concern? You "still want to know if the person is aware that photos uploaded to wikipedia can be used in whatever way a person wants", I am "the person". Hai, I'm Lara. I already stated I am aware. Still so concerned, yet no desire to ask me. That doesn't make sense. Lara❤Love 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

• Re-focussing this thread back to Lara's original complaint. Had we been libeled as "poofters", "niggers", "religious nutters" or any other disgusting attack we'd probably be seeing a lot more direct input here.... However, I take great exception to being called a bad parent, and I take even further exception to the way it was done, where I could never have seen it and have a chance to reply (not that I'm going to even bother defending my parenting skills). I am appaled that this editor was too cowardly to address either Lara or I directly on our talk pages about his "concerns". Nevertheless, I think on reading the above the community agrees that it was an ill-considered comment and I would prefer to move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not having the conversation in a better place, that, and not being alerted to the fact by others who potentially saw something hurtful in the statement, make for a very confusing discussion of this issue. One, I don't like the fact that this was not taken up with me personally before it was brought here. (Leaving posts on my page and then coming here anyway before I respond doesn't impress me. Please don't take offense to that, I just prefer to discuss things in less public places, at least at first, as it doesn't create large amounts of confusion). I apologised on the mailing list and here. What more do you want? People were telling you about the dangers of this, as demonstrated by the wikipedia review link, before I got a chance to reply, but you are still asking what the dangers are. GFDL=Freedom=Loss of control=Children's pictures anywhere anytime without any explicit permission=Reflection on image poster. Thats what I was really trying to get at by my short off-topic comment which was not pursued by any of the participants, and I doubt even moderators, seeing as other participants left it alone, would have felt the need to sanction me for it, as they would have asked for a retraction/apology immediately if they saw fit to. I am not one who enjoys firestorm reactions to short comments. Cheers, Ansell 08:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bluntly, and briefly as I can, as this is going off topic again. I don't care about a perceived issue with someone photoshopping a picture of my boy's head onto a naked child for the sexual gratification of peadophiles. I've often thought there's money to be made in flogging my parents entire collection of me in the nude at ages 1-5 to the sickos, as frankly I don't give a toss if they get their rocks of over it. The point is simple - if you were that concerned about "the dangers" why did you not approach Lara and I directly? Basically, you weren't, you made a throw away comment and you are now trying to defend it through a spurious argument that you are doing the best thing to protect our children - which is actually coming over as ever more offensive than the original comment. I said it above - you've made a mistake or error of judgment as it were, you seem to accept that it was a poor choice of words and that's it. Let's move on. Pedro :  Chat  08:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi just surfing in with another view. I didn't read Ansell's post on wiki-en, and whether he really did call people 'bad parents' in those terms. Some people are more guarded than others on the internet, and they can be shocked at what others willingly disclose. So I can see that he might have concerns about it, and the parents concerned might not- that's not either side's 'fault' or wrong perception though- just that people have different degrees of relaxation about what they disclose on the internet (for instance I would never share my legal name on my user page etc, but some people do so happily.) Anyway my point is, I can't form an opinion unless I have seen the post concerned by Ansell, and the language he used, whether he said 'bad parents' or instead 'I can't understand a parent doing that' or something. If you ask his opinion I'm sure he would let someone quote the relevant bit of his post here- as people are being asked to make a judgement/opinion on ANI, without knowing the wording (in context) of that on which they are commenting. If you are discussing it here it should be written out here or people who aren't on wiki-en list can't form an opinion, and no I don't want to join wiki-en, though I'm sure it's lovely, I'm on enough lists.:) As to it being Ansell going behind Lara and Pedro's backs- that's obviously a bit rude- on the other hand it could be that he wanted to discuss general issues rather than them specifically, which I imagine is a good use of wiki-en. But if he just wanted to use what they did as an example in discussion, he could have been more tactful and not named names. You see we really can't tell without having read his post. Merkinsmum 09:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what you're looking for? Pedro :  Chat  09:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

"On a side note, I am completely anti putting underage childrens photos on personal user pages. It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that. But that isn't really the issue here. "

And just to point it out for many people here, note how he specifically comments on the photo issue. He does not say that anyone is a bad parent over all, or makes any judgment for anything other than uploading pictures of them under a free-license. It's a very specific comment, and one that has been incorrectly translated as "bad mother". Doesn't make it ok, doesn't make it whatever, I'm just saying that the comment is being read into far more than it should be. -- Ned Scott 09:51, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You appear to lack the ability to read sentences placed between other sentences. It's okay, I'll pull it out for you; "It is utterly irresponsible for a parent to do that." I said "irresponsible parent". Regardless, you appear to be completely oblivious to the point. If you're not offended, good for you. Step off, because of the two editors specifically referred to (the thread is about the BRC page, which includes three images of children; my two kids and "Son of Pedro"), both are offended. And both happen not to appreciate the "apology". kthxbye, Lara❤Love 13:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Is there any admin action required here? Otherwise take it to the mailing list. Relata refero (talk) 14:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

On the picture issue itself... can you spell "moral panic"? The GFDL (and any other license someone might place a picture uploaded here under) is a copyright license, it does not constitute a waiver of other rights [such as personality rights] nor does it allow people to do things that are illegal with the picture. Moreover, if bad people are inclined to do illegal things with pictures, copyright isn't going to be something that will stop them from doing so. —Random832 15:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:STALK

This edit ([58]) is example of a violation of WP:STALK. Yahel Guhan has never edited the article before, nor has he/she posted anything on the article's talk page. The user's first edit is simply a revert of mine. I notified the user on his/her talk page, but he/she simply removed my comments.[59]

