Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive403

WP:HARASS and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin

I am writing at the recommendation made by User:Kirill Lokshin. I would like to attract the attention of ANI to WP:HARASS/WP:STALK and WP:PRIVACY violations by User:Babakexorramdin, attempting to publicize an identity and falsely associate me with a different physical person. On April 16th, after my addition of reference, User:Ali doostzadeh left the following edit comment:

• Good source. Just fixing the technicality based on the source Atabek provided and adding a little more detail

Following his edit, and referring to the same source, User:Babakexorramdin leaves this edit comment:

• good source by Javid, I agree

Similar attempt at falsely associating me with that same identity, used by User:Babakexorramdin, was also made earlier by now banned User:Artaxiad - [1], for which he was banned by User:Kirill Lokshin - [2].

Kirill Lokshin subsequently deleted from archives all of references to the full name of person falsely associated by Artaxiad with my account. Yet now, over a year later, User:Babakexorramdin makes the same claim after this [3] by User:VartanM and another one by User:Fedayee here - [4] harassment/privacy violations against me. My requests to ArbCom to stop this harassment were overlooked.

This gives only two conclusions, either Babakexorramdin, VartanM, and Fedayee are in communication off-wiki with User:Artaxiad to make the same false claim now deleted from Wikipedia, or ArbCom is somehow sharing information with these individual users, again on false assumptions of identity. In any case, I request the page reciting the name of person again and linking it to me be deleted from archives, this is plainly a violation of WP:PRIVACY. A person or persons responsible for these must be properly addressed according to WP:HARASS.

Meanwhile, I will also find and contact persons whose identities are being recited in these stalking attempts by above contributors to find out if they have been subject to harassment by Wikipedia contributors in real life. If additional information is required to substantiate the claims, please, contact me by email. Thanks. Atabek (talk) 01:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This report borders harassment itself (the continuous accusations by Atabek), this report, which drags me and Fedayee into this, appears to be the result of a content dispute Atabek had with us as well as a recent report of his disruptive behavior at Arbcom Noticeboard. Atabek seems to retaliate for the report about him and is trying to divert the attention. He is not following Kirill's recommendations, since Kirill suggested to be submitted to the Arbitration enforcement page and not directly involve the community, as you can see he did the complete opposite. He posted it here, the consequences of which could be that several admins who are not aware of Atabek's bogus reports could be misled by taking this as a genuine report.

What Atabek provides about me and Fedayee is months old, secondly it involved an arbitration case; thirdly there was no name or personal information provided. But as usual Atabek is making bogus claims. As for the allegation that the Arbcom members may have exchanged information with us or that Fedayee and I took the information from Artaxiad. Atabek should answer as to how he knows that what we wrote months ago about him has to do with anything Artaxiad may have provided here or privately or that it involves the same alleged identity. Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings. It’s not that those claims should have necessarily come from someone else or that the arbitration may have given those informations to us. It borders paranoia as neither I nor Fedayee or the dozen of editors including admins disclosed anything about Atabek's identity publicly. The two diffs that Atabek is using are taken out of context and are months old. It's clear that he's using those to have his foes blocked.

Every time his behavior is questioned, bogus accusations of harassment surface, someone has to put a stop to it. I will not be surprised if the accusations against Babakexorramdin are baseless as well. The user explained the rational of the edit summary here and requested explanations this didn’t change anything and this bogus report was filled soon afterwards. VartanM (talk) 06:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is this what Wikipedia is for?:

• VartanM says: " Atabek was not careful enough, as on several occasion he edited unlogged from University, Work and Home and made almost identical statements that were also made by the alleged identity in press briefings.
  • WP:HARASSMENT says: "Posting another person's personal information (legal name, date of birth, social security number, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself."

Now is VartanM's objective in Wikipedia to contribute to articles, or link identities to use it for further harassment? And note that VartanM is not an administrator with checkuser access and is not an arbitrator, who is supposed to access or analyze private information. He is simply disrupting the very purpose of Wikipedia. The identity connection is false, as I am not the named person. But both VartanM's confirmation of Babakexorramdin's recital above, as well as VartanM and Fedayee's intimidation with attempts to link me to a real-life identity, are blatant violations of WP:HARASSMENT. Now is ANI going to act on this, or this should be taken to Arbitration, is a subject of another discussion. I reported this on WP:ANI because Babakexorramdin was not a party to ArbCom hence his conduct, which is reported here, is not relevant to WP:AE. Atabek (talk) 14:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wholly inappropiate?

Resolved

I realise I'm no angel myself sometimes, but isn't this [5] completely uncalled for? Exxolon (talk) 02:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Religion, magnets and hot tubs don't do it for him, I guess. Here, he chides another editor for similar language, citing this post. Earlier he showed a sense of humour about himself, too. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't have come up with a better response no matter how long I thought about it. Kudos to him. --Elliskev 02:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think Exxonlon is correct. That response was not at all appropriate, even for someone who was likely trolling. Aleta ^Sing 02:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Barringa. If his contribs aren't reverted, then "fuck off" is the only appropriate response.—eric 05:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It was an inappropriate comment but the user was warned about it. I think ANI is a bit premature, considering that there's not a history of bad-faith edits. I suggest this be dropped for now. PeterSymonds | talk 10:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Marking as resolved...if that is ok. The user has been warned and it doesn't seem like an administrator is needed at the moment. Rgoodermote  14:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack by an administrator, redux from above

At this earlier thread on this board, here, I raised a query as to why an administrator User:William M. Connolley, had protected an article and then edited through the protection in a manner that (a) did not appear to be completely NPOV, and (b) did not appear to have talkpage consensus.

Thus, I dropped a note ([6]) onto his talkpage to ask why this had occurred. As noted above, his reply was that he "thought I was trouble making" ([7]). This did not particularly assume good faith, but nevertheless I thus made the request clearer ([8]).

Now, another administrator User:BozMo has popped up to reply to me on the same talk page, to disagree (which is fair enough) ... but look at that edit summary ([9]). Since I am certainly not going to start using admin tools in retaliation for violations of WP:NPA, I would be interested to hear any thoughts on the issue. Please note that the shenanigans at Allegations of state terrorism by the United States (with which I am uninvolved) are now unrelated to this issue. Black Kite 10:14, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not sure this is the right place for this but I had in parallel made this reply on your talk page to your request for immediate comment.:

Immediate is a bit strong but you did say "please". The edit summary was a reference to the inherent challenge of assuming good faith versus not feeding people when they troll. I never feed trolls and the intended implication was that I was agf giving you the benefit of the doubt about trolling and accepting the risk I might be feeding trolling. Perhaps this was unclear but I did include the word maybe. I hope you don't find the suggestion you might be trolling offensive but I suppose that since so many people use it differently I have to accept there was a risk you might. I was not wishing to offend or attack you but I would ask you to examine your behaviour. What is the point of your comment to WMC and why did you word it aggressively? These were a few days ago now. You could have raised the general issue of principle (which was an open question) but chose to go for the specifics. The "appear to be skewed" seemed rather polemic for the sake of it (I did review the deletions before I commented on AN/I) and WMC had not AFAICT been previously involved in the debate. This was discussed and JzG, John Smith and I all seemed to share a view on it. So, what is the positive outcome you are looking for? His edits were open to misinterpretation sure, but abuse of admin powers, no. --BozMo talk 10:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Whether WMC had abused his admin powers per WP:PROTECT (which subject I was trying to clear up, and I certainly don't believe it was in an aggressive manner, and the phrase "appear to be" made that clear, I think) is a completely different question now, as is whether WMC had not been previously involved. Yes, a few editors agreed with his edits, but a large number did not, and I see that the deletion and restoration of that section is still being edit-warred over now, which definitely suggests there was no consensus for it. It shouldn't be rocket science that you don't perform major surgery to an article through your own protection unless there's complete consensus, and being called a "troll" for calling attention to this (which I firmly believe is what your edit summary insinuated) is only likely to make the issue worse. I was astounded that another admin would believe that this was a reasonable edit summary, frankly, although nothing to do with that article surprises me any more. Black Kite 10:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of good form I am repeating an apology to Black Kite for an edit summary which was not intended to imply he was a troll. --BozMo talk 10:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Black Kite 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:ZionistLionist

Resolved

 – indef blocked ^Khukri 11:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

ZionistLionist (talk · contribs) needs to be dealt with immediately. [10] [11] [12] --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 10:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No edits in 30 minutes, but I can't see anything but POV pushing at best and vandalism / hatred at worst. I'm not sure wether this account is likely to be constructive, and would consider an indef block. However given the subject matter this is very likelt to inflame and not help. Pedro :  Chat  11:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the explicit racism in the second diff I say immediate indef block. DuncanHill (talk) 11:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd be confident that this editor doesn't "get" what Wikipedia is about [13]. I think we probably need to consider press reponses to this, and that Wikipedia does not tolerate this kind of attitude. I'm in support of indef. blocking, on balance. Pedro :  Chat  11:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This [14] is beyond the pale. DuncanHill (talk) 11:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Please look at IP 211.28.41.32 (talk · contribs), similiar use of abbreviations (Xtian for example), similar/identical edits etc. DuncanHill (talk) 11:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's been no action for 12 days now, though almost certainly the same editor there is nothing to be gained from a block in hindsight. But as soon as this person/IP edits in bad faith again then there is in this case no need for good faith warnings etc, straight to AIV with it. I will monitor the IP as well. ^Khukri 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 11:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Bstone vs IZAK

On 23 Feb 08, User Bstone (talk · contribs) opened a RfC against me, User IZAK (talk · contribs), at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 based on his dislike of comments at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Judaism/Archive 20#Deletion of synagogue articles on Feb 15, after he (Bstone) had nominated a number of synagogue articles/stubs for deletion, but which were saved after User:IZAK improved them enough. Neither the improvement of the articles he had nominated for deletion nor waiting for the motions at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2, where the vast majority of editors including a number of admins support me, that he had started and had not been brought to closure (it's still open), on 1 April Bstone proceeded to complain at ANI but was rejected there as well. Still not satisfied he then went on to launch a RfA on 2 April which was rejected by the ArbCom. Ignoring my request on 10 April [15] that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to closure first, on 14 April Bstone stone applied for a RfM which was also rejected and being unable to accept that either, he proceeds to question [16] the admin involved. As of April 15, he has stated he intends to head to the MedCab [17] not taking "no" or "stop" for an answer. At this time, seeing that Bstone (1) refuses to accept the decisions of the ArbCom and (2) the rejection of the Mediation Committee (3) has no regard for discussions and advice at ANI and (4) ignores the motions and function of RfA, (failed actions 1 to 4 all initiated by Bstone himself) and (5) he refuses to respond to my requests to talk to me directly in a meaningful way [18] [19] [20], one can only conclude that User:Bstone is violating WP:POINT, WP:LAWYER and WP:HARASS, aka WP:STALK and a number of other policies that he cites against others, such as WP:AGF and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, and that he should be warned to stop his pattern of unrelenting calculated attacks against IZAK and/or blocked for his violations of these policies, for his unbecoming stubborn and rude conduct, and for his unwillingness to accept the decisions of the ArbCom, ANI, the rejection by the Mediation Committee of his trumped up cases against IZAK, and for his ignoring of the still open RfC. Thank you for your help in this regard. Yours sincerely, IZAK (talk) 08:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Bit of a mis-description here. Bstone is not the only editor to have found your behaviour troubling at times - see the RfCs for details. Even your supporters have asked you to reflect on the criticism. Plus the person who instigates an RfC is not permitted to close it (even if they wanted to) - that happens when the discussion is deemed by the community to be exhausted. Probably it could now be closed, but I suspect attempts to close it in the initial days, when discussion was still ongoing, and concerns still being expressed, have probably backfired here in making any attempt to close it look inappropriate.--Doc^g 08:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: Two wrongs do not make a right and I will gladly discuss anything about myslef with anyone, but that does not mean Bstone has a "right" to pursue a vendetta (what else is it?) against me or anyone if he sees that his calls are being rejected by the ArbCom, by the Mediation Committe and right here at ANI. I was not asking Bstone to close the RfC, but he just skipped over it even claiming he "forgot" about it. Let a neutral uninvolved admin decide, and let people take their time. Whatever was being discusssed and negotiated at the RfC should have remained there, and we were arriving at concrete agreements at the time, something that Bstone also overlooked in his failed quest to attack me at ArbCom, mediation Committe and here at ANI. My main point is that I was expecting movement and discussion at the RfC, or ideally direct discussions on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM, when instead Bstone went on to instigate other failed actions against me, and it is for that misbehavior of his that I call for sanctions against him. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 09:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking for mediation between parties is hardly against a party, indeed it shows a willingness to find a resolution. No?--Doc^g 09:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I agree, I was all for it, but I asked that he pause for the RfC to be brought to closure finally because that too was a major piece of mediation and negotiation involving quite a few interested parties, but he skipped over that, as he skipped over many things in his quest to attack me. I was not the one that closed the RfM, I was not even involved in setting it up, and if it had been accepted I would do my good share, but if an admin and member of the mediation committee rejects Bstone's request, then Bstone must accept that decision, rather than go fighting it. He evidently has trouble with rejection and unless he gets his own way he seems to feel that he must continue to attack me in yet another forum. So how long will that go on and how many times must Bstone be rejected before he stops disrupting the community with his frivolous actions? Even "civil" disruption is disruption! Thanks. IZAK (talk) 09:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

My criticism of you in the past is that you see everything as a battle and then accuse people of "attacking you". Looking at the RfM, the Medcom did not suggest that Bstone drop it, indeed they suggested he pursued other avenues of dispute resolution including arbitration. Isn't that what he did? I really can't see what you want admins to do now, block him?--Doc^g 09:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Doc: I didn't know you knew every detail of my "past" on Wikipedia, almost five and a half years of it, that you were so expert to judge my reactions. I admit to having an acerbic pen, but it is no more than that, not everyone can speak in one tone 24/7, sometimes we write more and sometimes less, my output is ten thousand times more than Bstone on Wikipedia. Anyhow, looking at one or two points in isolation seems perhaps like nothing, but Bstone has now tried to attack me DIRECTLY at least FOUR times: Via a RfC, at ANI, a RfA and now RfM and EACH time he loses his bid and is told that he has no case at the present time. Now taken together what would YOU call that if not a series of calculated and unrelenting attacks, all in reponse to discussions at articles Bstone nominates for deletion. The man cannot take even a minor disagreement and feels that everything I say in regard to "him" is a "violation" of "WP:CIVIL" or "WP:AGF" when people at ANI thought he was actually joking, take a look at what they said: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#IZAK not assuming good faith and the ArbCom told him "Bye Bye" see [21] and he still goes on and on, and then you turn around and say that I am wrong to feel "attacked" -- really now? I may be tough, but I have feelings too. IZAK (talk) 09:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like the arbcom quite dismissed him as "bye bye", it looks like they hoped that arbitration and sanctions would prove unnecessary at this point - and that some other resolution might be found to the complaints Bstone brought. I think the hope was that further sanctions against you might prove unnecessary. I think that was the hope of the RfC too: that you'd listen to the critics, modify your tone accordingly, and that would hopefully be all that was necessary. I'm afraid I didn't follow events to see if that happened on not.--Doc^g 11:07, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

This is completely mindboggling. I was specifically told by ArbCom that the case was premature and we had not exhausted attempts at mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite told me if I filed a request with the Mediation Committee to assist IZAK and I with the issues we have been having it would be speedily accepted. Since when is asking for mediation in order to help two editors work out their differences grounds for a complaints on ANI? I was told by administrators and arbitors to ask for mediation and I did. My head is spinning and I am really wondering how I can continue being part of the project when IZAK continues his unending attacks. Bstone (talk) 13:05, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe Ryan offered to mediate informally rather than through the mediation comittee. Try contacting him directly. Best, --Shirahadasha (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Ryan specifically stated that it would be speedily accepted by the Mediation Committee. Yet they have rejected it. It seems Ryan is on vacation right now so might not respond to this issue. So, what's next? Can this thread please be closed and archived? Bstone (talk) 18:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I cannot speak for the MedCom or for Ryan, but the case that was rejected seems like a perfectly normal rejection. A bare list of user conduct issues is not an acceptable foundation for mediation of any sort. MedCab, MedCom and other forms of mediation are not a stick with which to beat an opponent. They are groups and individuals that offer outside assistance in reaching an agreement. "User X violated Y&Z policies and they need to be told they're wrong," is not going to be helpful in mediation, and cannot be the basis of a mediation. A user demanding to be proven right, even when content issues are involved, is often a point of note and concern for a mediator. When it's a simple list of accusations lacking context and missing any real description of the dispute, it's almost a textbook example of a case to be rejected. A mediation request with any hope of being fruitful must at the very least describe the dispute. Being a neutral as possible in the description and providing some context are also extremely helpful. Vassyana (talk) 22:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Understand, I filed the Mediation case because Ryan told me to, said it would be speedily accepted, ArbCom was pointing me to Mediation Committee, etc. As such I had no idea it would be rejected. Furthermore, since when it asking for mediation between two parties grounds for a complaint? IZAK should instead be working with me in finding a mediator to assist in helping us work out our professional and personal conflicts. I seriously want to resolve this dispute. Does he? Bstone (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