Please note that recently, User:Blnguyen blocked me for 72-hours for reverting another user on an article I had never edited (even though I ahd not been warned, nor had I ever followed the user before). Another admin thought that such actions justify a 72-hour block.Bless sins (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You have a long history of stalking me before[60][61][62], editing articles right after me, reverting me on articles you never edited before until I did so, editing right after me[63], starting edit wars over material that there is consensus for right after I start editing a page [64] I have warned this user three times about this before, asking him to stop.[65][66][67] I made a report yesterday on this page, Bless sins is the first to respond [68] It is obvious that bless sins is wikistalking me. On this RFA, Bless sins opposed after I voted "support" [69] Bless sins first edit to Islamophobia in months is a revert of me [70] Yahel Guhan 06:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Hold on. Wait a minute. You mentioned three edits of mine, and I'll respond to them. In the first one, the fact is that I gave warning to a user([71]) who made personal attacks against Yahel Guhan, and Yahel calls it "stalking"? Not to mention the fact that WP:ANI is on my watchlist, perhaps I should stop defending you against uncivil editors. Also, the other edit you mention([72]), there I improved the article (no one can deny that) by making a minor edit. Admins please check it out for yourself. I came to the article since you nominated it for "good articles" and I happen to watch these articles (and review them as well). Finally , regarding this edit, it wasn't a stalk: I had edited the same article just 10 days before ([73]).Bless sins (talk) 06:56, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Regarding other edits, Yahel can hardly accuse me of taking in interest in the placement of "Islam and antisemitism" category. If an admin reviews my edits, he/she will find that my number one contribution to wikipedia has been "Islam and antisemitism". In some case, it is worth noting that Yahel stalked me: for example Yahel's first edit here was a direct revert of my edit).Bless sins (talk) 07:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

First, you made it perfectly clear why you warned the user in your comment: "As a fellow wikipedian, who would like to see you stay on wikipedia and make a positive contribution, I advise you to keep your comments in accordance with WP:NPA [74] This user was in conflict with me, sou you automaticly support him/her. Second, I highly doubt Black Hebrew Israelites is not in your watchlist. It isn't like you ever edit African American or Judaism articles, as I do (except to revert something I add that is slightly against your worldview). But when you see I nominate it for a GA, you suddenly start editing there. You really can't review that article anyway, since you are obviously bias against me. As for Black supremacy, you edited it 10 days before, because I edited it one day before that:[75], so you looked for something to start an edit war over after I started editing there. I hardly doubt you were just editing Islam and antisemitism category stuff, because you left some of the stuff other editors added alone, not objecting until months later when you finally notived it. Yahel Guhan 07:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Whoa. This is a mess, could both of you present your cases calmly and without sniping at each other? It'll make sorting this out a whole lot easier. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 07:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

As for the original article that lead to this, frst of all, I am not stalking you. I am making legitimite edits. Second, I do edit islam articles(which is clear from my contribs history), as is the topic of this particular article, and I didn't revert until I read the duscussion, and took a side in the dispute. Yahel Guhan 07:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

No, you appear to have removed ([76]) sourced content - content sourced to the Oxford University Press. Furthermore, you had not joined the talk page before (or even after) reverting my edits.Bless sins (talk) 07:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have not joined yet. I was about to, then noticed you made this report, and assumed this was more important. Yahel Guhan 07:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Joining is actually beside the point. When I was blocked, I was actually discussing the issue on talk. If you really acknowledge your mistake (and I acknowledge I haven't been entirely fair in the past either), you'd self-revert, and let us both move on.Bless sins (talk) 07:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

You were not discussing the issue, you were ignoring it. Anyone who cares about this can read the details of BS's block here and in the subsequent sections. His groundless attacks here seem to be out of frustration that he was caught and blocked for his own disruptive behavior. Arrow740 (talk) 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Observation and idea. Having observed both parties and tried working with them some at Islam and antisemitism, I'm not sure this is a typical wikistalking case. They both seem knowledgeable, pretty familiar with WP policies, and earnest. But, and I hope they don't mind my saying this, I wonder if both of them are deriving more benefit from arguing rather than resolving issues. They have a pretty long history together, sorta like an odd couple. They might in some ways enjoy this, but it's not so healthy for the encyclopedia. Regardless of whether a block is applied due to stalking, another kind of sanction might be useful to shift them into a more constructive working relationship (or none at all). For instance, what if they were given 1-2 articles (such as Islam and antisemitism) in which they're quite invested, and given 1 week to demonstrate serious progress in resolving their editorial differences. Meanwhile, they would be required not to confront each other on any other article during that week. (This could be applied first come, first serve, or else do a "draft" of their various shared articles.) Maybe they'll find somebody to help facilitate their effort that week, maybe not. In any case, an uninvolved admin should decide whether they've actually made significant progress. (E.g., have they reached consensus on specific article sections, to the point where they don't need to rehash that section?) After one week, either they get another week on that article (if progress is made) or else the admin should ban one or both from that article for a substantial period of time. Yes, this may be an unusual response, but these editors have been at it for a long time, and over quite a range of articles. While it may seem tough to expect progress in a week, I'm hoping they would appreciate the difficulty posed from this situation. Alternatively, let them divvy up Wikipedia (up to 1M articles each) and take a 2 month break from each other. Thanks for your consideration. HG | Talk 13:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Bless sins was blocked for stalking just recently so I dont feel his report of stalking could be authentic. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 14:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he mentions that above. Its part of his argument actually. Relata refero (talk) 14:49, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