I understand that Ryan encouraged you to file a case, but I doubt it was a blank check. If you truly wish to seek mediation and settle the dispute, simply asserting the other party is wrong with a list of policy violation accusations is most certainly not the way to go. You've been around and active long enough to know better. I don't condone that way IZAK has approached things, but your approach is not helpful or productive either. You both need to start addressing the issues in dispute and avoid making broad accusations towards each other. Vassyana (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I feel inclined to comment here, as the Committee member who rejected the RfM. There was virtually zero material in the way of prior attempts at constructive discussion and dispute resolution, short of some very heated discussion that wasn't heading anywhere fast. Most importantly, I felt, the filing party had not considered filing for informal mediation with the MedCab, which indicated to me that formal mediation was not warranted at such an early stage in the dispute's life-cycle. Whilst I will not make any comment with regards to the questions of incivility on the part of certain parties, I will say that this dispute's resolution seems to have been hampered by some bad blood between the parties in question, and that begs the question of whether or not administrator intervention is necessary, both to prevent further disruption as a direct result of this "bad blood"'s manifestation, and to aid the resolution of this dispute, by eliminating a major sticking point of it (the ill-feelings). Anthøny 01:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anthony and Vassyana: Notice how unrelenting Bstone is in his attacks against me and how he totally does not register what you are saying and how he disregards what does not suit him and only wishes that things go his way, even after all the measures he has tried have failed and admin after admin and editor after editor do not agree with his opinions. He needs a much stronger wake up call to pay attention to the professional opinions of other serious editors and admins. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be best if these editors avoided each other, and avoided commenting about each other. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Jayjg: That is easier said than done because this entire trail of discussions goes back to early February when Bstone started to work towards deletion of synagogue and Jewish school articles articles/stubs, and even after I improved and saved them from deletion, he does not acknowledge that good work but only seeks ways, all in the name of "WP:CIVIL" and "WP:AGF" to launch new attacks and criticism of my efforts to counter his misguided nominations of Judaic articles for deletion. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment on content, not on the editor. I couldn't agree more. Bstone (talk) 03:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, Bstone, if that were true, you would have long ago given up your quest to attack me with all you failed efforts against me at ANI, the ArbCom, Mediation Committee, and the unclosed RfC. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I second Jayjg's suggestion. Wikipedia is a big place and there's plenty of room for IZAK and Bstone to work without "bumping into" one another. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 04:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree as well. I think some admin should archive this thread as soon as possible. Yahel Guhan 04:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yahel Guhan: I understand your well-meaning words, but Bstone is now into his third month of a vendetta to undermine and derail me on Wikipedia, and in the process he has violated many policies such as WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND (and more) by ignoring rulings of the ArbCom, the Mediation Committee, advice at ANI and leaving a RfC that he started in limbo because it has not gone his way, and each time he has approached admins asking them to explain and justify their actions wasting everyone's time in the process, and he needs to be blocked or warned to stop his wasted and wasteful elongated WP:EDITWAR as he attempts to nominate articles about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] (with the last one cited here Bstone even went to Deletion Review to get an article re-deleted after it was kept but he was turned down, and naturally he cannot stand being rejected so he proceeds to the next battleground, and the next, and the next...) but I saved most of those articles. So that is what it is -- a huge drawn out edit war with Bstone resorting to all these outside appeals like RfCs, RfAs, RfMs and appeals at ANI and now he plans to waste the MedCab's time [29] when he disagrees with my opposing comments at AfDs, since in recent times he has nominated quite a few articles/stubs about synagogues and Jewish schools for deletion, something that I opposed him on very strongly and which caused him to rage at me until now albeit in a "civil" way ("civil" rage is still rage) and he has also troubled many editors associated with WP:JUDAISM and not just me. Thanks for caring, but cutting the discussion short will not solve anything. I have called for Bstone to talk to me directly in a meaningful way on his or my talk page or at WP:JUDAISM but he refuses to do so, and on the contrary he maintains his own "watchlist" of me listing my past "transgressions" at User:Bstone/rfcuizak (is that legal?) as he pays no attention to his own multiple violations of Wikipedia's policies as they pile up. IZAK (talk) 07:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Note:This issue has been accepted by the Mediation Committee[30] for formal mediation per my request. Waiting on IZAK to accept formal mediation, however hopefully that will happen shortly. I kindly request this thread by archived so the mediation can proceed. Bstone (talk) 09:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Response to the "Note": I would be happy to start at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal but I cannot see the justice of an "on again, off again, on again" case at RfM at this time when the older, very thorough and comprehensive RfC was simply shut down, and it had a lot of work and views put into it and it was just trashed, without any consultation with the many editors and admins and those who had worked hard to come up with a working solution for both Bstone and myself, and the other editors who get left out in the cold by calculation it seems. At this point it has become something of a flying circus with Bstone running from pillar to post, opening a RfC case, "forgetting" about it, and then presto in one instant, after almost two months, it's shut, he went to the ArbCom and they refused to take on the case, they never gave anyone a "mandate to mediate" on their behalf least of all an excuse to somehow claim that the ArbCom case is pending, which it is not, they can speak for themselves if need be, then Bstone opened a RfM that was rejected and after he went to this admin and that it was re-opened again, which makes no sense, when in any case Bstone had already agreed to go to MedCab which is the basic thing he should have done from the get-go. Please see User talk:IZAK#Request for mediation not accepted for the full comments. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 11:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am at a loss as how to proceed. Right now the only thing preventing IZAK and I from formally working toward a resolution to our differences is his refusal to accept formal mediation. This is very disheartening. Suggestions? Please help. Bstone (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Bstone: Wrong again. I am not opposed to formal mediation at all, what I am opposed to is formal mediation out of sequence and you should not be granted the arbitrary rights to decide when to launch RfCs, RfAs, RfMs, filings at ANI at will, and when you are refused simply start another venue for your actions. You are violating Wikipedia's policies, especially WP:POINT, in your quest to fight me and you should be blocked, that is my view, see more below at "RfC proposed verdicts ignored." You too need to understand and follow process, especially due process and not jump hither and thither helter-skelter, in the process violating Wikipedia's basic functioning, and you must see to it that you first try to resolve matters with me directly, and not as you have done constantly seeking punitive actions against me (hardly an incentive to mediate with anyone) simply because I vehemently disagreed with you, and you have not done that in a meaningful way either on your or my talk page first or at the talk page of WP:JUDAISM where talks began, nor have you tried the MedCab either which would be the next LOGICAL stop but you have skipped that too, as you ran off to launch your barrage of the RfC, RfA, RfMx2, ANI, and your multiple appeals on the talk pages of admins who are only randomly involved with either you or me and who know little about the core issues relating to the original differences between us that arose when you launched a series of nominations to delete articles/stubs about synagogues and schools which even when I improved them, you never acknowledged, only waiting to seek the next place to lodge complaints (more like attacks couched in ever-so-civil parlance, but "civil" attacks are still attacks) against me because things did not go your way. So EVERYONE needs to get a sense that you are indeed interested in having a true meeting of the minds with me rather than lieing in wait for the next forum so that you can recount your retinue of complaints/attacks against me while you very conveniently overlook your own multiple violations along the way. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

RfC proposed verdicts ignored

This is an official complaint against the premature closing of the RfC at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 by User:WJBscribe [31] (although he meant well) by simply "asking" User:Bstone if it's ok [32] claiming that "can close the RfC, stating that mediation is being pursued instead. Would that be acceptable?" [33] and Bstone gladly accepting. Why not, it's an easy way to get rid of lots of editors words against him) [34] and then "done" [35] with one quick click in the name of hoped for "mediation" -- not a bad thing if done fairly. HOWEVER this is done at the expense of the EARLIER and most THOROUGH hard work and efforts at true conflict resolution and mediation that had unfolded at the RfC involving almost FIFTY editors, including many admins and in effect trashing FOUR proposed intermediate verdicts at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2#RfC Status update, one very THREATENING proposed intermediate verdict by Bstone against me and handily rejected by the majority and THREE remaining proposed intermediate verdicts, and mostly agreed to by me, that Bstone just ran away from and instead when he saw he was not going to get his way, simply "forgot" about the input of about FIFTY editors -- quite mind-boggling, and then he went off to raise the heat with his RfA which the ArbCom handily turned down. Sure, "disembodied OBJECTIVE and NPOV mediation" sounds like a great thing and no sane person goes against it, but to simply dump the efforts and serious attemtpts and working out a meeting of the minds between Bstone and myself is the greatest travesty and a violation of due process as well as an insult to and slap in the face of all those who gave of their time and input to resolve things somewhat. This is just a sign of how out of control Bstone's behavior has become, because by now he has involved so many committees and so many admins and not all of them even know what the others have said or suggested so that Bstone takes advantage of Wikipedia's labyrinthian governing structure and loosely connected communications system between admins and committees such as we see here that those involved at the orginal RfC are not informed by admins working at RfM and how a failed RfA by Stone leads to first a rejcted RfM and then re-accepted after he involves a group of disconncted admins that then becomes an invitation to proceed with more talks with other admins who know little about the first, middle or last part of the proceedings. This entire sordid escapade is starting to take on Dickensonian dimensions of Bleak House with admins and committees coming and going and relying upon Bstone for agreeing to this or that but not knowing the source and structure and present state of his campaign and my responses to it, since he started these motions in the first place, in the process crushing true efforts as seen at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 that was shut down on the say-so of only one admin at RfM who means well by wanting mediation when the whole picture is so messed up to start with. For the record, all the times I requested that Wikipedia:Requests for comment/IZAK2 be brought to CLOSURE was not a request that it just be shut down and ignored, my fervent hope and request was that whatever was discussed and put togther over TWO MONTHS of discussions be brought to some sort of conclusion through implementation but not just slamming the door on it as if it were a meaningless rubble. ANI is therefore requested to take a long hard look at the BROAD PICTURE and at what is really going here and seek out the input and views of all those who had originally participtaed there as well as take a long hard look at Bstone's acts of WP:REICHSTAG and violations of WP:POINT, WP:HARASS and more, deserving a warning and block and that he not hide behind out-of-order and misdirected suggestions of and for mediation (as a means to launch his already planned attacks outlined at User:Bstone/rfcuizak) when so many serious core issues and discussions are either being ignored and violated and should be addressed first in all justice. Thank you, and at this time, it is truly almost Passover. Happy Holidays. IZAK (talk) 10:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to get a little tired of what part of this disagreement I have seen. Bstone started an RfC about IZAK. That RfC had not been edited for about a week when I closed it. Bstone wished to pursue mediation instead and, although the Mediation Committee does not normally handle conduct disputes, Ryan Postlethwaite offered to handle the case. Bstone filed a Request for Mediation which was rejected by AGK on the grounds that it was largely a content dispute. He then reversed this action on realising that Ryan was interested in offering to mediate the case. I contacted IZAK and he pointed out the ongoing RfC. Given that mediation cannot happen in parallel to other methods of dispute resolution, I agreed the RfC needed to be closed and pointed out this obstacle to Bstone. Bstone was happy for the RfC to be closed - he was the filing party and looking at it I'm not sure it was ever properly certified. It seemed appropriate to close the RfC on the basis that the complainant now sought to resolve their issues through mediation instead. The RfC had a pretty clear consensus of editors that it should be closed without action. A closed RfC remains archived and viewable to anybody, but such adversarial proceedings need to be brought to a stop if mediation is to have a chance.

IZAK needs to decide whether he is willing to accept Ryan's offer to mediate this case. All he has to do is indicate "yes" or "no" on the Request for Mediation. If mediation is not accepted and people feel that the RfC should be reopened, that can be done. One of the reasons ArbCom declined to hear this matter was that other avenues of dispute resolution had not been explored. If the parties cannot agree to go down those routes, ArbCom may need to look at this one again. WjBscribe 15:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Due to religious holiday I will be away for the next 3 days, until Monday night after dark. As for IZAK's issues above, all I can say is I tremendously hope he agrees to mediation so we can work out our personal and professional issues. This is my greatest hope. Bstone (talk) 16:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:One Night In Hackney

Resolved

(IP incivility removed) otherwise the rest of the thread doesn't make sense Black Kite 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well...I have to say..he is threatening users. Before I forget [36] The East ender comment [37] The Admin Comment. Summery. Rgoodermote  12:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh well, if he's retired bit pointless to issue blocks really. Just ignore it, any actions taken now would be just adding drama where none was needed. If he comes back or has a cool off period the all the better. ^Khukri 12:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)I don't see any of those as threats, per se. The one about EastEnders fans is definitely rude, but not block-worthy unless directed at a particular editor and he's been warned to lay off previously. In any case, if something has pushed him to retire, I would imagine a bit of strong language is not surprising. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well if you think is not threatening so be it. But that checkuser comment makes me not want to give him checkuser privileges any time soon or ever and I can't give it to him anyways. Rgoodermote  13:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The question is...is this the first time he has retired? Rgoodermote  13:06, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Again it doesn't really matter, if he hasn't retired and it's a case of throwing the toys out of the cot then by adding unnecessary blocks or paying it attention we are fueling the wiki-drama. If there are no personal attacks, no disruption to the project then he can have one every Friday at 4:15 pm for all it matters. If he has genuinly retired he's not going to see anything anyway, so again irrelevant. ^Khukri 13:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Well, isn't that just marvellous - an IP that comes to hysterically demand blocks and complain about a prolific editor making incivil comments, whilst also being incredibly incivil themselves. I wonder which editor hiding behind an IP this is? I can make some fairly good guesses, though. Black Kite 13:13, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Just in case... I am User:Rgoodermote 72.224.127.117 (talk) 13:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

And I am going to walk away from this entire thing. Rgoodermote  13:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

What is this all about? An editor is blowing off steam, maybe he was rude to the poor fans of eastenders but you cant really blame him for that, and so what if he retires every second day. The IP must be worried about Hackney claiming he will start another checkuser case. Created today with 4 edits two of them here and he knows all about User:Vintagekits. BigDunc (talk) 13:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Should we be looking here for identity of ip just curious. BigDunc (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked as yet another sock of banned User:Rms125a@hotmail.com. Black Kite 13:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

All I see here is a very angry Hackney saying he might track down sockpuppets and I agree, if he wants to retire once a day, let him. Gwen Gale (talk) 13:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I don't blame him, to be honest. There is too long a record of excellent contributors being driven away by tendentious editing and sockwittery at the moment. Edit: and how ironic that the sock names me as a "fellow traveller", given that I have blocked numerous Irish editors in the past, including bringing the first SSP case against Vintagekits - some people eh. Black Kite 13:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ONIH has been an excellent editor of very polished articles, most of them related to Irish Republicanism (where others have preferred to edit war), and as a result he has been on th edge of many disputes. Sometimes his conduct has not been ideal, but those times have been rare, and he can set those moments against a records of solid contributions which most editors would envy.

ONIH has been talking of retiring for months, so his final departure, while sad, isn't a great surprise. I was disappointed that my good luck note on his departure was promptly removed from his talk page, but that's his privelige.

However, in the last few days, his temper has been very frayed, and he has been repeatedly uncivil and profane. His latest contribs to his own talk page show a list of completely unacceptable edit summaries, and a very agressive and uncivil style on talk pages:

• "total and utter bollocks".

I agree that since he has retired, there is no point adding to the drama, and his talk page has now been protected. I do think it's a great pity when a good editor throws a tantrum on the way out the door, but best just to leave it at that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm hoping it's just temporary (his retirement). PS- The profane 'edit summaries' (which I've also been a victim of) are disappointing, however. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Subject requests deletion

Does anyone know what to do about the Francis Wasser (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) article?

I AFDed PRODded it a few days ago, flagging it as a non-notable possible autobiography created by Wasserf (talk · contribs). However, Rmutt2008 (talk · contribs) claims to be the real Francis Wasser, seeks privacy, and has replaced the page's content with a complaint.

I don't see anything in WP:CSD to cover this. Do we just wait for the PROD to expire, or should I WP:IAR and delete it anyway? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His edit was reverted as vandalism. Allow the normal deletion processes to run their course, do not treat it differently due to this. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 10:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• My understanding is that any claim to be the subject of an article needs to go through the proper process of verifying identity and such. Otherwise, it is open to abuse. I'm confused by the AfD comment at the beginning though. I think you meant to say you'd PROD'd it (or I'm jsut reading stuff wrong). Let the deletion run it's course as it only has a few days left and no one has contested the deletion that I can see. Jasynnash2 (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Sorry for the confusion, I did mean PRODded. I'll let the PROD run its course as you and ST47 suggest. --17:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback removal

Today I was granted rollback power and have spent around one – two hours reverting numerous cases of obvious vandalism BUT TODAY AT 11:03AM the User:Bongwarrior removed my roll back power claiming that ‘at least half’ of my roll backs were not vandalism. I checked this and it is obviously false as you can check.

I challenged him about this but as of yet have not got a response. I am asking that I be granted my roll back privileges again so that I can begin to revert vandalism again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Energizer07 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I only got back two diffs. [38] nope, and [39] nope. Both of these were not vandalism - they were other editors reverting poor edits which you then reverted back again i.e. you are rollbacking to vandalised entries. Not to hot. I suggest you stick with undo for a while and study up on what vandlism is. Pedro :  Chat  11:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see my name comes up in the diff. I generally don't make mistakes but they could just be mistakes. There is also a talk going on about this sort of stuff Energizer07 on Wikipedia_talk:Administrator_intervention_against_vandalism under the heading Overly Aggressive Vandal Patrolling Culture This may help you understand what to rollback and what not to. Also which warns to use for what e.t.c ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 11:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that warnings like this one are completely over the top. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 11:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That template does nothing to aid a situation, and if it's in template space should be TfD'd or even speedied immediately. Energizer it's clear you are wishing to help the project, but may I suggest you pull on the hand brake just a little bit. There's a fine line between helping the project and possibly driving away editors through well intentioned actions. If you have any questions regarding vandal patrolling, issuing of warnings when to look for a block etc, just leave me a message and I will work through it all with you. ^Khukri 11:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And such warnings in unusual places. Maybe we should edit the talk of the IP and mention that the warning was far too aggressive ? Cenarium^Talk 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Rollback granted with approx 200 mainspace edits, less than half with edit summaries, or so it appears. Any comments on this approval Tiptoety? Franamax (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I wouldn't grant rollback to a user before checking that he has enough good RC patrolling. That would make this kind of situation less frequent. Cenarium^Talk 12:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, my comments are what have been being said at WT:RFR for weeks, rollback is no big deal, and we should extend good faith when granting it with no prejudice/drama about removing it. Each admin has there own set of criteria, some lower than others. It has been suggested we set a standard but everyone agrees the current process works. It has been removed, no damage really done. Tiptoety ^talk 14:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it's no big deal. But sometimes, giving some advises and waiting 2-3 days, or a dozen of reverts, to see the evolution in the contributions of a user, is better than giving rollback then having to remove it. Maybe it's easy to remove, but it may have a negative impact on the user as shown above. (I suppose that further discussion on this should go elsewhere.) Cenarium^Talk 15:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And thats where opinions differ, maybe we need to move to WT:RFR and discuss the topic of guidelines when granting rollback further. Tiptoety ^talk 16:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment I occasionally do RC patrol but I find my time far better spent actually adding useful content or doing minor janitorial stuff like fixing typos and reformatting links that RC Patrol. Why? Precisely because recent changes ARE patrolled. I haven't asked for rollback but about the only use I would have for it is when a drive-by IP vandalizes multiple pages while making zero non-vandalism edits. Even that wouldn't save me much time, since I still have to check every single edit before rolling it back, just in case he made even one edit that wasn't clear vandalism.