He does have a valid point in a way - if he was blocked for "stalking" on such a poor basis, it could be seen as meaning that such actions are considered stalking and that anyone else who does something similar should also be blocked. —Random832 20:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The two reviewing admins left him blocked after looking into the details. He followed me to an article about a subject in Buddhism (which he's shown no interest in before, and this is a key point) and reverted me twice while completely ignoring my justification for my edit. His talk page post (which he posted after I pointed out his disruption) also reads as if I had given no justification. Read about this on his talk page. Arrow740 (talk) 10:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is a valid point (see also [77], first comment, where another admin pointed out the same thing). But I don't think any block on Yahel does any good here. Wikipedia is stressful for both Bless sins and Yahel Guhan because they are editing controversial articles, but that's life :P --Be happy!! (talk) 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Sarah777

I would like to report uncivil behaviour and personal attacks left on my talk page by the above user. I had previously left a uw-3RR warning on this user's talk page as they had reverted edits to United Kingdom twice within a matter of hours and appeared to be involved in an edit war. My original comment was civil and polite, however I was accused of making a personal attack by Sarah777, and the original warning template was removed from their talk page. I restored the template and explained that it was meant as a friendly warning. At this point the template was removed again, and replaced with the following text:

==So much for that, eh?==

Nothing here!

The following threat was also left on my talk page:

Maybe you don't realise that in this context the phrase "(friendly) warning" is an oxymoron? Please stay away from my talk page. Now that is a warning! Sarah777 (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I again replaced the template on Sarah777's talk page and warned them about their behaviour regarding deletion of discussions and personal attacks, however, the discussion was again replaced with the text above (I have not reverted again on this occasion, as this would be considered a breach of 3RR in itself). A second threat has also been made on my talk page:

I see your harassment continues. Second time I ask you - stay off my talkpage. This is a warning. Sarah777 (talk) 00:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I must stess that at no point have I made any personal attack or threat against Sarah777 and do not class my actions as "harassment". I feel that Sarah777's actions constitute an attempt to bully me simply for adding a civil warning on their talk page, and as such are a breach of Wikipedia's guidelines. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FYI - Editors are allowed to remove warnings and other content from their talkpage. Revert-warring to have them remain (especially a uw-3RR!) is not advised. ^Avruchtalk 00:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

there's no need to replace the template. If she's seen it to delete it, she's seen it to know she can get in trouble, and if she breaks 3RR, then she has no defense. Stop pissing her off, and move on. And yes, she's being ridiculously hostile about it too. Get out of her way and let her get in trouble on her own. ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Dan, please see WP:DRC. Lara❤Love 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I had (wrongly) assumed that the same rules applied to user talk pages as article talk pages. Dan1980 (talk | stalk) 00:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A lot of people assume this, and many people try to enforce it. The reasons why we allow "warnings" to be removed are listed here. ➔ REDVEЯS has changed his plea to guilty 08:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Review welcomed

The account Makesbasis (talk · contribs) was created 01:27, 1 February 2008 and perfectly AfD'ed the Main Page featured article two minutes later, at 01:29, 1 February 2008 (the user's first edit). I closed the AfD, blocked the user for trolling, and s/he is now requesting to be unblocked. Independent reviews welcome. - auburnpilot talk 01:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse. If they keep abusing the unblock template I will protect their talk page. Nakon 02:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Keep as a useful object lesson. The anti-IAR crowd should meditate on this. Friday (talk) 02:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block. Gotta be a sockpuppet, it's very unlikely that a brand new editor could figure out an AFD so easily. Also, gross incivility on his talk page. Useight (talk) 02:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I've protected his talk page as it is now being used for personal attacks. Nakon 02:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments, and an extremely late welcome back to you, Nakon (just made the connection). - auburnpilot talk 02:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Th45623j (talk · contribs) sockmaster identified. - auburnpilot talk 02:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Should I feel bad for laughing at this? I mean... I kinda feel sorry for him, almost. We should keep his IP blocked for a month or two, if he's grown up he can come back. Lumberjake (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't feel bad. I liked it too. - auburnpilot talk 13:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Makeb2 (talk · contribs) reverted the close, so a few more comments got in, but I've since re-closed the discussion. The user in question was subsequently blocked for an hour by User:Luna Santin for attempting to re-add the nomination template to the article, and their block was then extended to indefinite. So there's 2 confirmed sockpuppets now. --jonny-mt 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Systematic deletion of my contributions to Wikipedia

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

Resolved

 – Ronnotel blacklisted the site in question. Thanks to Wfgh66 for bringing this issue to the attention of the admins so it could be dealt with in an appropriate manner. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, my contributions to Wikipedia are systematically being deleted by 77.49.252.57. And by Wikipedia Administrator Versageek. Is there any reason for this? Can anyone kindly please offer me an explanation? I would be most grateful. And all references to information and source material to the www.priory-of-sion.com website that have been in the Wikipedia articles for a considerable period of time (ie, years) and were placed in those Wikipedia articles by former Wikipedia contributors as well as Wikipedia Administrators (ie, Loremaster, Paul Barlow, etc) are also being systematically culled and deleted. I admit that some references to the website were placed by me, but definitely not all of them. References to websites of a dubious and pseudo-historical nature, on the other hand, remain intact. Please can anyone here provide a rational explanation as to why myself, wfgh66, and material sources of information from the www.priory-of-sion.com in relation to relevant Wikipedia articles are being targetted and deleted? The website concerned is hardly "spam" as described by 77.49.252.57, having being used as a source of material and reference for many books published throughout the world (I can back this up) and by numerous television satellite documentaries (I can back this up), bearing in mind it contains a large amount of unique primary source documentation not found in published books. Thank you for any reply.Wfgh66 (talk) 04:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, maybe "spam" is the wrong word, but the website appears to woefully fail Wikipedia's guidelines for reliability in that it does not appear to have any attribution at all. There is no person to hold accountable for the content of that website (no authors, publishers, ANYTHING) and there does not appear to be any sort of editorial control as one would expect from a scholarly, reliable site. While the site is not commercial, it appears to be a personal website of very little reliablity, and is thus wholly inappropriate as a source for Wikipedia articles. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(ec)It doesn't look like a reliable source to me — perhaps that is why they are removing it? --Haemo (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Are you claiming social engineering against you, or you just need to spend a little time getting to know the Wikipedia community? Igor Berger (talk) 04:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to post(WP:CANVASS) the same thing 3 times here and at Administrator intervention against vandalism, Conflict of interest/Noticeboard, User talk:Eliz81 and User talk:Coelacan. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Wfgh66