When rollback was first introduced, I suggested that after a few months of shakedown testing, it be an option on preference pages so administrators don't have to waste time granting the option. Now I'm not so sure. Perhaps it should be an option on preference pages for anyone who has X number of edits and at least Y months of service, but the option should be revocable by administrators when necessary.

By the way, for the past few days I've been following Energizer's edits. If he is given the right guidance and not scared away from Wikipedia, he will be a very valuable editor someday and people will go to him for advice. In the meantime, he needs the community to walk behind him, fix up and point out mistakes, and recommend ways he can become a more valuable contributor. Except when he gets frustrated like at the start of this thread, he's got a good attitude, which more than makes up for his run-away enthusiasm and the resulting mistakes. I predict that in 2-3 years, after a few thousand edits, a few Barnstars, a few dozen B-class articles, and a few Good Articles, he will be well-respected and will easily pass a vote to give him administrative tools. In the meantime, the next few months will be filled with the mistakes of someone learning. If you have time please spend the next few months patrolling his edits and help shape him into the good editor I think he wants to be. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 17:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Protection of WP:RFA

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.

Several administrators have commented on the discussion and nobody mentions any "abuse". John Reaves didn't "abuse" anything. Further discussion about the protection itself should be continued at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

---

There is an ongoing discussion about whether WP:RFA should be semi-protected here. During that discussion, the page was semi-protected by User:John Reaves. I asked him here repeatedly to revert the protection and join the discussion, but he declined.

I think the discussion seems to move into the direction of non-protection. Anyway, consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process, and I think John should respect that by waiting for the discussion to end either way. He was not entrusted with admin privileges to be a judge.

How do you see the situation? --Yooden ☮ 12:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for that.

There is no reason whatsoever for a new user or IP to edit the RFA page. I'm with John Reaves here. Sean William @ 12:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Note that this is not the right place to discuss whether WP:RFA should be protected. Use Wikipedia talk:Requests for adminship for that. --Yooden ☮

So you think admins should avoid community discussions about a particular subject and just do what they think is right? --Yooden ☮

I don't see this as a very big problem. It could take ages (or never) to get a very strong consensus on anything on the RfA talk page. There didn't seem to be a huge opposition to semi-protecting the page. Rather, there is no consensus either way. If neccesary, at any time his protection can be undone and he can be directed to the talk page for further discussion. I highly doubt John would get in an edit war to keep his semi-protect up, and as I said, will the discussion really ever end? If the semi-protect proves to be bad for the project, then remove it. Or if policy appears to trump a good application of IAR in this case, then remove it. The one caveat to this is I think editors should discuss changes as much as they can when applying IAR. I do suggest John add his input to the RfA talk page, but I don't find it neccesary for him to revert himself before doing that. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 13:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So let's see: We have an ongoing discussion about topic A; an editor avoids the discussion by ignoring the talk page and just implements a change; he is notified of this; he still refuses to enter the discussion; currently, he demands that his change should be considered to be the new precendent. This is where you don't see "a very big problem", right? Could you please explain how, using this policy, you intend to avoid edit wars?

I didn't ignore anything, I already told you I wasn't aware of the discussion. Are you suffering memory loss or are you just a liar? John Reaves 15:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course you are an admin, so you are allowed to use personal attacks. Reverse psychology be damned, I'm sure they will let you get away with it. Anyway, here is your proof. --Yooden ☮

It's a legitimate question. So far you have spurious claims of attacks and abuse. What are you going to fabricate next? Also, it's ~~~~, not that hard. John Reaves 15:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yooden, forgive me, I don't believe my first response was well worded. I did not come here to commend John's editing or use of talk page. Ultimately I was suggesting this is not an issue for AN/I at this moment. If at some point John engages in an edit war over this and continues to ignore discussion, then it would be a problem. That's not where we are at. He made a change and is defending it in his own way (probably not a great way). As I said, 1,500 other admins can change it back and advise him to "wait" for the end of the discussion. If he then edit wars and reverts, then we have a problem, but certainly not yet. He is not a "judge" by any means, but he has every right to make a judgement call that can easily be changed back if perceived to be wrong by other admins. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 14:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion here is really not necessary, nor helpful. You should continue discussion on WT:RFA#Protection. Obviously other administrators, including myself, agree with the protection so we aren't talking about any admin "abuse" here. - Rjd0060 (talk) 14:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this straight: If an admin implements a change which is currently under discussion, willfully avoids that discussion and then demands that his change should be considered the new consensus, that's not abuse?

Also, I'm not using Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_adminship#Protection because I don't particularly care weither way. Protection of WP:RFA is not the issue here, abuse of administrator privileges is. --Yooden ☮

Why won't you sign normally? Not having a date stamp can make conversations very confusing. John Reaves 15:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Your summary of the events is skewed. John made one change to the RfA page, semi-protecting it. No admin has removed the semi-protection, which any one of them can do. John is not edit-warring and has every right to make a judgement call and semi-protect a page, regardless of a talk page discussion. He is not going against any consensus, there is no consensus yet. He is nowhere demanding that his change be considered the new consensus, he is just suggesting it is the right choice. There is healthy discussion going on now regarding the issue elsewhere, I'd reccommend not pressing it here any further. It's just a massive stretch to call this admin abuse. Gwynand | Talk•Contribs 15:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Not admin abuse. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Abuse? This was hardly abuse. More like a bold move. People always have issues with bold edits but it does not mean such edits are viewed as abusive.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:21, 18 April 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.

Take a look

Resolved

 – Replied at the above thread. Please keep discussion in one place. Sandstein (talk) 18:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Could someone please take a look at #Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick a little farther up on the page? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 18:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC) (not too proud to beg)

Quick Question

Sorry to bring this here, but the username board specifically encourages not to bring a name there if it doesn't require immediate blocking. Is User:Steve4:20 an appropriate name for somebody who mainly edits on Nazi-influenced bands? I would suggest it may be inflammatory and divisive, but am unsure, and do not wish to get into a fight about it. Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

While I may know nothing of "Nazi related bands", just by looking at the username, I don't see anything blatant enough to warrant reporting. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 23:27, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to "4:20"? Tiptoety ^talk 23:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That was what i noticed, as in a certain person's birth date. May be nothing, just wondering. Brilliantine (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, well the first step would be to discuss it with the user in question, they may have no idea that is his birthday. Tiptoety ^talk 23:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, I hate to make assumptions, but based on that user's contributions... To be honest, I have no real desire to stray into that kind of territory, especially not when I'm tired and a bit snappy. Brilliantine (talk) 00:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see nothing offensive about the name. If the person's edits are offensive, that may be a reason to block, but the name isn't. --Carnildo (talk) 00:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. I think the correct place to take this if you wanted to have further investigated would be WP:RFC/NAME. Tiptoety ^talk 00:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was apot thing at first, esp. since the other would be 20:4... day month year, euuropean style... ThuranX (talk) 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I thought that too, and that makes my point. We really are not sure what the users intentions where when he created the account. We just have to WP:AGF. Tiptoety ^talk 00:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I know what 4:20 means :) Time for a quick puff. Check the user's Dec 11 contributions. Franamax (talk) 01:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Username "violations" are a quick and easy way to block people, especially newbies, if you don't like their edits. Dan Beale-Cocks 01:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but is there even a violation in this case? Tiptoety ^talk 02:16, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, and it doesn't seem to matter to the people dishing out username blocks. That's why I used scare quotes. Many people are blocked for vios that aren't really vios. Dan Beale-Cocks 02:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I came here to ask what people thought rather than listing it on one of those pages. Brilliantine (talk) 14:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, he's made a few edits to 420 (cannabis culture), of which these edits are relevant to this discussion. I don't know if "420" itself is as offensive as other ways he could indicate his political leanings (for example, have a look at the titles of the songs of these bands), but IMHO Brillantine correctly understands how thsi editor means for these numbers to be understood. -- llywrch (talk) 20:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

unable to edit

Resolved

 – page restored to its protected version --B (talk) 12:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&curid=7738&diff=206394353&oldid=206322956

I revert popped up on my watchlist. I tried editing the article. The protection tag has been removed but I am still unable to edit the article. There is a glitch in the system or a Wikipedian edited the article while the page is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is an admin allowed to revert an article while the page is protected? If not, the edit should be reverted. QuackGuru (talk) 04:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester was only restoring a big swath of sourced content, which would likely be taken as uncontroversial and helpful to the encyclopedia. In doing so, he mistakenly rm'd the small-prot icon. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester reverted the text that was the very reason the article was protected in the first place. The article is protected because of the reverts. Is Swatjester allowed to continue the edit war while the article is protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, but whatever the PoV, it looks to me like he was restoring damage to sourced content. It's very rarely helpful to bulk-delete that much sourced text and wholly unhelpful to edit war over it. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The above comment did not address the issue. The edit was a revert while the article was protected. I think it should be reverted unless there is a specific policy that an admin can edit war after the article has been protected. QuackGuru (talk) 04:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He's not an involved editor. I think calling this edit warring is too much of a stretch. Gwen Gale (talk) 05:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

While I appreciate Gwen Gale's point and believe QuackGuru is grossly overstating the issue, I reverted Swatjester's good-faith change.[40] It's not difficult to miss the protection warning occasionally, particularly when using the undo function (people often just scroll down to change the edit summary and submit). Vassyana (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Vassyana&diff=prev&oldid=206522835 Read this comment. I think it was intentional the admin reverted while the article was protected. QuackGuru (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it wasn't a mistake. You and I disagree as to whether it was ok for him to restore a big chunk of sourced text while the article was protected. Only so you know, I'm also ok with it having been taken out again after this got posted here and at RFP, I'd say both takes are reasonable (but I don't think your having called what he did edit warring was at all reasonable). Gwen Gale (talk) 18:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See this. I did not notice that it was protected at the time, but its protected status would not matter. The material is uncontroversial, well sourced, and OrangeMarlin's deliberate blanking of it was vandalism. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chiropractic#Scope_of_practice_comments_by_Eubulides Read this section. It was not completely sourced text and there are many problems that have not been fixed. Anybody can put a ref after a sentence. When it is up to Wikipedia's standard it will be restored. QuackGuru (talk) 19:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I should note that with your extensive block history, including edit warring blocks on this particular article, you ought to be very careful about making demands such as "When it is up to Wikipedia's standard it will be restored". You are not the arbiter of that. It in fact does comply with all of our standards, whether you like it or not. That's the point of NPOV: it includes things such as criticism that may go against our own POVs. We present ALL sides of a view. Upon review, I've noted that the section you quote is merely one editors attempt to circumvent a well cited, well sourced opinion, with a single source of his own, to push the opposite POV. It does not actually mean anything. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It would have been nice if someone actually bothered to inform me of the AN/I section. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threats by User:209.244.43.12

• See also: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive399#Legal Threat and Persistent Posting at Closed AfD

WP:COIN had a thread regarding alleged COI editing on the Paul Iorio article; the article ended up on AfD, and User:209.244.43.12 demanded removal of one of the comments in the AfD under threat of a "possible libel suit" [41]. The IP was blocked for 72 hours by MaxSem for legal threats. After that block expired, User:209.244.43.12 then posted to the already-marked-resolved COIN discussion, reiterating the threat [42]. I blocked the IP for 2 weeks, and made sure that the the block message mentioned the info-en mailing list (the standard uw-blockn template doesn't, and you can't use uw-lblock with an IP since it presumes an indef block, and the time parser does not seem to work with it).

Someone with greater familiarity with the history of that AfD, the COIN discussion, and the previous mention here on ANI should probably review this. Thanks, MCB (talk) 07:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done I've sorted out the {{uw-lblock}} template now, default is indefinite with time parser now included. Will update doc this afternoon accordingly.^Khukri 09:15, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent - thanks! --MCB (talk) 19:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit history etc

Resolved

Does anyone know how I can check how many edits I have made to wikipedia so I can decide which service badge I can display?--Energizer07 (talk) 10:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You can find out here. But to be honest you might want to focus on the thread below, and your poor use of rollback, rather than asking question like this, which should be done at the help desk. Pedro :  Chat  11:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Service badge? We don't need no stinking badges. Corvus cornix_talk 22:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Premature Archiving of ANI Discussion

User:Rjd0060 just archived a discussion on ANI while the discussion was ongoing (less than two minutes after the last contribution); in fact I had an edit conflict on this change.

Please reopen. If there is a better place to appeal the decision to archive it, please point me to it. --Yooden ☮ 15:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This response is awful. I'd suggest you retract it immediately, even if there is a disagreement. That is by no means the start of a resolution. Rudget 15:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I can only assume that you took what was clearly a sarcastic remark seriously. For the record: I don't want to ignore the community. --Yooden ☮

(EC) I archived it because there is clearly no "admin abuse" as you claim. I, as well as several others have agreed. Also, continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated, which really isn't necessary. Please continue the discussion at WT:RFA#Protection. - Rjd0060 (talk) 15:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yooden, admin abuse is a matter much more serious than what John Reeves had done. It is unacceptable to apply such labels to situations in which you simply had differing opinions on the matter.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 15:43, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

That label was not brought up by me, and I'm perfectly willing to drop it. --Yooden ☮

You archived the discussion after three hours and after less than two minutes of inactivity.

I was already attacked, but nobody cares. Now imagine I would have taken a break, as suggested elsewhere on Wikipedia when things get hot.

Now seriously, please reopen or tell me where to appeal your decision. --Yooden ☮

As has been suggested, please take this to Wikipedia_talk:RFA#Protection. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't care whether WP:RFA is protected or not. --Yooden ☮

Yooden, your account goes back practically to the Wikipedia beginning of time. Surely you understand the difference between an admin making a decision to semi-protect a page (regardless of ongoing discussion, which may or may not result in a change that any admin could make) and admin abuse or some actionable policy violation? If you want to debate the issue of protection, raise on WT:RFA. If you want an admin to unprotect the page absent that debate, go to WP:RPP (although, good luck). What else are you trying to achieve here? Avruch ^T 16:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I want a discussion that was closed after three hours to be reopened. --Yooden ☮

I want you to timestamp your posts. - Rjd0060 (talk) 16:05, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Wanna make a deal? --Yooden ☮

And ultimately all of those requests are bit pushy wouldn't you say? Lets just step back and agree to disagree on all the above.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

A nice thought. Why don't we just let it rest for a day, reopen the discussion then and continue? --Yooden ☮

I hope more is forthcoming, but I want to have a short interim status message in case anything happens to this discussion:

I asked to reopen a discussion about admin behaviour that I myself started. Within this thread a several objections of mine which are not addressed yet. The thread was closed after about three hours (2008-04-18T13:08:00 to 2008-04-18T16:23:44) and after less than two minutes of inactivity.

Currently, the reason given for closing the thread is that "{User:Rjd0060}, as well as several others have agreed." and because "continuing that discussion will only cause things to become heated". I was also pointed to another discussion with a different topic.

Now I wonder, is simple agreement of what few admin could reach the page within three hours enough to absolve one of their own of any wrongdoing? Is the possibilty of a heated discussion reason enough to strike it? --Yooden ☮

There was no "admin abuse" as you claim. Several people have agreed with that, and more importantly, nobody has agreed with you (that I know of) in the sense that John Reaves has abused his administrator status. I don't know why you are still at this, but do as you please. I won't be leaving any further comment here, as I've said what I feel needed to be said. You raised an issue here, people commented on it, and you're unhappy with the outcome. - Rjd0060 (talk) 17:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did't claim it; I admit I picked it up after others used the expression though. All I want is clarity about Wikipedia's rules.

What if someone would describe John's action as "poor behaviour" and would continue that "John has behaved badly over this entire incident"? What if someone else would have told him that "another administrator will eventually have to end up unprotecting it if you don't"? With your early closure you not only give me reason not to WP:COOL down the next time, you also send the message that WP:CANVASSing is necessary. You closed the thing after three hours for fuck's sake, what am I supposed to think is the reason for that if other threads remain open for weeks?

I'm still at this because several of the objections I raised are unanswered. Do you want them to remain so? --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement that the threads stay along long enough for the bot to archive them. It's also probably difficult to follow when you'd commented last, with no timestamp in your signature. SQL^{Query me!} 17:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, like that's the reason the thread was closed. Let's see. --Yooden ☮ 17:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You're probably right. Rjd0060 was likely just covering up the thread you brought here, in order to further his agenda to keep RFA protected. SQL^{Query me!} 17:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Please point me to a place to appeal the decision to close the thread. --Yooden ☮ 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You have seen what kind of comments you will receive if you take this further. And by the looks of it, everyone but you agrees that John did not "abuse" his administrative position. In addition, I find this comment to be quite... uncivil. It would be appreciated if you would retract or the statement. seicer | talk | contribs 17:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So lets keep talking about this

I don't think it's admin abuse either, but it's still an admin action, and ANI is an appropriate place to discuss this kind of thing (especially since the same situation might face other pages). John's a good guy, and we don't have to be burning someone at a stake to justify a thread here.

All pages fall under our protection policy. I remember this well from past discussions about semi-protecting all policy pages with similar logic. As long as there is no requirement that a user be auto-confirmed before making an admin nomination, then the page should not be protected as such. -- Ned Scott 22:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

user removing poll results

On the talk page of Afghanistan a poll was opened for whether to include the term Afghani in the demonym list of the info-box or not. The poll is very straight forward and two users already voted. But user: Carl.bunderson keeps crossing out the poll and its results because he does not like the results and is opening a new poll which is very different from this one. His poll also asks for Afghanistani to be included or not, but that has not been discusses here and that is not what the original poll was about. The poll is only asking to inlcude Afghani or not, just because he doesn't like the results he crosses it out. Can an admin please tell him to stop doing this? Thanks. He is also a bully, dictator, throws around silly accusations, and insults others. Can someone also tell him to stop that or give him a warning with short block maybe? Thanks. Also he's violated 3RR because he removed the poll more than three times.

The poll is not straighforward--the way he worded it, people were encouraged to vote for his position. We all know that the questions you ask affect the answers you get. He is trying to manipulate the results by manipulating the questions. I am a well-esltablished user, and he is an anon who has done nothing but work on this talk page. The Afghansitan article has a shistory of socks, and I would not be surprised if he was in this vein. I am agsint the poll in as far as it is unfair. I have provided for a new poll that will be fair, and is worded essentially the same as poll was worded earlier which established consensus on this. My concern is that the anon is manipulating the system. He has also tried to stuff the ballot box, as it were, by getting people to vote on Wikiproject pages. He has more knowledge of WP than an anon would usually have, so this also suggests to me that he is a banned sock. Also, one of the two users who has voted is a sock. This is ridiculous and anons need to step in to make the poll fair. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:22, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Again this user is throwing around false accusations and acting as a dictator. Both the users that voted are not socks but long time users. Any admin can see for themselves and see that the poll was straightforward. It is you who is trying to manipulate things. His idea that there is something wrong with the poll is his POV. I hope admins take a look at this and see what a rude editor this Carl.bunderson is. He thinks he owns Wikipedia or something.

I said one of the users was a sock, not both. And look at their user page--one is a suspected sock. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He has been accused of being a sock before and checked and the result was negative. You also threw insults at me and called me blind. No one is asking to be involved with the Afghanistan article, if you are getting frustrated because you don't like the poll's results and bullying and cursing at new users and acting like a dictator, then you can move on to another article.

You need a dictionary. I never cursed. I called you blind because you seem to be. You are blind, figuratively, to the difference in our polls. I am obviously open to a poll...I made a new one that is actually fair. I have been involved in this page for a long time, defending it from nationalist/pov-pushing socks such as yourself. Carl.bunderson (talk) 20:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl Bunderson's version distinctly differs. It seeks to create all new consensus about what can or can not be in the infobox. The old poll merely sought consensus about adding a single element. This is somewhat disturbing, because it was Carl Bunderson who so loudly advocated that consensus had been established. It's almost like he's gone to a WP:POINT violation, arguing that if any part of the old consensus is challenged, the entirity should be scuttled. The old poll seems to be far more circumspect in its goals and methods, and more designed to modify consensus than rewrite it whole. ThuranX (talk) 22:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes the other way also includes a poll on Afghanistani demonym. But that is a different demonym and so should have its own poll. This is what I'm trying to tell Carl.bunderson but he doesn't listen because he accuses me of ignoring Afghanistani. I now added a separate poll for Afghanistani as a result so he stops accusing me of neglecting Afghanistani. Now we have a poll for both demonyms, I really don't see what else is missing.

Carl.bunderson is not the only one who thinks that something was wrong with the anon's original poll. As someone who has never been involved in editing the Afghanistan page until the anon left a message about it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Central Asia, I disagree that the old poll was fair; its wording struck me as push polling. I tried to reword it (diff) but the anon rejected even that minor change [43] in favour of his own version. cab (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually user: CaliforniaAliBaba I did not see that you re-worded it. But shortly after I changed it back to the way you had it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.209.223 (talk) 03:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I also read your edit to change the options as a different choice. Perhaps your option should have instead been added, instead of changing the poll's nature. Again, it looks like the initial poll was to widen extant consensus, while subsequent edits were to change the fundamental nature of the poll. ThuranX (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

(undent) Thuranx, please read the conversation between me and the anon on the talk page, as well as going through the whole history of the demonym issue on the talk page. Afghani and Afghanistani ought to be dealt with together, not separately. Consensus on this matter has in the past dealt with all three demonyms, not just doing one at a time. The page has suffered greatly from nationalist pov-pushers and it is ridiculous the number of socks that have attacked the page. Look at my contribution history…which of the two users is more likely to be pushing pov? Me or him? As cab pointed out, the anon has tried to stuff the ballot and engage in push polling. The poll I provided for is as neutral as can be, and is practically the same as a poll that we had on this same issue earlier. Carl.bunderson (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Carl.bunderson was complaining that we also needed a poll on Afghanistani, I started one. He was trying to poll Afghani and Afghanistani together without even giving the poller any reasons for Afghanistani. I started a second poll and give the poller some background info. The two terms need their own poll because for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. Also, Carl.bunderson is now calling me idiot (link) after I told him to stop crossing out the poll I started first. He has called me blind, now idiot, and keeps accusing me of things which I keep proving him wrong anyway. The reason is pretty easy to understand why Afghani and Afghanistani need to be separate polls. I hope he understands this now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Read the the talk page archive. Afghani and Afghanistani have always been dealt with together, and you have not provided a reason that they should not be treated the same now—there is precedent for dealing with them in one poll, and there is a substantial reason as well: both are alternative demonyms which are sourced, but used far less than is the primary demonym, Afghan. Also, while both are soured, neither are included in the OED. You have utterly failed to provide a reason for treating them separately. And my calling you idiot and blind have been justified. I mean them matter-of-factly, not as an insult. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I just provided you a very simple reason: for instance a user might want Afghani but not Afghanistani, or they might want Afghanistani but not Afghani. In the last poll long time ago, this was not considered, so this is why I am now treating them as 2 polls. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.93.210.156 (talk) 16:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There has to be a reason for the positions people take when they vote. You have said that people might want to include one but not the other, but you haven’t actually given a reason for this. It is ludicrous to provide one but not the other, because both are sourced but not recognized nearly as widely as is Afghan. You have failed to give a reason why someone would want to include one but not the other. Carl.bunderson (talk) 16:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Carl, All I see is that you are interested in getting your way on this. I see little to no POV pushing on asking for a modification to existing consensus. If it's a good idea, it will be supported, with solid arguments; and if not supported, then the same. However, stating that you don't like his poll, and slashing it out, then starting a competing poll, is childish tantrum behavior, and you need to stop it. Your best option would be to state that IF the results indicate a change, it's evidence for a whole new poll, one covering any and all permutations, which requests reasoning from the 'non-voting' responders. It's that simple. All I can see here is you obstructing to get your way. knock it off. ThuranX (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

How can I be solely interested in getting my way on this? If that was the case, I would not have provided a poll which was completely neutrally worded. Did you bother to look at the page history, and the talk archive? Afghanistan has been a major draw to cases of sockpuppetry. Why do you think that an editor who spends the vast majority of his time on here reverting vandalism is acting petulantly? Who is more likely to do that? An anon who edited a few pages last month, was blocked, and then came on and has done nothing but deal with the Afghanistan page, or an editor who has a history of being a hammer against vandals? I’m fine with consensus changing, I’m perfectly aware that it can, but look at my wording of the poll? Can you tell me in what way it is inferior to the anon’s? If the results indicate a change, why bother making a second poll to cover any and all options? Does it not make more sense to expedite and move to the ultimate poll in the first place? Carl.bunderson (talk) 02:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The fact that Carl.bunderson voted to not include Afghani and Afghanistani in the info-box in his own poll that he designed to push poll, shows his true intentions. He crosses out other polls that he does not like the results of, he then makes his own poll in a way to push poll, he then votes his own choice. He also claims to keep up the discussions while reverting but he took out all support for Afghanistani. In addition, he has broken 3RR like 20 times now and also insults other users by calling them "blind" "idiot" etc... and he throws around accusations. I think an admin should get involved in this case.

Edito*Magica at It Again

User:Edito*Magica was reported to AN/I back in February because of his continuing editing warring over various episode lists in which he was trying to force the episodes into a bad format that does not follow the consensus of format established by the television project and its many featured episode lists, including removing anything from the lead he feels is "redundant" to the main article (see also Wikipedia talk:Lead section#Leading the way- what the "lead" policy should say.) or to the article itself and using a single color for the individual season headers. It was an ugly mess in which he insulted multiple editors and ignored multiple editors, including an admin, telling him to stop his edit warring and making such changes because they were wrong, and his filing a relitory ANI claimWikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive368#User:AnmaFinotera. He seemed to avoid a block by finally backing down and seeming to yield to consensus after the articles were both protected and more editors told him repeatedly that he was wrong.Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive369#Edito*Magica

However, yesterday I came across two more episode lists, less watched than the first, in which he was doing the same thing: List of 2point4 children episodes and List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. With the later, he gave lip service to discussing changing the colors at Talk:List of One Foot in the Grave episodes#Colours but changed them quickly after posting his message, allowing no discussion to occur at all. I tagged both article for having multiple issues, including not following established formatting standards, lacking references, needing a better leader, and tagging for expert help from the Television project as I didn't want to deal with him myself again. I posted so to the TV project page, as both have FL potential, and someone from the project has already volunteered to clean up the List of One Foot in the Grave episodes. However Edito*Magica quickly went and reverted the tagging (and the undoing of his changing the colors before discussion occurred, leaving a message on my talk page[44] declaring he will remove the tags because the lists don't need references, and that no one disagreed with him on the color scheme (of course not, he did the changes three MINUTES after posting the message! How could anyone have time to disagree or agree??? I gave him one warning for removing the tags on both articles, but after his last constant attacks and the disagreeable experience of dealing with him, I've decided its better to go ahead and bring this here now before yet another editor war begins.

Edito*Magica has repeatedly shown himself to be unwilling to work in an environment of multiple editors, regularly arguing with anyone who disagrees with his ideas, even though those ideas go against established Wikipedia guidelines and project standards. He has also shown that he will not change his stripes and will continue such inappropriate behavior on any episode list he decides to mess up, and that he will edit war over them until he either gets his way or the page is protected and he moves on to others. I feel stronger action needs to be taken against him at this time to better drive home the message that his way of editing is not appropriate, and that he can not continue to try to push his wrong attempts to "correct" the appearance of episode lists just because HE alone doesn't like them, when consensus says it is the proper format as shown in featured episode lists. AnmaFinotera (talk) 20:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

As an update: once again an admin has warned Edito to stop, but he first reverted the list under an IP[45], then logged in an reverted his inappropriate changes again[46]. As the admin also asked me not to get into a revert war, I'm leaving it as is for now and will let someone else deal with him. However, this editors continous refusal to acknowledge, must less follow, consensus, and his blatant and repeated ignoring of warnings from administrators should not continued to be ignored. AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

From his messages on my talk page, he is just going to continue disallowing anyone to clean up episode lists for shows he likes. Is no one going to do anything, yet again? AnmaFinotera (talk) 15:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So now he's made a half-assed attempt at following the proper episode format, and is now continuing to remove the maintenance tags because he doesn't agree with them. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:01, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

La la...he has violated 3RR at this point, having removed the tags 4 or 5 times at this point in between other edits, despite my explaining clearly why it is still tagged. AnmaFinotera (talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete tags on my user page

User:DHeyward the former Tom Harrison added speedy delete tags to my user page.

He actually is one of the "deletionist bullies" which I have had edit wars with. Recently him and Mongo were calling me a troll and my contributions "crap" on his user page.

Like the majority of self-anoted copyright enforcers on wikipedia, Tom probably doesn't know one bit of copyright law, and it is pretty clear he is attempting to harrass me.

But to difuse this argument, I am going to move my quotes to another wiki.

P.S. He will inevitably bring up my response, in which case I say:

Many admins have said the same thing repeatedly (Mongo and JzG come to mind). Which DHeyward vigourously defended. DHeyward, please call a RfC, which I will ignore and refuse to particapate in just like JzG, and nothing will come of the RfC, as nothing came of JzG's RfC.

I am so tired of the blatant hypcricy and bullying on wikipedia. I feel sick to my stomache that I have to often resort to the same low ball tactics as others here.

Trav (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't put a speedy tag on your user page, I put a copyvio tag on your page after you cut and pasted material from a copyrighted source. You responded rather uncivilly for the second time today and after a warning. This warning for this edit (unrelated to me). And then your edit summary directed at me after you fixed your copy vios is here. I brought your civility to Wikiquette here where they can't block you but hopefully a third party might be able to discuss your obvious anger problems with you rationally. --DHeyward (talk) 02:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

PS I am not Tom harrison. --DHeyward (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, come on, it shouldn't have been there but the tags specifically say they shouldn't be used unless there's no good version. Why didn't you just ask him to remove it, or something? --Haemo (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I am confused by your response dear Haemo, particularly the first sentence, based on our rich past history, you must obviously be critizing me, not DHeyward.

DHeyward, as I explained on the Wikiquette, I apologize for reacting how I did. Two wrongs (or several dozen "wrongs" in this case) don't make a right. I strongly support wikipolicy on civility, I just wish it would be more evenly enforced.

It maybe noted that the first warning was from another deletionist who wanted to delete the same article which DHeyward wants to delete.

I could contact several supporters here, as DHeyward group has been convincingly accused of before (which I think may have lead to his name change in the first place), to comment on this WP:ANI, but I won't.

The alledged copyvios are now offwiki. Inclusionist (talk) 04:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Apology" not accepted. --DHeyward (talk) 06:22, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

You're confused because I was criticizing DHeyward's placement of the tags, not you. I'm disappointed by your reaction here, since it was an assumption of bad faith over a single disagreement on an ArbCom case. Apparently JzG and MONGO aren't the only people who perceive conspiracies against them around every corner. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The tags say to revert to the last version. I didn't want to remove material from his user page. I put the tags to bring it to his attention and then to an admins if he wasn't there to respond. This what the instructions said to do. Is there a different tag? It wasn't listed at Wikipedia:Copyright problems --DHeyward (talk) 04:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's why I suggested you ask him instead. The correct way to "bring it to his attention" is not slapping speedy deletion tags on it. --Haemo (talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I didn't slap a speedy tag, I put the copyvio tag. What is wrong with that tag for bringing it to his attention? that's the tag that the copyvio page says to use. --DHeyward (talk) 20:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ever4ything is wrong with "yagging it to bring it to his attention" that is not the way we operate. Next time either revert to a pre copyvio version, talk to him about it or preferably both. Viridae^Talk 20:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tagging it is exactly the way we operate because it will bring it to the communities attention if he goes offline or whatever. I will not revert his User page so that's out of the question. This was a simple cleanup with a simple tag. If you don't like tags, bring it to the Village Pump for discussion about removing all the tags we use for everything from cleanup to AfD to Sockpuppets. But making up stuff about how we operate to justify someone saying "Fuck You" in an edit summary is not acceptable. As desired, he saw the violation, deleted the tag and deleted the material. Where exactly is "Fuck You" justified? --DHeyward (talk) 21:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb you've been oversighted before for outing. Please stop. --DHeyward (talk) 04:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Secondly, your accusations of a cabal or group is ludicrous. Check the admin who gave you the warning and then check my block log and try to maintain the facade you are trying to project that we are in cahoots to thwart you. The problem is that you don't respect consensus or the process that is used to reach it. You are incivil and as your above strikeouts indicate, often incorrect. --DHeyward (talk) 05:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dheyward, meet the talk page; it can be your friend. But seriously, that's what we use when issues like this come up with established contributors, not slapping a bunch of copyvio templates on a their user page. And you wonder why he's not taking it well? Shell ^babelfish 22:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no I don't wonder why he's not taking it well, it's part of his overall pattern of contribution. He acted the same way when an admin asked him earlier in the day to be civil on his talk page. Which standard template would make you respond "Fuck You" in an edit summary? Hopefully the answer to that rhetorical question is "None". I didn't bring this here so I'm not sure exactly what he wants. He deleted the offending material which is all I wanted (without the on and off wiki attacks and stalking). It also appears that he's now in some sort of blocking wheel war for constant disruptive editing. --DHeyward (talk) 22:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, use the talk page - its what its there for. Viridae^Talk 00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Next time, I'll use whatever is appropriate whether it's tags or comments or ANI or whatever. This time it was tags. --DHeyward (talk) 00:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Why the combative responses? I understand reacting badly to Travb, but here you've got two outside opinions that you didn't handle that situation the best way possible. Please consider that it might be more appropriate in that situation to use the talk page as we've suggested. Shell ^babelfish 13:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't combative at all. I've considered it. I considered it prior to using the tags. I will consider it in the future. Why do you seem to ignore the "Fuck You" edit summary he used as a response? Travb is currently blocked for an unrelated incident which is his normal MO and enabling these editors as Viridae tried to do yesterday before more level headed admins intervened is counterproductive. I would much rather prefer to contribute to articles then spend my time answering ANI's started by editors the likes of Travb. --DHeyward (talk) 16:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Asking you to consider using the user talk page when dealing with established editors in the future has nothing to do with another person's behavior. The edit summary is of course out of line, but I'm sure you didn't need to hear that; since that was a response to your template, its not as if that made you choose the less civil route (rise above?). Regardless of who started the thread, its just a friendly reminder that its nicer not to template regular users. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Reminder noted. I'm sure you'll now remind travb that it's nicer not to respond to editors with obscenities in edit summaries. There's a nice set of civility templates used just for that purpose. {{subst:uw-npa3}} is a good start. I'd recommend his talk page. Be prepared for his response, however. --DHeyward (talk) 00:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