Wfgh66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Rocky2276 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
Wfgh447 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
195.92.168.167 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) ^[78]
--Hu12 (talk) 05:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• priory-of-sion.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  --Hu12 (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, please can someone help me out here? My website is a personal website, true - but it contains much material that is unique and not found in published books and that is why it is used by authors and documentary makers. It is certainly not "spam" - does a website have to be only a university website to avoid being cast into the "spam" category? Who is 77.49.252.57 and can someone here - another Administrator - at least PLEASE contact Versageek as to why he is targetting me by removing my contributions to Wikipedia. Can please another Administrator do this, because I know I will get a Block just for replacing deleted material. Why is it being deleted in the first place - that's all I want to know. Thank you for any help. And the deletions began long before the sockpuppet incident, I admit that's my mistake but that's a seperate issue unrelated to the deletions. Please can someone help me on this. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent. Unfortunately your conflict of interest editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote priory-of-sion.com. Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Your contributions to wikipedia under Wfgh66 and underRocky2276, consist of adding external links to priory-of-sion.com and is considered WP:Spam. It is becomming apparent that your account(s) a are being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines. You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote priory-of-sion.com right? --Hu12 (talk) 05:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Wfgh66, Please stop spamm canvassing; Administrator intervention against vandalism and another User talk:MER-C--Hu12 (talk) 05:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• As has been noted above, the links appear to be removed because they do not link to any site that is reliable by Wikipedia definitions, and thus are unsuitable for use as a reference. If this is unsatisfactory to you, I am sorry. But the removals of the links do NOT appear to be vandalism in any way, and are in accordance with established Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Please do not claim that anyone is "targeting" or "stalking" you. That a small number of editors are cleaning up this issue does not mean they have anything personal against you. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi, the material on the website is exclusively unique not found anywhere else. I appreciate the issue relating to self-promotion. But I am also only contributing to Wikipedia articles that are of interest to me. What do I do? Keep away from Wikipedia because it has links to my website? Too late now because those links are now being systematically deleted by individuals and Administrators. And now I find my "non-promotional" contributions are being systematically deleted however small they may be. Can anyone out there please offer me any advice. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Being unique does not necessarily qualify as reliable. Does your website itself link to reliable sources? If so, those sources (as opposed to your website) may be cited? I have not investigated myself farther than the link you provided above, but the link you give is itself wholly inappropriate as a reference. I find it dubious that yoru website contains information which is unavailible in any other reputable book, peer-reviewed journal, or other editorially-controled source. If it does, then how do we ensure the reliability of the information if your website is the ONLY source in the world of it? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 05:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You have to be an expert on the subject matters covered on the website to appreciate that it is a reliable source. If you develop an interest in Priory of Sion and Rennes-le-Chateau you will immediately realise that. The website has been used as a source for dozens of anti-Da Vinci Code books. The website has been deemed reliable by countless authors and documentary makers. What more can I say, the subject matters are not covered by Educational curriculli because it's generally considered pseudo-history and I am a skeptical debunker.Wfgh66 (talk) 05:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

On WP, it's not what you say, it's what you can prove. You promoting your own website is a clear conflict of interest, and you telling us it's a worthy source isn't going to change that. Unless you can show that it's a reliable source, it's not admissable and is just WP:SPAM. If your website is properly sourced, just use those sources to back up your statements instead of using your website. Snowfire51 (talk) 05:55, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Likewise, there is no grey area here. Either a) The information only exists on your website and nowhere else, and as such was made up by you or b) The information existed somewhere before you put in on your website, and as such can be cited to the original source. This isn't that hard to understand... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, you say you didn't add the links yourself, yet you knew exactly when they were deleted and from which articles, which seems a little strange. --slakr^\ talk / 06:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The material on the website has not been made-up. It consists of scans of primary source documents obtained from the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris, and scans of documents obtained from Prefectures of Police in France. And there is unique research of my own. For example, the Bibliography, which cannot be classified as being made-up material because the existence of the books can be verified. There is nothing of a pseudo-historical nature on the website. Absolutely nothing. That's why the material is used by serious researchers. I am not a mystery buff or a conspiracy theorist. All you have to do is to look at the website to appreciate these facts, like most people have, respectfully.Wfgh66 (talk) 06:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Well then, cite the documents you scanned, cite the books in your bibliography. The link to your website adds nothing to any Wikipedia articles that can not be done by actually citing the sources you used in your website... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the WHOLE POINT OF MY PLACING THIS CONCERN HERE - If I place a link to a scan of an original document it is deemed "spam" and deleted from Wikipedia. That's what I am saying. respectfully,Wfgh66 (talk) 06:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to link to anything to cite it. It is perfectly acceptable to cite non-web-based media with no link at all. Just provide full bibliographic information for the document in question, and that is sufficient. You know, people WERE able to write bibliographies before the internet was invented. I have seen them. And the world did not end. Just cite the source as any other print source. A link is not needed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