BTW, the creator of this thread just dropped some tags on an established editor of his own [47]. There's a lot of remindering to go about. --DHeyward (talk) 00:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Racial slurs by User:90.193.39.251/User:90.193.39.91

Resolved

This IP has been firing numerous racial slurs (in edit summaries) at User:Til Eulenspiegel and I (as well as vandalising a user page). Not only are the slurs highly offensive, but also, Til Eugenspiel and I have never claimed to be members of the groups he's attacking, groups which have no relevance to the articles it's occuring on (a Mexican-American singer and Ancient Sumer).--Yolgnu (talk) 02:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Mangojuice has blocked both IPs mentioned (24 and 48 hours, respectively); as there seems to be a chance the user may return on other IP(s), I've semi-protected Sumer, Thalía, and Arab, all for three days. Feel free to report any further problems as needed. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Tankred

Resolved

 – Discussion moved to different page focused on Hungarian-Slovak issues. Elonka 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Multiple personal attacks on his userpage against various users, currently edit warring on at least 30 pages (see edits). When runs out of reverts, goes IP[48]. Blocked multiple times for edit warring (see block log). Also warned multiple times for edit warring as well as refraining from false edit summaries (latest warning:[49]), wich he freqwently uses to delete things he personally dislike. Last such edit (false edit summary to remove content he dislikes):[50] - the "forum":[51] is a leading national newspaper in Hungary) What else evidence needed? --87.97.111.140 (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon, this report has been placed by you at AIV, AN, and now here. This is called forum-shopping, please stop. One report at ANI is sufficient. --Elonka 01:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This anonymous request is totally misleading and its previous version has already been removed from WP:AIV as trolling.[52] The IP has posted it at AIV again few minutes after the first removal and it was removed again by a different admin.[53] So, the IP posted it at WP:AN.[54] This is the fourth time the IP tries their luck. Is it a new kind of a lottery? Tankred (talk) 01:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

user:Tankred Harassment, mass edit warring, using user page as an attack page, using WikiProject to promote harassment, organize edit wars, user is (three times blocked for edit warring see block log[55]) ,

using WikiProject Slovakia to organize edit wars and promote harassment of Hungarian editors,

"Moreover, there is a small, but very active group of Hungarian editors..." "Who wants to deal with them?" ([56])

Asks others to edit war for him, or get involved in specific disputes

“If you want to correct the name feel free” “I do not have energy left after all the recent troubles with some of our Hungarian friends.” ([57])

Thanks others for getting involved in his disputes encourages blind reverts in relation to the same dispute

“Ruziklan and The Dominator, thank you for being good citizens.” “…in the future, please just revert it. It is the matter of few seconds. You do not need to invest your valuable time and energy in communication with an author” “([58])

Uses WikiProject to attack fellow editors, uncivility, “For me, that enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([59])

Uses his own user page to attack others both with named attacks and general attacks,

“these fanatics trying to degrade non-Hungarian nations in the cyberspace.” “I wish I was more interested in writing about Iceland or any other country that is not part of the imaginary Greater Hungary.” “enjoyment is gone, destroyed by few obnoxious chauvinists.” ([60] Includes outright falsehoods to bolster his attack “User:PANONIAN have left for the exact same reasons.” Regarding Kosovo’s declaration of independence this user wrote” ”Serbia finally gained its independence on February 17, there is hope for better future in Serbia now. Anyway, my work in Wikipedia is over, I have other thing to do in life” [61]

Mass removal, crusade against Hungarian names, [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] (just a few examples literally hundreds of examples can be found in his contribs)

Mass edit warring against users on his “hit list”, named enemies on his user page ([68]) (refer to his contribs since 31 March almost every single edit is a revert of a “named” Hungarian editor).

Ignoring administrator warnings/actions. After being warned not to use "misleading statements"[69] by an administrator, posts the same misleading statement to a different admin user DDima, [70] and two different noticeboards after that for a total of four tries. Tankred later removed the administrators warning ([71]) together with warning him about not to use false/deceptive edit summaries calling non-vandal edits vandalism([72]). When an administrator removed parts of his user page that made it “an attack page against specific editors”([ [73]) Tankred simply reposted the attacks with the comment “alll right, no names” [74] using diff links instead to identify his targets. Attacks placed on a user page deny the opportunity for comment and reaction or even pointing out outright falsehoods. Tankred also attacked editors not named on his user page but of Hungarian ethnicity saying for example “But why not to join your co-ethnics in their campaign” ([75]) to a Hungarian editor. Considering all of the above especially the efforts to influence others through using WikiProject Slovakia a collaborative effort to encourage to harass, revert or indeed “deal with” ([76]) Hungarian users and also using his user page in a similar hateful manner I ask the community to consider strong measures to ensure that this can not go on indefinetly. We do not need editors who not only see Wikipedia as an ethnic battleground but actively promote hatred, conflict and encourage others to join in. The negative impact on the project is enormous and is already badly felt. At the very least open encouragement should be dealt with and the situation closely monitored for further campaigning activity. Hobartimus (talk) 03:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest you start a WP:RFC/USER, provide the above evidence there and allow others to provide feedback as well. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This report is misquoting my different statements (some of them withdrawn by myself from my user page) from different periods outside their context and replacing significant parts of my words by "...". Hobartimus has been editwarring against User:MarkBA, User:Tulkolahten, User:Svetovid, User:Markussep, User:Ruziklan, and me for several months. I guess this is his latest move against us. Tankred (talk) 03:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"move against us"? So you list a few users and suddenly you become "us"? I don't see any diffs above from any of these users, this complaint is solely about you and your ehtnic campaigning containing statements about "dealing with" "Hungarian editors". Hobartimus (talk) 04:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The above complaints appear to be an overflow of a larger dispute involving multiple Hungarian and Slovakian editors, on a variety of pages. In order to try and centralize discussions (and try a new dispute resolution technique per WP:WORKGROUP), I have started a page at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. If there are no objections, I will move the above complaints to that page, and this particular complicated thread can be taken off ANI. --Elonka 07:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Tankred says A, and does (and thinks) B. The perfect example is on his userpage:[77]. He writes (states) "all right no names" - and posts multiple personal and general attacks against Hungarian users, with names :). Perfect example. He posted tons of misleading edit summaries wich I reported on WP:ANI, but all he got was a warning. I reported many times his edit warring and his misuse of wikipedia policies, using them as a weapon in disputes. WP:NCGN nowhere states what he tries to make you believe. It even has an example of the very same thing at Gdansk/Danzig how to deal with such things. Tankred as described above, is a notorius edit warrer, blocked multiple times for edit warring, he recruits users for edit warring, and when he runs out of reverts he goes IP. Same summaries, same pages, same reverts, everything is sooooo the same that eventually it quacks so loud that I hardly hear my own thoughts :) If its MarkBA, than they should be investigated, if they are the same person, or could be close friends. I found another IP since:[78], from the very same place, internet provider, etc. "removing chauvinistic vandalism". Tankred's standards of "hate speech" perfectly mets with what he himself wrote on his userpage and was removed by Elonka and multiple other editors in multiple times for some obvious reason. Tankred broke the 3RR there btw, and...see the link for stating A, doing B again:[79].

Tankred also misinterprets edits, and actions of other users[80] (last comments)

Tankred's claims, statements and whatever he writes should and must MUST be treated with high suspicion and distrust. Says A, or he even acts like A, then immediately switches back to B. Also doing WP:DRAMA by "retiring" (for 2 days:) and such. Do not believe him, he is a great manipulator. --Rembaoud (talk) 18:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

The dispute resolution process between us is ongoing at User talk:Elonka/Hungarian-Slovakian experiment. Why are you posting the same stuff here? Tankred (talk) 21:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be mostly dealing with content but yes, a large discussion is taking place there. Hobartimus (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Self-harm

merged to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Merged from above Mr.Z-man 00:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive editing by Quack Guru, OrangeMarlin and Eubulides at Chiropractic

Although I can appreciate the lamentable fact that Chiropractic is back again in discussion here, I feel that I need to present some facts that will hopefully result in clarification of the issues raised. I declare the conflict of interest that I am a chiropractor and a kinesiologist.

First, QuackGuru is making seriously misleading statements and is seemingly gearing up a smear campaign to make it look that I'm a bad editor. Diffs [81] and [82] and [83] claimed by response on the Talk page of chiropractic to a query of a fellow editor was disruptive and he proceeded to delete my comments and concerns I raised.

Next, User:Orangemarlin a medical doctor, made 2 reverts which blanked all of the scope of practice section that was added citing "NPOV". It first occurred here which then I asked OrangeMarlin to please not blindly revert and participate in Talk first [84]. 3 minutes later, without even acknowledging my cocnern, OrangeMarlin blindly reverted again here using TWINKLE, an automated tool that I believe is used to revert acts of vandalism. The revert he supported was done by User:Eubulides who is also, coincidentally, a medical doctor.

Shortly thereafter, Chiropractic was protected due to the "edit war" which ensued. Admin Swatjester, a completely unbiased, neutral party restored the blanked scope of practice section here citing it was indeed NPOV and well-sourced. He was then overturned by admin Vassyana who proceeded to revert admin Swatjester who explained his case here rather well.

I also believe that User:Eubulides acted against the spirit of wikipedia in several ways the first of which was fully reverting the inserted material which had been discussed on Chiropractic Talk for over 1 week and that had no comments from the skeptical editors until (surprise, surprise) I asked permission for it to go then. Eubulides claimed the citations weren't working whereas User:Levine2112, User:DigitalC, myself and others had no problem viewing the citations. Then he claimed the citation format was incorrect. After it was fixed and I inserted the scope of practice, he reverted claiming that he did not have time to check the citations. Looking at his contribs I saw that he had been actively editing other pages the entire time (I counted 25 separate edits) while the majority consensus had to wait for his approval (a paternalistic and/or arrogant behaviour that implied other editors were not somehow discern that the section was good enough for inclusion). Anyways, he has since made a list of grievances all of which are minor and I personally view as stall tactics and obstruction. Given allopathic medicine's history of trying to contain, supress and eliminate chiropractic (more context which can be seen [85]) I find that the editing tactics of Eubulides and OrangeMarlin to be disruptive at best, not in good faith, at worst and ultimately go against the goal of the project here which is to provide expertly written articles that are reliable and high quality. For contextual purposes, I have included the section which was reverted and declared "NPOV" and "poorly sourced" by the aforementioned editors in question. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CorticoSpinal (talk • contribs)

_{lenghty cut and paste from article page removed once again - don't do that again, it's a sure fire way to piss people off. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 22:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)}

Please assess and see if this is POV with poor sources. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

==

Content dispute. I would suggest deleting this from this page and taking it to the article's Talk page. Corvus cornix_talk 22:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus, the username indicates a possible conflict of interest, and the content looks like original research. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I was about to say the same thing. This is a content dispute. If discussion on the talk page has stalled, might I suggest a content RFC? Either way, it might be helpful to delete this. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:41, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have presented a case of disruptive editing by OrangeMarlin, QuackGuru and Eubulides. I would appreciate if comments were directed towards that. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to consider a User conduct RFC. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

this is content dispute, there is nothing here that a) requires admin intervention and b) would warrant admin intervention. As suggested, this is a matter for RFC. --87.114.7.178 (talk) 23:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Gwen are you suggesting that the evidence presented above is not sufficient for this noticeboard? It's my first time bringing something like this up so guidance would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. So far as I can tell, this is a content dispute over a controversial topic. There seem to be disagreements all the way down to what sources meet WP:RS along with WP:WEIGHT. While there are signs of edit warring, which is in itself disruptive, this is something for dispute resolution, not ANI. Truth be told, if discussion has truly bogged down, I think one might start with a content RFC, which could gather some helpful outside input. This also could be a fit task for the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely a content dispute as presented, however, if this doesn't get resolved somehow, this is going to keep coming back, because it involves a deliberate blanking of NPOV material. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 23:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Swatjester is succintly described the argument I was trying to make. It was too wordy, but I felt I had to provide context and diffs. Gwen, I tried to use RfC and I'm having a hard time figuring it out. I would like it to be known that the disputed source is a World Health Organization (basic training and safety of chiropractic). I feel that there are a few editors at Chiropractic (listed above) who are being disruptive by objecting to trivial little things and resort to reversions rather than talking about it first. It's not in good taste, it's its being done by experienced editors who know better and are gaming the system here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I was the protecting admin, and am keeping an eye on things. I've gained two observations: 1) These guys have larger than average egos, and 2) They are debating content productively, though in fits and starts, occasionally tripping over observation 1. I feel they will resolve the issue by themselves in time, maybe up to a week. —EncMstr (talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to look the other way at point #1 :) #2)one editor is holding up something that 4 agree on. (QG does not count, he's always on the 'nay' side no matter what). CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CorticoSpinal = User:EBDCM, an indefinitely blocked edit warrior. I'm not sure why he was unblocked, but I guess I don't care. Just realize this editor has a COI as someone who has a continued interest in promoting the chiropractic POV. Otherwise, this posting isn't worthy of too much response. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 23:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Red Herring, it doesn't address why you reverted and blanked the scope of section page citing NPOV. Also, you've already suggested that you don't need to talk things through, as per your discussion with DigitalC. Admin Swatjester has the same concern, you don't have to answer me since you're so glib on labelling me, amongst other things "anti-scientific" "POV warrior" "edit warrior". What's next, the Ultimate Warrior? Sheeeesh! CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Revisiting Anon Issue

Unfortunately, an issue presented in an earlier incident (and again here) (filed less than 48 hours ago) has re-presented itself. In the earlier complaint, a request for help was sent to address the removal of an IP banner and conversations/complaints from an anon user's UserTalk page by the anon himself. As the admns who responded supported the IP banner's continued placement in the anon's page, the matter seemed resolved efficiently. The last comment on the anon users talk page was the notification of a one-week block by JzG (talk · contribs) for being a "Disruptive and disputatious editor". At that point, the old IP address went silent.
As per new comments in the Fitna, it would appear that the same anon has in fact shed the prior IP address where the IP banner and commentary (and week-long block) were located to continue editing in defiance of both the prior AN/I decision and the block as 75.58.39.201 (talk · contribs).
I have since updated the IP banner and discussions from the prior IP address to the current IP shell, but have brought the matter of the usage of the anon IP to duck the block here, while notifying the blocking admin. What should happen now? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne makes a false accusation. Arcayne placed the text on my user page. The text contains a time stamp of 21:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

My current IP address has been with me since at least 14:07, 16 April 2008. I have never interacted with this editor, nor been informed of any pending actions against me involving him. I have never been afforded the opportunity to defend myself - nor are we aware of which posts containing the issue were assigned to that IP and if they belong to me. 75.58.39.201 (talk)

With apology, I don't think any false accusation has been made. I think its pretty common practice to watchlist one's own user/usertalk page, even if you are an anon. This means the comment from the blocking admn would be in your watchlist. Additionally, the admin's block appears to be addressing your - and no one else's - edits using that IP address, noting the DIff/Time of the block and your edits. You were blocked, and continued to edit through another IP address that was unknown and unaffected by the admin's block. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Anon logins have no "watchlist" capability. Also, those ip's resolve to different states, why do you assume it's the same user? Jpmonroe (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The anon's posting behavior and style is identical in both IPs in that they both defend the same statements. Both IPs edit in precisely the same articles (1,And they coss-post the same information ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fitna_%28film%29&diff=prev&oldid=206010498 1. 2) between these same articles. Lastly, where the older IP ends without further edit, the newer IP begins less than an hour later. If these are two different editors, then even other editors are assuming they are the same individual. As a prior RfCU was filed with the initial consideration that this was a sockfarm, the anon admitted that all of the IPs within the range of the request were his. As well, the prior AN/I complaint concerned the removal of an IP banner, as the anon moved from one IP address to another. In that instance, the anon never claimed that the IPs were not his.

Lastly, I moved his IP banner and prior discussions to his new IP, which contained the notice that he had been blocked. However, the anon continued to edit, even after posting here (1, 2, 3). - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 00:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Arcayne - can you explain how your post was altered in this diff as you claim? As anyone can see from the diff, nothing from the beginning of the section to your signature is altered - though I can't tell if the unsigned comment that is removed (not altered) is yours. --Random832 (contribs) 00:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

WHile that particular post and issue is immaterial to this complaint (it was in fact what prompted the prior complaint by the anon), by bracketing my text, his edit made it seem that my post had arrived after a consensus had been achieved, offering the position that my post was in aggreement with the resolution. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 02:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me, but in the post that Arcayne is referring to that has been linked by Random832, everything in red type is my writing (including the unsigned text on the left of screen). It is at the end of a section and it is signed. I marked my question as resolved per the specific instructions of the board. This is the following post by Arcayne.[86] I am shocked by the boldness of claiming things so casually which are so demonstrably not so. You will notice he removes my entire post. Every Word and leaves me this Warning: do not ever in you life alter the content of one of my posts, or I shall see you blocked so fast your kids will be dizzy. Arcayne 75.58.44.23 (talk)

Again, this AN/I is not about a situation already covered in the third complaint submitted by the anon - a complaint that was already archived (and I was counseled as to my tone and have since taken that to heart). Note that this complaint is about and only about - the anon user sidestepping a block. The possibility that the anon was unable to check their edit history to know they were blocked seems incredibly unlikely, as the anon responded to the ANI complaint within an hour after I notified him of the complaint.

Even if this noticeboard considers that to be an extraordinary coincidence, the fact remains that the user continued to post in article discussions and elsewhere after learning of the block. And after the block was confirmed at the new address, the anon simply created yet another anon account to lobby the blocking admin, others and here, using two different anon IPs (75.58.32.90 (talk · contribs) and 75.58.44.23 (talk · contribs)) within the past 24 hours. Even if he did not know of the block before, he did by the time he posted here, and continued to edit and create new accounts. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 06:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Threat

Resolved

 – Police called; school closed due to concerns on 4/18 and the alleged poster of the threat has been arrested.

Can someone review this threat to see if any action should be taken? Dreadstar † 03:58, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Call the local police immediately, and notify the WMF. Give the local police clear instructions on how to find the article on wikipedia, and how to find the edit in the history. Do not call their emergency line. Specific hit lists are probably the second highest level of trouble of this sort we can see... (per BEANS, i say no more.) ThuranX (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow, that's disturbing. Hopefully this will turn out to be an empty threat, but it's better to be safe than sorry. --clpo13_(talk) 04:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've located a phone number for the closest police station. Has anybody called yet? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 04:39, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm on the phone. John Reaves 04:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting ready to call the LA County Sheriff's department. You got it John? Dreadstar † 04:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the page, because for some reason the user wasn't blocked on sight. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 04:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC) edited at 04:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC), apologies for last comment

Would it be worth locking the original poster's talk page? (Per WP:VIOLENCE, so that nothing gets posted?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:56, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It has been (not by me) Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 05:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

John beat me to it. Any details, John? Taking this seriously and reporting it to the police is in accordance with WP:TOV. John, if they give you a case number, a name of the officer you spoke with or something you may want to post it here just so there is a record of it. I did this when I called the police in the Plano HS case. Thanks, John, for making the call. Sincerely, Bstone (talk) 05:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently in contact with a detective and we're attempting to work with the ISP. John Reaves 05:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Good for you, John. You have made me proud. You may want to give a brain dump of who you spoke to and such just for history and transparency sake. I did this with Plano HS, just so it could be entered into the log and anyone (including the detective I was working with) would see a visual history. Good work. Bstone (talk) 08:25, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone must have gotten through to them: [87] Nice work John...RxS (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope plenty of people have bookmarked this entry to point to later when others ask what WP does when this happens. Also, it'd be nice to hear if the police & ISP get anywhere with tracking the threatmaker down. BBC story about UK school boy threatening the president Dan Beale-Cocks 19:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:TOV, which is the latest effort to detail how to respond to these sort of things, it only an essay. In my opinion is should at least be a guideline. I invite you to come over and chime in on the talk page. Bstone (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to update the situation, after searches were done on students yesterday, the school was closed (LA Times) today, and the alleged editor of the threats has been arrested. We did a good job everyone and I'm glad we got on top of this, whether harm was to come to somebody or not. Nate • (chatter) 21:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I requested oversight since some possible students at the school were named in the threats. I missed a diff in the E-Mail, and subsequently that revision, which also named those mentioned in the original threat, still remains. I'm sending a second E-Mail to Oversight. —  scetoaux (T|C) 21:29, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Excellent work Wikipedians, especially Dreadstar, for bringing it here, and John Reaves, for acting on it. As a former public school teacher, all threats are serious threats. The moment one is brushed off as "not serious" is the moment that CNN reports the number of bodies in x classrooms. I'm thrilled with our quick response. Absolutely thrilled. Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. This would make a great story for the Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost. However, I was surprised how many errors were in the LA Times article. It said that the district's article was vandalised, but it was actually the High School page itself. Also, it did not mention any involvement by Wikipedians who reported the incident, and it listed 33 families insetead of the 23 listed in the threat. It also did not mention a third threat posted by an anon which led to the arrest by IP adress. Also, it seems unlikely that the incident went all the way from being reported to the press to being posted to asking Wikipedia "officials" to remove it, when it was removed almost instantly. Also, you'd be surprised how many people call our contributors "officials". This would definately make an interesting story for the Signpost, as an entire high school was closed due to a Wikipedia threat and the perpetrator arrested over that. Could someone provide the Signpost suggestion page with more info? Thanks. ~AH1^(TCU) 22:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Another story from the Pasadena Star-News about the arrest. As for why there were errors in the LAT story (JMO here), the details that the threats were from WP only came out publicly just today and weren't within the stories posted about the searches while class was in session yesterday, listing only 'the Internet' as the threat source. Since the source for the LAT story seemed to be a parent with a printout of the threats they may not have delved further than just the two pages, not going further into the diffs, along with this thread, so I'm sure a more complete story with accurate details is on the way (note that the article I linked came out only an hour before my timestamp so it was probably a rush article for their website). Nate • (chatter) 00:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Early newspaper/wire reports of any story are wontedly laden with little mistakes. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:48, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately as a long-time reader of the LA Times I can say that eggregious factual errors in reportage are more the rule than the occasional early-reporting exception, and they are very rarely corrected later. They seem to have a very casual atttitude to concepts like truth and facts. The other local papers usually do much better. Loren.wilton (talk) 05:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I was trying to be restrained about it however the above is true. Most newspaper stories get the broad sweep close enough (fire, threat, hurricane, car wreck, whatever) but the smaller details will very likely be riddled with mistakes. Gwen Gale (talk) 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Since the poster of the threat has been arrested I'm going to go ahead and delete the contribs relating to the shooting threat.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 00:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Steiner Redlich

This user is making a mess of the Sviatoslav Richter page. In spite of the recent attempts of several users to engage him in discussion on the talk page, he merely deletes cited material and inserts his own opinions. He was previously blocked for two days, then was up to his old tricks after the block was liftedTHD3 (talk) 12:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm one of the users mentioned by THD3 and I entirely second his opinion. Steiner Redlich's attitude has been consistently disruptive and disrespectful of Wikipedia rules. MUSIKVEREIN (talk) 03:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

First, please get the username right. There's enough puzzles around here anyway. Second, the article's been protected and he's been warned to level 4. If he continues again, report him to AIV. He's been warned repeated so you guys should be using {{bv}} immediately on him and then reporting to AIV afterwards. Once again, an emphasis that he needs to use the talk page rather than complaining through edit summaries. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

69.253.242.57 (talk · contribs) and legal threats

This editor seems to be presenting themselves as a parent of Jenna Syken and recently made this edit. In the corresponding edit summary they spoke of contacting an attorney due to libel. This is the whole edit summary:

We have been in touch with an attorney pertaining to libel and slander written by wikipedia about our minor child. There is a record of everyone who redoes Jenna Syken page by wikipedia people

Is that considered a legal threat, should something be done?
Thanks. 15:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's a legal threat but before any block I think this IP should be approached very gently with some help. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As an aside, their page does contain 5 warnings about non-constructive edits on the above mentioned article. SWik78 (talk) 15:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

They're all standard warning templates, not very informative. Blanking is a common response by non-users to what we call BLP worries. Gwen Gale (talk) 15:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've placed a gentle notice at User_talk:69.253.242.57. Bearian (talk) 15:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The article makes a very striking, unsourced claim about a living person, and suggests a motive. Neither is supported by the existing links. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The who is check goes to Mt. Laurel, NJ. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Just as an FYI: her mother has contacted the Foundation before so this is likely her again. John Reaves 15:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. The negative, possibly OR spin on her career has been rm'd. Meanwhile if the IP doesn't answer and carries on with threats, a block would likely be fitting. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The IPs appear to be evading an indef-block on NaomiSyken (talk · contribs) from behavioural evidence... Tony Fox (arf!) 16:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed what was unsourced, and sourced the rest. Bearian (talk) 16:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else check out whether this is a sock? Bearian (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, looks like it to me, RCU? Gwen Gale (talk) 16:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there really a point to this, it seems totally obvious. In any event, we should probably not pursue a real aggressive RBI policy toward relatives of BLPs. Polite conversation and gentle education would seem more appropriate here. Thatcher 16:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for answering so quickly, it is obvious and I agree, which is why I suggested a gentle approach to begin with. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) The named account has a page full of warnings, suggestions and finally instructions from the blocking admin on how to deal with the situation; the IPs (see 167.112.160.33 (talk · contribs) as well) both have flurries of warnings... at what point do we step out of "gentle education," especially considering the rather blunt legal threats? Tony Fox (arf!) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think your question is worth talking about. I'd say with this article, when thoroughly sourced information is being removed with legal threats not to put it back. We're not there yet. Gwen Gale (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(reply to Gwen Gale post at 16:01) I gave the account User:NaomiSyken a personal message on how to address their concerns when I indef blocked the account, per here. I also note that it appears they attempted to contact the Foundation. From the continued edits to the article and the message on the ip talkpage it appears either the editor is continuing utilising an improper avenue to influence content in the article while contacting the Foundation - or they are unsatisfied with the Foundations response and have reverted to what is generally considered vandalism. In either case what they are doing falls outside of permitted behaviour. As the main account is indef blocked (I made it clear that a block can be lifted if the improper editing stops) I suggest sprotecting the article, and noting on the ip talkpage that concerns can still be addressed to the article talkpage. Perhaps someone can find out from the Foundation what the state of play is there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC) ps. If anyone wishes to make edits to the article but are concerned about possible legal consequences, contact me and I will make those edits on your behalf.

Thanks. Since the unsourced information has been removed, I would suggest that if the IP blanks (or mostly blanks) the article again, that the IP be blocked and the page s-protected. I'll try to ask about any contacts with WMF. Gwen Gale (talk) 21:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The disputed text has been in the article since it was created in August 2007. Beginning in February, the IP began trying to remove it. There seems to have been contact about six weeks ago, but a look at the edit history shows not much was done to keep the unsourced text out of the article. Ever since, User:NaomiSyken (through the IP, too) has been editing back and forth with a few editors and other IPs. She has tried blanking the page, taking out the text, replacing the text with website addresses and so on. Each time, the material has been restored, often as either a vandalism or COI revert. The thing is, the text she wants removed is indeed unsourced and so far, seems to be only an unverifiable interpretation. Until (or if) a strong and reliable source ever shows up I suggest watching the article and keeping the disputed content out, following WP:BLP. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

IP spamming external link

Resolved

63.145.29.12 has been spamming the same link across multiple pages. Can someone please revert all the changes (not just the ones today, but earlier ones too) and block accordingly? Looks like someone trying to advertise. John Smith's (talk) 19:00, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Consider posting your request at WT:WPSPAM. That noticeboard is listed under 'Spam' in the header above. (See the line for 'Report Abuse'). EdJohnston (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - someone has already taken notice. John Smith's (talk) 19:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the talk page appeared empty - it's always a good idea to WP:WARN user's about the unacceptability of spamming and advertising on this site. Scale it up according too. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

River Usk

Resolved

The last entry has added a reference which is simpy from a wikipedia mirror site. Not sure what to do. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I undid it, although this should have been dealt with on the article talk page. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - just thought there would be a standard informative template - its quite a hard concept for a newbie to get their head around. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries, sounds like you're catching on quick :) Gwen Gale (talk) 20:47, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As Gwen said, it could easily be taken up on the article's talk page. Always a good idea to cite reliable sources so that the editor is aware that citing another Wikipedia site or a mirror just won't cut in - and that the source is likely to be removed. boldness works in this situation. Cheers. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

userpage as advert, with warnings.

Resolved

 – as below

User:Canplex has only edited his userpage to serve as a corporate advert. I warned him on talk, he continued to edit it, it was blanked once, he has reverted and continued to self-promote. He hasn't responded to warnings about how to use Wikipedia. Admins please? ThuranX (talk) 19:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Page blanked and protected. User has been advised to offer an undertaking not to replace that content before the page will be unprotected. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 20:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Using your company name as your user name for promotional purposes is a blatant violation of WP:U, and I have softblocked the account. The user can come back with a new user name if he/she wants to contribute in accordance with policy. --MCB (talk) 04:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems ratehr BITEy, given that I'd just given him a lengthy explanation of the basics. Now, you go an d block him, so we look uncoordinated, and unsupportive of new users. Not a good move, when you could've jsut explained it to him and asked him to contact you from a new account. Given the problems of COI he was having, leaving him on an obvious, easy to watch name made sense, at least till we'd established that he understood the bigger principles. ThuranX (talk) 05:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User 69.124.42.44

Resolved

This user has been vandalising the Bully (video game) article over the course of a few days. As per his contributions log [88], this is the only thing that he has contributed to wikipedia. McJeff (talk) 01:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You might want to report vandalism to this page: Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. --Apis 02:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Was unaware of that page. Have posted on it. McJeff (talk) 02:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Can someone else block him? Bearian'sBooties (talk) 02:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Uh, lets give him a least a proper warning first. I have issued him a final warn, lets wait to see what happens. (Next time please take this to WP:AIV) Tiptoety ^talk 02:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, sorry if I sounded a bit unhelpful, I just wanted to point you in that direction since you probably get a much quicker response there. I'm not an admin so I couldn't help with any blocking etc. =) Apis 02:35, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, just in the future, scale up the levels of warnings and then report to AIV. Of course, this page is also suitable for reporting long-term abuse as well. It's just a judgment call. Nice job alerting the admins though. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well seeing as it is a shared IP, and they have stoped editing I think we can mark this resolved and move on. McJeff: if they continue to vandalize, give them a warning and if they continue after that, report to WP:AIV. Tiptoety ^talk 02:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalized image

Resolved

I do not much work with images, and have not been able to revert to the previous image of Image:Eccehomo2.jpg which used to be a painting and is now a disturbing image of an accident victim, It is used in several articles. The file history seems to show it is reverted to the painting but the bad image still shows up in the article. Thanks. Edison (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It was the above mentioned Grawp vandal. I deleted that revision, and several other ones he uploaded. seresin ( ¡? ) 04:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked "revert" at the image page it showed the dimensions of the proper one but still displayed the vandal image. What does it take to remove a bad image which a vandal has used to replace the original image?Edison (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hit the "reload" button on your browser. --Carnildo (talk) 05:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's been reverted, its just stuck in your cache. Try a hard refresh...and trust me, I wish I hadn't seen it either (as one who reverted until it could be deleted). AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion refactoring on Talk:Philip K. Dick

Resolved

 – Conflict between two users, no immediate admin intervention needed. Sandstein (talk) 08:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I think this is the right place to go, but if not, please let me know. As usual, this problem grows out of a content dispute. User:Viriditas and I had a night of strong argumentation on Talk:Philip K. Dick over whether the category "Christian writer" should be restored to the article. Once it was clear the argument had run out of anything substantive to talk about that night, I backed out of it, because my comments were clearly getting Viriditas upset. [89]

During the discussion, Viriditas added some section labels to it,[90],[91], [92], [93], this one with the edit summary "Fixing derailment of discussion" which I did not object to because they helped to navigate around what was a long colloquy. I did change the names of the sections to more accurately reflect the contents (for instance he put in "Response from Ed Fitzgerald" which I changed to "Dialogue: Ed Fitzgerald & Viriditas"),[94],[95], and later put in a marker to show where the conversation had originally been.[96] Since then, the conversation between us has pretty much stopped, with only a few comments added, but Viriditas keeps refactoring it, taking my remarks from the places where they occured and putting them into a separate section - in effect, attempting to "ghettoize" them as being disruptive, irrelevant and not pertinent to the "real" conversation that he prefers to keep separate form my remarks. [97],[98].

This afternoon, I undid his latest refactoring, restored what was there, and put his latest comment in the place it would have been otherwise in the conversation.[99] I then started a new section on the page asking him to stop refactoring.[100] His response was to refactor again,[101], change the section labels,[102] and leave me a message accusing me of trolling.[103], [104], [105] This is not the case, my comments were all either pertiment to the subject(s) under discussion (whether Dick is a Christian writer or not, and whether the Carrere biography of Dick is a reliable source), or directly in response to his comments to me.

Ironically, while Viriditas has accused me of having ownership issues with the Philip K. Dick article and of trying to control the conversation, at least four times during our discussion he has said directly to me "If I want your opinion I'll ask for it"[106],[107], [108], [109], [110], [111] and has attempted to bully me off the page, as if it was his talk page to control. Along the way he's been constantly condescending, asking me if I need some books in order to understand what he's saying,[112], [113] if I understand Wikipedia policy, referred to my relevant comments as "empty huffing and puffing" [114], called me a "little man" [115], accused me of inciviity and misbehavior[116], and of trying to force my views on others [117], and in general, has just been pretty unpleasant.

I fully understand that it "takes two to tango", that both Viriditas and I bear responsibility for the tenor of the argument, and I would not have brought it to anyone's attention if it weren't for the refactoring, and the blatant attempt to remove and downgrade my comments by "ghettoizing" them in a section away from the rest of the discussion. If an admin could look at the situation and, if appropriate, speak to Viriditas to ask him to stop refactoring the talk page that would be great, as would restoring his latest refactoring, which I have not touched.