But everything and anything I add - including Bibliographical sources - is being deleted - that's the whole point I am making. My contributions are being systematically deleted,Wfgh66 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Did you listen to anything the nice people told you? Your site doesn't meet our standards for linking to external links and you are spamming the links across the site in a clear violation of conflicts of interest. Please stop disrupting this noticeboard and everywhere else, go and read all the links you have been given to our guidelines and policies and, when you resume editing, ensure that your posts meet our standards for inclusion. If you don't do that, a) your edits will be reverted and b) you might find your site added to the spamblacklist. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here, see, 77.49.252.57 is removing links to my website that were placed by others. You can verify this for yourself. respectfully,

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gérard_de_Sède&action=history Wfgh66 (talk) 06:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup, they have removed the LINK, which is inappropriate. If the link was to a scan of an otherwise reliable source, then cite the source itself, using good old bibliographic style, without using any link to the priory of sion website. That will suffice. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That is being deleted, and if I re-instate something three times I violate the x3 ruling and get a block Wfgh66 (talk) 06:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

77.49~ reverted an edit by a blocked sockpuppet. You're not helping your case. Snowfire51 (talk) 06:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I unreservedly acknowledge and apologise for my mistake. Respectfully, Wfgh66 (talk) 06:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• apparantly we have been here before. This is now becoming unacceptably disruptive. I wonder whether a block is now in order? Any comments? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

  No need for block, we do not want to WP:BITE. Please read WP:SEI and next time think really hard before claiming such. Igor Berger (talk) 06:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I think you are missing the point. This user claims to be the owner of the site, the owner of the site was here in 2006 with similar COI spam issues and cannot clearly be a newbie. He has been asked numerous times not to fragment the discussion but has continued to forum show over at AIV and branching off onto user talk pages when there is a centralised discussion here. This is classic disruption 0 especially as he has been told how many times what the problem is and why the edits have been reverted. Exactly how much editor time needs to be wasted on this before it becomes a problem? Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

With respect, that's not the same thing at all and you are citing activity relating to 2006, that was a period of time relating to events not resembling what is happening today. Furthermore, there are literally hundreds of Wikipedia articles containing links to unreliable pseudo-historical websites that are used as "factual sources" and absolutely nothing is being done about this and with respect, you do not even want to discuss this problem. Wfgh66 (talk) 06:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually my point is that you now being disruptive. You know you shouldn't add links to your own site because of the COI but you continue to argue the toss and waste other user's time on this. Please stop. If you want to remove some other unreliable sources and websites be my guest. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

There's links on various other Wikipedias, see below. He also has an account on the French Wikipedia and Wikisource. It's a pity the toolserver has problems.

I'm not going to deal with this now because I should be making featured pictures... MER-C 07:13, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a 24 hour block will teach him to relax? Igor Berger (talk) 07:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This has clearly become overly disruptive, use of sock accounts to to do reverts, canvasing talk pages...this...ect. Wikipedia:POINT#Refusal_to_.27get_the_point.27. "When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, and it becomes obvious that there is a willful refusal to 'get the point' despite the clear statement of policy, and despite reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors, administrators or mediators, then refusal to get the point is no longer a reasonable stance or policy-compliant - it has become a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point."--Hu12 (talk) 07:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Where is the bibliographical detail to Politica Hermetica, Number 10, 1996 on www.priory-of-sion.com that information did not come from any website, I added that fact independently of the website

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

Wfgh66 (talk) 07:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• I recommend a 24 hour block for User:Wfgh66 and then a 30 day bann to run consecative. This user is engaging in WP:SEI and WP:Disruptive Igor Berger (talk) 08:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

So I'm on the receiving-end of being guilty of "social engineering". Wow. That's an eye-opener. Nothing like a good lynching. Especially when folk are easy pickings.Wfgh66 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What the heck is a block and a bann (sic) of two different lengths running consecutively? Some more sense in your comments please. As far as this link to the joke page of wp:SEI see here where IgorBurger says that he is only using this link as a means of irony and sarcasm. It is also about time that he informs you that he is posting this link to his own recently created "essay" all over the place. Thus whilst there are plenty of important comments above relating to this ANI thread - Igor's is a joke which is not meant to be nor is it serious guideline or policy.--VS ^talk 08:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just for the record, this fellow emailed the unblock list yesterday to protest his first 24 hour block. I explained to him that it was not appropriate for him to be edit warring over inclusion of links to his own website and that he should post to the talk pages of the articles he wants his links added to so that an uninvolved and uninvested editor can review the links and add or restore them if they think the links meet our standards for inclusion and are of value to the articles. I also pointed out the applicable policies and guidelines and highlighted the sentences of WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest which deal with websites owned by the editor who wishes to include the links. I then declined his unblock request and suggested he use the 24 hour break to review the policies/guidelines and explained that he was welcome to return once his block had expired but he should refrain from edit warring and should follow the EL#COI guidelines. In the space of about one hour, he sent me nine emails in total insisting that he was right and I was wrong and emailed again even after I asked him to stop emailing. And so I am rather disappointed, but not at all surprised, to see that instead of following the guidelines, he returned instead to immediately restart edit warring over restoring his links and continued with his forum shopping. So I strongly support the reblock and I think if this behaviour continues, we should simply start escalating the blocks since 24 hour blocks don't seem to be touching the sides.

Further, this fellow has had more dealings regarding his website links with administrators and even more directly with the foundation than it would seem from his talk page and his opening post. He has been fighting his link war on Wikipedia at least since March, 2005 and his war has included thinly veiled threats of bad publicity if not given, what sounds like, editorial control of the articles and so I don't think the concerns raised above about biting newbies and so forth are at all valid. Despite the perception he is trying to give, he isn't new to Wikipedia and most certainly is not new to the issue of external links. If this fellow's behaviour continues and if refuses to follow policy/guidelines, we simply need to continue with escalating blocks, followed by a community ban if necessary. After nearly three years, it's time we put a stop to this, the game playing and the forum shopping. Sarah 13:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Ronnotel has blacklisted the site, which should stop its unwarrented use in articles. I would concur with Sarah that if the user in question continues to be a pita and disrupt Wikipedia, as he appears to have been doing for some time, longer-term bans or blocks may be appropriate. I am closing this particular thread, as the main issue (the spammed website) has been resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Trolling on Monetary policy of the USA

Modus operandi: Vandalizing Monetary policy of the USA to support gold bug theories, taking ownership of it. Being generally polite and acknowledging bias, but when reverted, making totally unsubstantiated accusations of censorship and wikilawyering, by using blatantly unreliable sources, then following up by quoting the policy page which says, "Sometimes well-meaning editors may be misled by fringe publications or make honest mistakes when representing a citation." But then, he makes remarks like, "This disruption is unproductive. Please restrain yourself." Possibly a sockpuppet of User:Karmaisking and worth looking into.

See Talk:Monetary policy of the USA.

Note: If anything here is incorrect, please first review the contribs and see if it is possible to fix it because I may have accidentally placed a diff in the wrong place. Thank you.

WP:SPA

He registered a month ago and since then he has only edited the article Monetary policy of the United States‎. See his contribs.

His first edit was some bold original research. [79]

Comments

Is this enough for anyone to at least look into the matter? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 06:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Summarize this in 100 words or less.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I'm not one of them. I actually read that wall of text and have come to the conclusion that this is RFC/U material. east.718 at 07:01, February 1, 2008

I recommend reading WP:SEI before you proceed with your arguments. Igor Berger (talk) 07:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow that is long.! However I agree with East718 request for check user appears absolutely the correct way to go.--VS ^talk 07:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that's Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct rather than check user. - auburnpilot talk 13:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I summarized it in the first paragraph of the collapsed material above. I was extensive and thorough to avoid possible claims of lack of evidence or lack of diffs. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey .. let's accuse me of being a sockpuppet every few weeks. That's always fun. Fun times, and

Your "summarizations" obviously weren't extensive enough (checkuser results here), Zenwhat.

Furthermore, please learn the wikipedia definition of vandalism .. diputable content is generally not vandalism, then also Wikipedia:Avoid_the_word_"vandal"

Your case looks pretty shoddy, especially given the amount of effort put into it.

P.S. ... there is no "original research." If you have a problem with the sources, then maybe take it to the RSN page which already broaches the topic .... ? BigK HeX (talk) 16:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision contains personal contact info

this diff of a vandalism edit contains someone's personal contact information. I think the revision containing the info should be deleted. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:36, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for oversight. The page history is far too long to get rid of it using deletion and selective restoration. --Hut 8.5 07:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I made a request by email. Equazcion •✗/C • 07:43, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

 Done without oversight...deleted article and then restored it. nat.utoronto 08:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Equazcion •✗/C • 08:44, 1 Feb 2008 (UTC)

124.155.55.44

Resolved

 – dealt with--Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

124.155.55.44 is repeatedly adding clean-up, notability tags, etc. to today's featured article. They have been warned several times on his/her talk page. I think that they should at least be blocked for the rest of today (by Wikipedia time)–thedemonhog talk • edits 16:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The IP above stopped editing an hour ago. They may have created an account, but that account has also been blocked, and the autoblock placed on it should have dealt with both of them. This looks resolved. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Monobook deletion

Resolved

Please can an admin delete my monobook.js, thanks?? I tagged it as db-user, but it's not showing up at CAT:CSD. Thanks, --Solumeiras (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Rjd0060 took care of it. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User using sockpuppets to evade a block:

Resolved

 – Sockpuppet blocked. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Cordeyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Trelyon (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

See [158]. The user started a new account, and then redirected their old user page to it. While the new account has done nothing wrong per se, please see the old account and these difs especially, in no particular order, : [159] and [160] and this one [161] The first two led to a 1 day block, the second to a 1 week block. This edit, left IMMEDIATELY after I placed the 1 week block, was left at my talk page by another sock of this user: [162] by which I extended his block to indefinite. This user is the subject of a thread above as well. What think you all? Block the new account? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 16:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No, blocked users do not get to just create another account and then go merrily on their way as though nothing has happened. By the way his user page means "Heil Hitler" (see Fourteen Words). Blocked indef. Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yup. I tagged the pages; sounds like we're done here. MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Complaint, 83.70.249.199

I'm not sure whether this is the right section to log my complaint, but a user has been repeatedly adding TV channels or Kids shows without any sources on articles such as List of channels on Sky Digital in the UK and Ireland or Chart Show Channels, his IP address is 83.70.249.199 so you shoud block it. HMR 17:40, 1 Febrary 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that this edit summary [163] shows a particularly civil way to deal with new editors. There is no real vandalism or blockable action here, but there is a long list of rather incivil comments left here User talk:83.70.249.199. Please don't bite the newbies, instead try dealing with other people as new users, and think about re-educating rather than jumping all over them... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ScienceApologist

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

We have more than enough venues where SA is being discussed, including a very specific discussion at WP:RFAR, and we do not need another one, especially one posted "by proxy" for an editor who doesn't want to stand up and be counted.

---

I am posting this information on behalf of an editor who wishes to remain anonymous for fear of embroiling themselves in the homeopathy/pseudoscience conflict. (After checking their contributions to be sure, I can verify they are not involved in this conflict and have not been previously involved in conflict with ScienceApologist so far as I can tell.) This is simply being posted so that other sysops who are more familiar with the situation may review the circumstances. This is on the incident board instead of AE, because there are more issues involved that just those associated with ArbCom restrictions. I am refraining from espousing my own opinion, instead simply organizing and presenting the evidence and arguments provided to me privately.