As soon as I post this, I will put a notice on his talk page about this complaint. Thank you. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 01:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I did post a notice to Viriditas' talk page [118]. It was removed with the edit summary "Get a life" [119]. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 04:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, so about twelve hours have gone by since I posted this, without comment here. Two people have been by Philip K. Dick and removed categories, and one person removed a personal comment by Viriditas about me on the talk page. I can't tell, of course, if those actions were provoked by this complaint or not, and I'm a little confused about how to interpret the lack of response here. Does it mean I should take the complaint elsewhere? Does it mean I'm totally in the wrong and that I'm a real dick (pun intended) for bringing it up in the first place? Does it mean I should simply attend to undoing Viriditas' refactoring and restoring the comment thread myself, at the risk of starting an edit war? As it is now, the discussion seems very disjointed to me, because of his manipulation of it, and I'd prefer that it be put back into a more coherent order, but I'm reluctant to do so myself without some guidance from above. Anybody? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 17:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the lack of a response is because your account leaves me with the impression that this situation needs dispute resolution, not admin intervention; and that this board is dedicated to the latter but not to the former. Sorry. Sandstein (talk) 18:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear that my complaint had nothing to do with the content dispute, but with the refactoring of a talk page discussion by someone involved in in a dispute in the discussion. Unless I'm mistaken, that's something that Wikipedia would desire to be discouraged. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 19:30, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Okay, what admin intervention do you propose in reaction to this? Sandstein (talk) 20:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As I wrote above, I would like the latest refactoring to be undone, so that I (a partisan in the discussion) don't do have to do it (or at least be told that it's OK for me to undo it), and I would like Viriditas to be informed that refactoring a discussion when you're involved in a dispute within it is not kosher. That's about it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

In case it's not clear, undoing the latest manipulation of the discussion would mean reverting these two edits: [120][121], which would put things back to their previous state. The rest of Viriditas' edits in that same session did not have to do with that thread, and he did not add an additional comment to the thread at that time. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 21:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but reverting an edit and leaving a message for an editor does not require administrator privileges. You're on the wrong messageboard. This is essentially a dispute between you two, and I advise you to use dispute resolution methods. Sandstein (talk) 06:20, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(out)So what you're telling me is that admins have no interest in a user manipulating the order of comments in a talk page discussion to reflect their personal POV when the user is heatedly involved in the discussion? That seems odd to me.

In any case I wish someone would have seen fit to get involved because things have escalated a bit. Viriditas has now templated my talk page, warning me about edit warring because I removed a long lede section from Bibliography of Philip K. Dick because it was too long, duplicated the main article Philip K. Dick, and wasn't focused on Dick's writing. I've replaced it with a shorter, more focused lede, but I have a feeling after I post this I'm going to find that he's deleted it.

Can someone please take a look at Bibliography of Philip K. Dick and cool things down a bit before they get out of hand? Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I mean, come on, is this really appropriate? Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 07:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:KolevTome

Resolved

 – Warned user. Take follow-ups to WP:ANI Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Impoliteness, incivility and difficult communication with User:KolevTome. Deleting sourced material, attacks on ethnicities and nationalities. Has been kindly warned but he doesn’t seem to care. Will someone do something? The Cat and the Owl (talk) 06:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Warned user. Take follow-ups to WP:ANI Toddst1 (talk) 06:52, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism from IP range

• I am not sure how to figure out the range of an IP, but there seems to be persistent vandalism coming from a shifting one. 122.104.199.200 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has vandalized quite a bit of pages under other IPs (check the history of the articles he's vandalized out) and shows no signs of stopping. JuJube (talk) 07:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

You should actually be reporting this to AIV. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 07:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I would, except the IP changes frequently and many of the previous ones are already blocked. JuJube (talk) 07:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Personal attack edit summaries

Can the edit summaries in [[Special:Contributions/<removed>]] be deleted? DuncanHill (talk) 12:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have made a request for oversight. They should disappear shortly. --B (talk) 12:08, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. DuncanHill (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name of the user, not needed any more here. Cenarium^Talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Based on that I'd say the user needs a much more substantial warning than the one I previously provided on his talk page. Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Is now blocked indef. Rightly so. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 12:11, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I have indef blocked the user as vandal only after reviewing the whole account. I am just looking up how to entirely get rid of them: bit beyond my normal actions. --BozMo talk 12:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Back as User: Mr nibble Jasynnash2 (talk) 12:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page needs deleting, salting and oversighting. Should also do this to the original account. MER-C 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Added to oversight request. --B (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• A little bit narked with this ladies n gents. I'd already issued a temporary block to the original editor to stop any further disruption to the project, and with a couple of others had already started reverting all the edits, and it was also to give me time to look through the whole issue. There was no pressing urgency to change the block without discussing it with me first and to find the reasoning behind, whether anyone agreed with the length or not. There was already a discussion on my talk page that would have immediately made the situation clear. So in brief if there is no immediate potential disruption to the project please discuss it, and think to ask other administrators without overriding their decisions and causing bad feeling please. ^Khukri 12:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if you are referring to me but I am pretty sure there was no temporary block in place when I indef blocked this user (unless they were concurrent). Certainly no block notice either or any note to say it was with you. --BozMo talk 13:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

User:B unblocked ot re-block, and it appears User:BozMo Blocked at the same time ; [122] and [123] Pedro :  Chat  13:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I came here also via some attack talk pages that I deleted, and after a further note that i dropped at the user. Personally, I suspect that it relates to Iamdoctortran (talk · contribs) being warned and blocked yesterday, but it is just a guess.--Tikiwont (talk) 12:44, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I've had a look through User:Thingg's past to see if I can see anything but SOBS's started editing on the 9th one edit then started his anti-Thingg rant today. Thingg is a pretty prolific VP'er so it could be anyone looking though it. I've watchlisted his talk page for now just incase we get a sock or two. ^Khukri 12:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Extending your block to indefinite, blocking email to prevent further harassment, and annotate the block log to note that the offending revisions may be oversighted should anyone ever review this block in the future was all non-controversial and obviously correct. Permission or prior discussion is not necessary. Your complaint was left on my talk page four minutes after I reblocked him, before I had a chance to leave you a courtesy note. Bringing it here when there is nothing to resolve, an unambiguously correct decision, and you have already expressed your concern to me is pointless. --B (talk) 14:09, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• Back again as User:Hoppin' bonkers Jasynnash2 (talk) 14:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• And they're back again as User:Swav swan -- The Anome (talk) 12:29, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Proabivouac (talk · contribs · logs)

This seems rather worrying... seeing as attacking FT2 is the "in" thing right now, and Proab's contributions to WR have been more polemic than actually discussion, is there a net gain to having him on the project? Sceptre ^(talk) 21:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

His contributions to WR have no basis whatsoever on his continuing status as a wikipedian. Viridae^Talk 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

And why the hell was FT2 blanking that in his userspace anyway? Viridae^Talk 22:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Better question would be why did anyone need a copy of that in their user space? And was threatening to "publicize" something really necessary? Shell ^babelfish 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I dunno - you could go and ask him? (novel idea that one) Viridae^Talk 22:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't see an issue with this. This kind of stuff occurs in userspace all the time. As for his WR comments, they aren't always the nicest, but that's WR not here. Majorly (talk) 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• These reports have no purpose, they are far too old to be actionable and this is the first time Proabivouac has edited anything for weeks. He seems to have left, probably a wise decision on the whole, but seems to pop up foroccasional pot-shots at his old foes. I don't think that's terribly helpful, and there is past history of problems from Proabivouac, so I have blocked for now. If he demonstrates an intention to come back and contribute to the encyclopaedia then I have no objection to an uninvolved admin unblocking [note: I do not count Viridae as uninvolved due to past conflicts with me]. But I don't think we need people whose only contribution is drama, and not much of that. Guy (Help!) 22:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
• I have unblocked Proabivouac as I see no consensus for the block - and having one person who is arguing against such action being declared an opponent of the blocker, and therefore whose opinion is presumed invalid - and there was no indication of IAR. I am not aware of any RfC or ArbCom which allows for this action. I therefore consider the block to be entirely improperly made, and have undone it accordingly.

Now, if there is a discussion regarding whether the main account is contributing, or is capable of contributing, positively and the consensus is that it is not then I agree that the block be re-imposed (and will impose it myself, regardless of what - if any - my opinion is of the matter, if need be). Can we get away from simply indefing someone whose opinions and presence at other places we don't care for, and use the processes and principles of Wikipedia to guide our actions? LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This does not seem like acceptable conduct to me. JzG does not need a consensus to block, only a belief that a block is appropriate. Were a consensus to emerge that he was mistaken the block could be reversed. But you have no basis, and frankly give no reason, to reverse a block by another administrator for harassment. Please reconsider your action. WjBscribe 23:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, was that JzG does not need consensus or admins do not need consensus? I would draw your attention that the first two responses on this thread were opposed to any action, so I think there was already a consensus not to block. JzG's actions did not reflect the direction the discussion was taking, even among those who considered the (re)creation of the userpage to be seriously problematic there was as yet no demand for summary blocking. Further, if the account is moribund then a block is not preventative. I hope we are now able to properly consider what may be done in the matter of this long term contributor. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd consider it BRD, admin style. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:57, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Since when are Guys actions suddenly sacrosanct? You need more to indef someone that a vague "he isnt really helping much as of late" Viridae^Talk 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Echo LessHeard vanU - we have ways of doing things on wikipedia so contributors are not ridden rough shod over by admins. Indeffing on that basis is not one of those procedures and likewise to the deletion. If you want Proab gone - start getting consensus, if you want the page gone (which was proven sockpuppetry by the way, contrary to Guys assertions) MfD it - there is nothing in the speedy deletion policy that covers that sort of deletion. Viridae^Talk 23:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment: All mentions of OIC bar one are by Proab... I think this is crossing into Wikistalking myself. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Really - so the entire SSP page is also wikistalking...? Come on you can do better than that. Viridae^Talk 23:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

On Wikipedia Review, I mean. Looking at the SSP report, it's very tenous at best... the Unabomber, OIC is not. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Tenuous? He admitted it? Whats bloody well tenuous about that? Viridae^Talk 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I know OIC admitted it. But the SSP itself is clutching at straws. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Who cares how tenuous it was? It was i believe what prompted the investigation. Viridae^Talk 23:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Are we talking about the page about Oldwindybear or the one about Orderinchaos? WjBscribe 23:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Eek, apologies. I did get the two mixed up :/ Sceptre ^(talk) 23:39, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

As did I apparently. IN that case - subpage shoudl still have gpone through MfD IMO, but the block was definately unwarranted. Viridae^Talk 00:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Proabivouac (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is not a contributor at present, merely a drama whore. Were he a contributor I'd have left him be. Guy (Help!) 23:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

  A WP:drama whore? Why am I not surprised the link is red? Even if the block is agreed to have been ultimately correct, such language indicates that entirely the wrong person enacted the block for likely the wrong reasons. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:35, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

So because you declare him a dramam whore, that magically gives you the basis to indef him - not to be overturned until you decide he isnt a drama whore? Viridae^Talk 23:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• How can you claim that he doesn't edit much anymore and appears to have left, and simultaneously claim that he's a drama whore? What a bizarre block reasoning. Extremely poor. -- Naerii 23:24, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Whatever s/he is, should our server space be user to host material that even if contemplated for use here, would be dismissed out of hand as stale if it were so used? I think not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

2 problems. OIC actually admittted to being a sockpuppeteer, and the server space will remain whether it is visible blanked or deleted. Viridae^Talk 23:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the OWB page, but I'd be interested to know your justification for the keeping of the page about Orderinchaos given those were thoroughly investigated and evidence provided to an arbitrator/checkuser that 3 separate people were indeed involved. That page seems to be being kept for harassment, especially as it serves as a springboard for some pretty personal comments Proabivouac has been making about the people concerned off-site. WjBscribe 23:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I see you changed OWB to OIC in your post. Then you are mistaken. Orderinchaos admitted the three users knew each other and had shared computers but they were not his sockpuppets. He supplied evidence confirming they were three separate individuals. WjBscribe 23:38, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yah confusion on my part. NOt the only one - see above. Viridae^Talk 00:55, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Not -gasp! Wikistalking!:) A lot of people have pages collecting diffs etc and preparing stuff against other editors. Some times they are deleted as attack pages, if people feel that way, maybe do that. But it's hardly 'wikistalking' to do something in his own user space.Merkin's mum 23:28, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• There is clearly very little merit in the claims on Proabivouac's subpage. Support deletion, don't really care about the block (may as well AGF...he might find the next OWB for us if we're lucky). dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 23:37, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Notwithstanding JzG's disgraceful and vulgar characterization of me as a "drama whore," I did not initiate any drama here: FT2 blanked my user subpage, I restored it, and now this.

WJBscribe's interactions with me have consisted of little but threats, taunting me regarding my probation, and uncivil denunciations as a "sanction-evading sockpuppet." I would be surprised if he were to consider himself a neutral respondant, and if he doesn't, then I wonder why he would see fit to handle this report.

I believe that JzG has defamed me by falsely accusing me of "harassment." I have never harassed any Wikipedia contributor, and the appearance of malice is plain enough. I find that…uncivil.

It is also, though not particularly damaging, equally inaccurate to say that I "seem(s) to pop up for occasional pot-shots at [my] old foes." I believe my last appearance on the noticeboards was to defend an "old foe", BhaiSaab, from a ban which was extended based upon false (and unretracted, so typical) charges of sockpuppetry - are we projecting our own vindictive nature onto me?

As for Orderinchaos…I have no basis to doubt that there are individuals who claim to be DanielT5 and Zivko85, and may very well have posted under these names at one time. What is clear to me is that Orderinchaos himself posted via these usernames as well, thusly stacking deletion debates along with a number of other polls throughout most of last year, as well as tag-teaming User:Joestella off Wikipedia - a despicable tactic, in my view.

Now that the report is deleted, you may have trouble evaluating it…which come to think of it, may be precisely the point. I won't recapitulate too much of it here, seeing as I would be "reposting deleted material" to "harass other users" - this being the language by which we cover up evidence of corruption nowadays - but slip-ups like these are at the very least suggestive (and this is only a fraction of the evidence)13:07, 14 January 2007, 13:10, 14 January 2007, 13:14, 14 January 2007, 21:22, 31 May 200721:47, 31 May 2007.

It cannot be overemphasized that Orderinchaos did not deny that he posted using the DanielT5 and Zivko85 accounts - abusive sockpuppetry, regardless of the alleged existence of seperate individuals behind them at one point or another (which I have no basis to doubt) - even as the question was directly posed to him by at least two editors:[124],[125],[[126],[127] His response? "remove trolling"[128]

Is it so vital that we retain corrupt administrators that we must ban and slander those who point it out? That is, of course, a rhetorical question, for it's already been answered.

JzG writes, "Were he a contributor I'd have left him be," which rather begs the question of why I stopped contributing: because JzG himself drove me off. Is it not more than a little daft to drive someone off and then blame them for not contributing? Prior to that, I had 15k edits to Wikipedia, across all spaces of the project, and zero blocks. Now you have blocks creating bad blood, creating more blocks and more bad blood, to no discernible purpose, and JzG's buttons are all over it. I wouldn't stoop to calling anyone a "whore," and the word "drama" has long since lost its fire, but he certainly has a knack for initiating conflict and complicating its resolution.

He and a very short but powerful list of others have done everything possible to turn a serious and dedicated contributor into an enemy of the project. I'm not certain if JzG is aware that the Arbitrators and I were working on a solution to this mess - if he was, this would be characterizable as outright sabotage. Perhaps it has now fallen through, and JzG can relax in his familiar role as warrior in a Manichean struggle between the purity that is WP and the blackest evil that is WR, for that's where I'll have been exiled - isn't it again rather daft to drive contributors off of here and over to WR, then criticize them for posting to WR rather than to here? What do you want, JzG?Proabivouac (talk) 02:06, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Is the block for the page, his actions, his contributions (or lack thereof), for being dramatic, or what? I don't get it. Why couldn't the page go MfD and put less scrutiny on the editor and more into what the page actually said. the_undertow ^talk 03:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting arbitrator FT2's courtesy blanking of the subpage was Proab's first edit for a month. He has not made a mainspace edit since October 25, 2007. I judged that unblanking a stale and discredited sockpuppet report on a user in undoubted good standing (Orderinchaos) amounted to harassment of Orderinchaos, especially since the blanking was performed by an arbitrator - frankly if he'd left it courtesy blanked, that would have been an end to the whole thing with absolutely no further action asked or needed. <sarcasm>But I acknowledge that it was foolish of me to admit that what Wikipedia needs most of all is Arbcom-sanctioned editors whose only contribution to Wikipedia is to pursue old grudges</sarcasm>. Proab has done a remarkably good job of concealing the links to the former account under which he was sanctioned, but admins may wish to read Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/His excellency#Log of blocks and bans. Note the enforcement section, and the disruption of WP:AE. I think that "drama whore" is not an unreasonable characterisation here of an editor whose contribution to Wikipedia has been, in no small part, to disrupt it and its processes. Guy (Help!) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm only going to respond with two points here. Firstly, as this is something that happened nine months ago, and that checkusers with the full weight of evidence in front of them "pronounced themselves content" after the matter was over, I see no great reason to defend myself here. I was in receipt of, and am grateful for, a lot of advice as to how to handle this situation at the time, and I took it on board. As such, I decided that if doubts emerged about the veracity of my explanation, checkusers and/or ArbCom were in the best place to handle that. They didn't, so I left the questions be and moved on. Besides, I had already denied the point in earlier contributions and particularly in my unblock request at the time.

Secondly, in nine months, people can change a lot. You are obviously quite aware of my contribution patterns prior to 3 August. Do you see me at RfAs and AfDs now? Occasionally, yes - but you could probably count on one hand the number of times I've voted in the last month.

Like I said at the time, I had developed a problem. It's a bit like obsessive-compulsive, and I'm sure some other volunteers can relate to this (it doesn't just happen on Wikipedia, I've actually seen it in others in voluntary associations and political parties) - I had taken on an irrational need to protect Wikipedia's credibility. When one becomes convinced for whatever irrational reason that denying one's vote to an argument or letting flawed arguments stand unanswered risks an adverse outcome which could set a bad precedent (ignoring that common law traditions of precedent really don't work on Wikipedia anyway), then one ends up voting on all sorts of things to try and stem the bad karma flow. Some of the threats seem so major that they become part of conversation with others, be it in person, on phone, on SMS, by email. I'm not talking simply the two individuals in question - an independent administrator at the time found that me and another friend who was not accused of being part of the mess had voted 67 times in the same way on the same debates. It goes without saying that, not unlike alcoholism, if one surrounds oneself with people with a similar affliction, it tends to be mutually reinforcing on all members of the group. On at least one occasion I'd be up at 5:30am on the phone to someone expressing outrage at the latest comment by some person in a debate and the response would be like "as soon as I get into work this morning, that guy's toast." (Mind you, others kept a bemused distance from it all and no doubt wondered what I was on!) I would sometimes even get SMSs during university lectures from others keeping me updated as to how certain debates were proceeding.