ScienceApologist (talk · contribs) appears to be walking the border of disruption to make a point and using literalist, and potentially out-of-context, interpretations of the rules. There are also some continued edit warring and civility issues.

Jehochman warned ScienceApologist about edit warring on Rue.[164] SA blatantly copy/pasted the notice back to Jehochman.[165] This is a POINT and civility concern because Jehochman was not involved in edit warring on the article.[166][167] SA reached four reverts on the article.[168][169][170][171] This was reported and contrary to a plain review of the article history and edit summaries judged to not be a 3RR violation as somehow one revert was not a revert, and therefore it was "not a technical violation" of 3RR. (Specifically, the third edit was judged to not be a revert, but it was a partial reversion, which counts towards 3RR.) Levine2112 reverted up to the hard limit of three reverts, continuing and escalating the edit war.[172][173][174]

SA has POINTily framed the homeopathy issue of a plant's usage in homeopathic remedies, based on the known fact that homeopathic products are known to contain very little to none of the original production substance (though it is unquestionable that the original substances are used to create homeopathic preparations).[175][176] To be fair, ScienceApologist has advocated for a centralized discussion of the issue, which may be a productive step.[177][178] Discussion regarding this issue has also taken place at: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_6#Deadly_nightshade and Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#Deadly_nightshade. SA appears to be dishonest in some of his dismissals, for example claiming that only homeopathic references make the claims (which is contrary to the discussions above and others SA has been aware of and/or involved in).[179]

ScienceApologist created WP:PROMINENCE as a redirect to WP:UNDUE based on the phrase "in proportion to the prominence of each" in that section.[180] He appears to be shifting the sands of UNDUE from the exclusion of extreme minority viewpoints to demanding that the claims be prominent.[181][182][183][184][185][186] These are distinctly different standards and the latter is at least a step removed from the meaning of the policy (which is simply indicating that things should be presented in proper proportion to their appearance in reliable sources). Creating a redirect to frame an ongoing argument is almost certainly a POINT violation. Furthermore, considering the ongoing and heated nature of this discussion, it is unlikely that SA was not aware that such a move would raise the heat of the conflict. On a related note, ScienceApologist is pushing principles of his own invention as though they were policy and claiming they are rooted in a "careful reading" of the rules.[187][188]

It looks like SA is extremely dismissive of responses to him, characterizing responses he does not find convincing as essentially a lack of response.[189][190][191][192] He also appears to be exhibiting bad faith assumptions about other editors, contrary to the ArbCom remedy.[193]

This dispute was raised on this noticeboard twice recently (Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Editor disrupting editing with false claims of WP:PROMINENCE and Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Clarification of Homeopathy Probation Edit Policy).

Please be aware these are not all relevant diffs, simply a random sampling of the most recent. It would probably be worth reviewing the actions and posts of other editors engaged with ScienceApologist, to take into account any possible baiting and to ensure all parties are treated equitably in this dispute. Thanks for your time and attention to this situation. Vassyana (talk) 17:52, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Are public complaints by proxy appropriate for an article under probation? PouponOnToast (talk) 17:58, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Connell66 banned long enough

Resolved

 – indef block by Kafziel. Bencherlite^Talk 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it is high time we let such an excellent contributor back onto the project. See AN thread as well. Lancastor (talk) 00:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

New editor whose first edit was the above. Corvus cornix_talk 00:36, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if the community was willing to give this guy, who has obviously reformed, a second chance. Check all of these outstanding contributions - Special:Contributions/Connell66, Special:Contributions/LOZ: OOT, Special:Contributions/AR Argon, Special:Contributions/The Wikipedist, Special:Contributions/Kaktibhar, etc. Lancastor (talk) 00:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, it's likely the recently blocked sockpuppeteer User:Maser Fletcher was related in some way. Maser was one of Wikipedia's prized editors. Lancastor (talk) 00:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hurry and block this obvious sock, please. (Yay for rhyming ^_^) JuJube (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeffed per WP:SOCK, WP:BAN, and WP:DUCK. Daniel 00:56, 1 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lancastor (talk • contribs)

Note that this comment was added by Lancastor posing as Daniel, signed by SineBot and then Lancastor repeated his attempt to mislead by removing the Sinebot message. Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sock or not, let's just consider the merit of the comment as opposed to bitching over who said it Lumberjake (talk) 19:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

What is the point of re-discussing a block every time the blocked person comes up with a new sock? They can make a request at the UNBLOCK-L mailing list, just as the block message explains. It doesn't need to be discussed and rediscussed here ad nauseum. Corvus cornix_talk 23:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

User:Cordeyn

Resolved

 – blocked 1 week for cool-off, recommend indef block if he returns with the same problems--Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 – Ok, re-resolved. The user has been blocked for sockpuppet abuse as well. Indef block this time. See below.--Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:41, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This user was just recently blocked for trolling, attacks, inflaming disputes, and has already restarted making the same types of edits. His recent comment here is obviously offensive and unconstructive, as well as his other recent edits. Yahel Guhan 06:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Obvious troll is obvious. I support an indef-block of this account, but I'd be willing to accept a new account from the same person, as long as it's legitimate. Maybe it's a troll, but I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he's pissed and wants to let out his emotions, maybe he's tired and not thinking straight, maybe he's going through a tough time. He ought to have another chance with another account. Lumberjake (talk) 06:10, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I blocked again for one week to give him a longer cool off time. If he returns for a third round, I would support an indef block at that time. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:12, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The words "indefinite block" give me the heebie-jeebies. Maybe, if all goes wrong, we can block him for a couple months, maybe even a year if he fucks that up too. But indef-block is undeserved by anyone. Lumberjake (talk) 06:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be in direct contradiction to your 06:10 comment - "I support an indef-block of this account" - ;) Support block, either way ~ Riana ⁂ 06:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I also just declined an unblock request based on this edit, which he made directly after being blocked this time around. --slakr^\ talk / 06:24, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And now his talk page has been protected to stop the feeding frenzy. This should be quiet for a week. We'll see what happens next Friday. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Someone keep an eye on my talk page, per above

[194] Apparently he's decided that we won't stop him. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 06:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Indeffing an account is fine, indeffing a person is not. If he wants to come back as a happy person and play nice, that's fine, but this account should be killed with fire. Lumberjake (talk) 19:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Wikipedia Account

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

Hi, How can it be possible to delete a Wikipedia Account. I want to delete wfgh66. Thanks. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately the software doesn't allow us to delete accounts, however, you are welcome to stop using your account at any time which will have the same effect. Shell ^babelfish 08:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

It's a matter of principle to delete the account. Unfortunately being the operative word.Wfgh66 (talk) 08:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Since this user is an admitted sockpuppet master, I placed a note on his talk page informing him that if he deletes his wikipedia ID and comes back as another identity, the same WP:COI will still stand. He hasn't gotten the point, so I thought I'd act pre-emptively. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's a perfect example why I want to delete the account. The Administrator above is obviously ignorant of who I am. I apologised in good faith over the sockpuppet incident and now I am on the receiving end of this type of nonsense. Wfgh66 (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not ignorant of who you are, we've been trying to explain to you for quite some time that who you are doesn't matter. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and everything in it must be properly sourced, regardless of the qualifications of the editor who posts it. Your site is not properly sourced, and you promoting it here is a clear WP:COI. I bear you no grudge or ill will, but you are refusing to listen and have spammed talk pages all night instead of just trying to understand wikipedia policy. If you go about your own way now and actually make productive edits to wikipedia, no one will complain. Snowfire51 (talk) 08:29, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I placed a Bibliographical source that did not originate from any website and that got deleted. Here:

Where is the bibliographical detail to Politica Hermetica, Number 10, 1996 on www.priory-of-sion.com that information did not come from any website,

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

Wfgh66 (talk) 08:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

• Per this and the thread above, since this user seems to be unable to grasp that Wikipedia would rather not have him adding links to his site and is arguing across many separate pages, I've blocked him for 24 hours. He also re-added his link after starting the above thread (and others on other noticeboards) when he clearly knew not to. If someone thinks a longer block is appropriate (for instance, the sockpuppetry is kosher), feel free to extend the block. Shell ^babelfish 08:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

A review of the above link shows that a {{fact}} tag was fixed by a bibliographic citation. That seems perfectly acceptable to me. The magazine in question Politica Hermetica does indeed exist. It's possible that people are reverting his edits without really looking at them. One approach for this editor might be to disengage for a few days. That would probably help.Wjhonson (talk) 08:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm now getting my inbox spammed with "FUCK OFF". As far as reverting without looking, its rather difficult to ask people to leave link to his sites in when a guy has created what appears to be several accounts to spam. There's no reason not to put the full reference to the actual article in place of the fact tag. Shell ^babelfish 08:51, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The bibliographic citation was not to his website, it was merely the name and issue number of a magazine, that's all.Wjhonson (talk) 08:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Probably have to ask the editor who undid that one; I notice that someone else replaced it shortly after, so there seems to be little harm done. Shell ^babelfish 09:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that heads up, appreciate it. I was reviewing his recent contribs and it does seem like he was using two different accounts, but the other above "suspected socks" seem to be very old and dormant. I'm also a bit concerned by bringing up issues from 2006 as a "repeat case". That seems very dated to me. This editor did make a good-faith attempt to fulfill a fact tag with a proper citation. To me that shows the possibility of useful contributions. And just because an account is old doesn't mean they're going to know all the rules. Some accounts lay dormant for a long time between editing bursts. I guess we'll see tomorrow.... Wjhonson (talk) 09:09, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

If your inbox is being spammed, then there is truly no reason to allow this user to edit Wikipedia anymore.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 09:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This editor was informed and warned multiple times by multiple editors, and showed a determinedly willful negligence of wikipedia policy. He may have the possibility of being a useful contributor at some point, but his history of spam, blocks, and sockpuppets doesn't add up to much right now. If he's sending out spam emails as well, it doesn't bode well for being productive in the future. He should probably cool down for a while, and hopefully that'll help him understand. Snowfire51 (talk) 09:18, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) There are two things that can be done. 1) The user above clearly shows that he wishes to vanish and he has that right. While we cannot delete the account per se he does have the right to have his user page, user talk page, and any other user subpages deleted. He also has the right to return under a new name (this is an allowable use of a sockpuppet, provided he is NOT trying to dosge a block, ban, or other sanction. I suggest that if he wishes, we may do a courtesy blanking or courtesy deletion of his userspace and meet his request. 2) If he continues to abuse the email function of Wikipedia, the block can be extended, and the block can be modified to prevent him from emailing through Wikipedia. I endorse the current block, and endorse his right to vanish as well. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 13:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion on my talk page demonstrates utter cluelessness both about Wikipedia policy and in general (i.e. asking a question about whether you can ask a question). Time for some bigger cluesticks.

By the way, spam citations are not a new concept. MER-C 13:47, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

FWIW, I have blacklisted the web site in question as spam. No further discussion required. Ronnotel (talk) 14:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just stop editing with your account, request deletion of your user/talk pages, and come back with another account, and don't stir shit up. Lumberjake (talk) 19:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.