I agree as no doubt everyone would that it was a wrong way to act. The claims of sockpuppetry actually hurt me at a fairly deep level, as those who knew me at the time can attest. So did the fact people may believe I would do that - people who I'd developed a high opinion of in my time here. I have a very strongly formed moral sense and I had it hammered into me from childhood that to lie or deceive is one of the worst things you can do. But in a way it was good it happened - it was a shock to the system. It made me realise that my life was out of balance. I was using Wikipedia as an escape from problems for which more appropriate stress management approaches could be found. At the time, I apologised to the community for this and made a commitment to change - which I followed through on and acted upon. Occasionally, I'll get overinvolved in some trivial debate again, and I'll then go out for the day and think "maybe I can kind of leave that debate alone now."

Today, I'm able to stand back and see that. I would say I have a healthier and far more rational take on it now, and I daresay it helped other areas of my life and in particular my university studies, which picked up to Distinction/High Distinction levels after August and are still there as we speak - I just got my last 2,500 word essay back from the marker this week in fact. One of the other two users involved in this graduated his degree and is now out in professional practice. The other I believe is still hammering away, although I've lost touch with him months ago and have no idea what he's up to.

So in short, yes, I'm human. Yes, I made mistakes. No, I did not sockpuppet, there were three people posting under three accounts, although certain aspects of my living and social arrangements at the time caused a check of me to fail. Yes, some aspects of it were unhealthy, although borne out of a desire from all concerned to do good. Yes, I learned from it and have changed my approach to Wikipedia and moved on. And no, it will never happen again. Orderinchaos 11:14, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that you have anything to apologise for - yes, we all make mistakes and, yes, we all hope we can learn and grow and move on - but this was a case of another editor and their actions (relating to you). The contentious material was quickly removed, which I agree with, and the editor summarily blocked - which I considered contrary to practice, need and the consensus was already forming, and so reversed it. The discussion, which I note has now stalled, regarding what action should be taken regarding Proabivouac should take its course. You have been previously exonerated and are free to pursue your editing of Wikipedia. Hopefully, reasoned debate can provide a framework by which you need not be bothered by these matters again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

If the page was felt objectionable, after the blanking was reverted the first time, it should have went to MfD to be decided by the community. An arbitrator has no more standing than any other administrator to enforce his views of what needs blanking and what doesn't. Blocking a contributor because that was their only recent contribution seems an overreaction to me, (JzG, it's not really helpful to call someone a "drama whore", is it?) and I support the unblock. (no, consensus isn't required to block, but it is required to sustain a block, and we don't have that, I don't think) I probably would have supported keeping the page, because I'm not sure it's constructive to remove all evidence of bad judgement... those who cannot remember the past (because it's been memoryholed) are doomed to repeat it. ++Lar: t/c 13:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Scotland page

Some joker has moved Scotland to Och Aye. I cant revert the edit. Would somebody oblige? Thanks so much! --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Have just looked at his contribs: He seems to be doing the same all over the place. I would be grateful if somebody could see to all of the moves. Thanks in advance. --Cameron (t|p|c) 10:50, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Just a vandal, reverted and blocked. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 10:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User talk:DiamondPress

Resolved

 – Editor has been advised why his username is unacceptable --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 11:36, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Has made 3 request for unblock with not really a reason why they should be unblocked. 1st unblock request was already declined with a promotional username.--I am sooooo cool! 11:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

User:NRen2k5

Resolved

I need someone to have a look at User talk:NRen2k5 to see if I have any of the following harassment, personall attacks, threats, and other psychotic babbling as what has been claimed here. I feel I have been Civil and have kept inline with good faith. I just need help and advice. -- Bidgee (talk) 14:19, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, he's been blocked for 48 hours. You must understand that being blocked is very frustrating, and that's what made him say that. He'll be back in two days, and by then he'll have cooled down, so stop trying to make it even worse, as far as I can tell you just want to keep dragging this on untill some more lasting restriction is placed on NRen2k5, forget about it.--Phoenix-wiki 14:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Scientology

This page is pretty much being used exclusively to post AfD notices. I'm wondering if this is proper, what with WP:CANVAS and all. It doesn't seem like the project is being used to collaborate on improving articles at all, but rather just to save them from getting deleted. Any thoughts? Equazcion •✗/C • 05:43, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

For easy reference, the AfD discussions referenced there: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Vassyana (talk) 07:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's mostly just Cirt doing something recommended—I don't see a problem with that. If the project isn't doing anything, you can tag it as {{historical}}. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂O) 09:52, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Other users have in the past complained that adequate notice is not given for WP:AfDs relating to Scientology, so ample notice is given at WP:SCN/AFD and on the WikiProject's talk page. It does seem lately that the talkpage has only been used for Afd notices (not just by myself but others as well) - but if you look at the archives you will see that the project talk page has been quite active in the past, on numerous other topics of discussion. Cirt (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify, this isn't canvassing - it is just a notice that an AfD is happening, posted in one central location only with no other text about the article itself, and in a spot that individuals from various backgrounds/inclinations probably monitor - so as to make sure due notice is given about the AfD, and to gain input from individuals from all sides interested in the subject matter. It should also be noted that it is sometimes the AfD nominator doing the notifying, and sometimes not, so it isn't really a matter of trying to save an article from getting deleted/not deleted. Cirt (talk) 10:34, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed that after posting this, that the notices were actually sometimes by the nominator (usually you). My concern was that the Scientology project might be an inherently biased place to post such notices, but I'm quickly seeing that that isn't really the case. Although I'll continue watching, because it seems not too many people have paid attention to that project in a while, so it's hard to tell right now who these notices are targeting. Equazcion •✗/C • 10:44, 18 Apr 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. The notices aren't meant for anyone in particular, that's why they are posted to a public WikiProject talk page and not a user's talk page. Cirt (talk) 10:46, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there has been a lot more activity in the past, but that tends to be the case with a lot of projects which comparatively small scopes: the main articles get created, pretty much made B-class, and then people move on. I wish there were more activity, particularly from people more involved with Scientology than I am, but that's the way it works sometimes. That project will always welcome a few more eyes, though. Whatever you think of the guy, moving his page to "L. Ron Butterfly" like was done yesterday and similar vandalism in the past is contemptible, and just, well, stupid. Butterfly, of all things? John Carter (talk) 20:07, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism is bad, but "L. Ron Butterfly" (In the garden of Eden, of course) is slightly funny if you get the joke.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent addition of nonsense to Inishbofin, Donegal

Inishbofin, Donegal has been subject to persistent vandalism since January. Initially it was done by an anon IP (or various IPs), but since a couple of days ago User:Tropicanmanofthesea has been deleting the accurate text and replacing it with nonsense. His/her version looks plausible at a glance, but it is in fact rubbish. He/she adds photos of (a) Tory Island and (b) Slovenian forests, and gives the distance from the mainland as things like 37.54 miles - and 37.84 miles in another sentence - spurious and inconsistent accuracy. But in any case there is no island in the location he/she gives. There is no nature reserve. The stuff about legal status and international waters is rubbish. It's quite subtle in some ways, but it's a spoof. I left a fairly gentle message on the talk page, but Tropicanmanofthesea has not seen fit to engage in discussion there. He/she has received warnings from three different people, and two "last warnings", for vandalsim of this and another article. Something needs to be done! Thanks. Snalwibma (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Latest edit by User:Tropicanmanofthesea here. Could someone ban this user for a while? Snalwibma (talk) 18:27, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Grawp Vandal

Resolved

Can someone please revert this mess-o-move-vandalism? Special:Contributions/Werningly (It seemed a bit of a big list for AIV). --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, this will be fun. Tiptoety ^talk 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not envy the admins that have to clean up mess. Be nice if y'all had a big "undo all contributions" button for stuff like this :( AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we got it all. Tiptoety ^talk 04:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For my own edification, what's the easiest way to clean that up? (Or is it something that you need a mop for?) --Bfigura ^(talk) 04:08, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

For the pagemoves I use a script I wrote, the deletion of the redirects is still done manually for now, until I can integrate that into the script. Mr.Z-man 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to RFCU. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:11, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Still need help with the errors on this page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC) Nevermind, purging the page fixed the error.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 04:16, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Quick work...though note to myself for the future: do not look at images uploaded by vandals. I may lose my animal crackers from going to undo the replacing of two of those images. *ugh* AnmaFinotera (talk) 04:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I just stayed away from the images from the start. Tiptoety ^talk 04:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Now, I have a question: Is it too much to ask we not draw attention to Grawp with the title? I'm asking for a rangeblock of his IP addresses so that we won't have to deal with him for a while. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 04:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, should have used a more generic (page-move vandal?) term. --Bfigura ^(talk) 09:43, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you did anything worth worrying about - but you probably could have just said "that guy, you know the one" and provided links (as you did), and the meaning would have been clear enough. — Gavia immer (talk) 16:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks like the RFCU has come up empty handed. Tiptoety ^talk 04:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please help - personal information revealed

Resolved

 – User blocked, edits deleted & oversight emailed --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 17:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Another Wikipedia user is revealing personal information about me, including my home address, in that user's edit summaries. Is there any way to stop this and delete these records? Qqqqqq (talk) 17:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. Is there a bureaucratic tool that can deal with this, or should an OTRS ticket be filed? —C.Fred (talk) 17:32, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  See WP:Oversight. — Coren ^(talk) 17:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

  Yep. Another admin already deleted the offending edits and filed the oversight report while I was looking it up. I knew it could be done; I just couldn't remember where. —C.Fred (talk) 17:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Block review (William M. Connolley of Travb)

I have read here previously that there is a rule about an admin blocking a user they are in an edit conflict with. As such I am asking for someone to review a block on the grounds the admin was in fact in an edit war with the user he blocked. The user in question is Travb, the article is Allegations of state terrorism by the United States, yes that article, the admin in question is user:William M. Connolley.

• user:William M. Connolley some time ago arrived on the article in question and fully protected it from edits: [129]
• He then proceeds to remove much of the content while the article is edit protected: [130] much of the content was under discussion on the article talk page. In either case the admin should not protect a page then go forth editing it against consensus.
• Additional content removal can be seen here [131] I am not arguing for or against the content, this edit is to simply show William was involved in the article.
• Numerous people have reverted Williams edits that were made under the full protection state: Including RedPenOfDoom who makes a "protest 1RR" BernardL who also makes a 1RR in protest of the editing of the article while it was protected.

Not only does this show William was involved in editing the article, making him and Travb at opposite ends of a content dispute, but he edited the article while it was fully protected which is another no, no since the content was not being removed due to BLP or an act of WP:OFFICE. The block in question can be seen here: [132] clearly by an admin who should not have made it, and specifically for Travb's edit here: [133] which was not a particularly nice edit summary, however as I recall in the recent case of another admin, this was grounds as some put it for the removal of admin rights, and at least for review as the other side argued. I therefore am asking for some admins to chime in if it is ok to block users you are clearly in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Such fun, but thanks for IWS for letting me know. This article has a long and controversial history, recently exacerbated by abusive socks. Fortunately, the worst of these are now blocked [134]. Travb was restoring the edits of this blocked sock [135] and this lead to the article being protected (well, Travb ran off to req-for-prot to get it protected. Sadly for Travb, it got reverted yet again before protection). But the article doesn't (now) need protection, it needs disruptive editors kept away. So I've blocked Travb and unprotected the article (note that the article was protected on what is nominally my preferred version) William M. Connolley (talk) 20:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the discussion as I was not fully sure of the rules, however you did not address the concern presented which is blocking users you are in a content dispute with. Is this permitted? If not do you regret breaking the rule? Just so other are aware, I am not asking for Travb to be unblocked, I am asking for a clarification to the rule. I was under the impression that BLP violations were the only cases except for "oversight" that allowed for an admin to block someone he was edit warring with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This isn't always so, IWS; trolls and impersonation accounts can be blocked by the user they're trolling or imping (at least from my experience). -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Karistaa Usko)} 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

In this particular case the user is neither, they are a long time editor of the article, they made a revert to a version which William did not agree with, which William honestly admits, and were blocked afterwards. The article as far as I know had a sock issue, however I do not believe any of them have been linked to Travb. If William knows otherwise please let me know, if its true that he has not been linked to any such accounts, I would ask William clarifies what others are misinterpreting as an allegation against Travb. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Can you comment on the issue of your involvement in the article, editing it while its protected, and blocking an editor on that article whose content opinion opposes yours? Avruch ^T 20:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• (cur) (last) 20:24, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": experiment [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed]) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 20:19, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (150,213 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: restore ref; rm the) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 07:34, 11 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (150,047 bytes) (→Hypocrisy about state terrorism: trim W; rm creds. See talk) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:09, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (152,684 bytes) (→Europe (1945-1989): what is this to do with state terrorism?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:06, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (158,288 bytes) (→Background: fix ref?) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:01, 10 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (158,287 bytes) (rm defn section - there is an entire article about it, we should not do the details here) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:13, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) (164,875 bytes) (protected) (undo)
• (cur) (last) 22:12, 9 April 2008 William M. Connolley (Talk | contribs) m (Changed protection level for "State terrorism and the United States": the usual [edit=sysop:move=sysop]) (undo)

• The above is generally discouraged, and for good reason. Based on your activity in this article, are you sure you should be protecting it and blocking people without asking for an outside admin? Avruch ^T 20:51, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

ON the basis of that evidence I have unblocked Trab. WMC was in no way in hell an uninvolved admin. Viridae^Talk 21:03, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I look forward to your help keeping the article sane. Perhaps you'd like to restore the banned socks edits yourself? William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Find some way to do it that doesn't involve using your admin tools to bolster your side of the dispute. Viridae^Talk 21:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

That's not what happened and your characterization is somewhat presumptive. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Case on point: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Physchim62. Avruch ^T 21:20, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd invite any uninvolved admin to block Travb (talk · contribs · count · logs · block log · lu · rfa · rfb · arb · rfc · lta · socks) on the merits of his contributions in the last 24 hours. Nothing but disruptions and personal attacks. Even if you think WMC might have been the wrong one to do it, but it was a righteous block. I'd invite the unblocking admin to review the merits of the reasons and reblock or explain why he shouldn't be blcoked. Then you can be uninvolved and still help the project instead of just being a bureaucratic enabler. --DHeyward (talk) 22:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong person, good block. I've reblocked for 23h (the original 24 minus the one hour already blocked). — Coren ^(talk) 23:11, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV major edits to an article after he protected it. This is certainly not advisable, if not unacceptable. Black Kite 23:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

There is actually another user that was blocked that William was in an edit war with, again a violation of the blocking policy. This was overturned without it coming to AN/I with user:Supergreenred also around the same article in question. The user was later blocked however for being a sockpuppet. I am starting to think perhaps this article is causing a conflict in Williams ability to act as an admin objectively. I notice above there is an Arbcom hearing for removing admin ability, while I do not think this is needed as the problem is revolving around one article, can an Arbcom hearing be called simply to ask William not be permitted to edit this article further? I think perhaps it will help all, the editors who are having these tools used against them as a heavy hand, and William who seems to put himself in a bad situation by continuing to remove and add protection at his sole discretion and block users who he is in a content dispute with. --I Write Stuff (talk) 00:49, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was clearly legit-- Travb was edit warring and reverting to the preferred versions of sockpuppets. Perhaps this specific admin shouldn't have done it, but the block certainly was well-deserved. Jtrainor (talk) 01:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, the issue is whether the admin used admin powers in unacceptable ways.TheRedPenOfDoom (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct, I noted specifically I was not asking for the block to be removed. It seems it is the second instance of blocking someone he was in an edit war with on this particular article, as well as now two instances of misusing tools to either protect, or remove protection from an article he was engaged in content disputes over. What I am not wondering if there is a way to institute an article block to prevent further actions. Much of the damage could possibly have already been done, I personally stepped away from the article prior to these incidents, however how is anyone to oppose William's opinions knowing the articles content is subject to his approval or receives, or has an editing block removed, and editors reverting him face a block. Especially considering the reverting was done by a large swath of users and only those opposing Williams views have faced any penalty. --I Write Stuff (talk) 01:54, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

This article has been a horrendous battleground for a long time; a locus point for extensive socking, incivility, terribly POV editing, and whatnot. Like others of its class, including Views of Lyndon LaRouche and List of events named massacres, it needed extraordinary admin attention, and WMC stepped up. His actions seem commensurate with the level of TLC this wonderful article needed. - Merzbow (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Correct. It is a very narrow set of users. I'd also add that User:William M. Connolley is hardly a right wing ideologue or an apologist for American foreign policy. The fact that the core set of people are complaining about his edits and deletions speak to how far gone the article is. It, and its spinoffs, are perhaps the WORST articles in Wikipedia. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now. --DHeyward (talk) 03:59, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The massive deletions occurred prior to any discussion and editors protested through reverts and other means--and these were long term established editors, most of whom are protesting these actions. The mass deletions were done by force, using admin tools, and without consensus. The Japan section was removed simply because the editor personally doens't think its "state terrorism." Its as if WP rules and policies are being ignored here, consensus is being ignored, and now you are reinventing reality. As far as what someone's politics are, that is irrelevant. What the admins Political Party affiliations are irrelevant. What is relevant is using your political views as a basis to POV push here, evidence by the desire to blank sourced information because one doesn't personally agree with the views.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disturbed by the POV use of administrator tools in this content dispute. Clearly this is the issue, and no one disputes that this is a factual occurrence. An involved admin in a content dispute jumps in to help out one side only, and punishing the other. He does this through very heavy handed means: editing through protection to suite his views, and blocking only one side of those edit warring. And doing this multiple times. These are the facts--no matter who is right on the POV question. This kind of abuse of the tools sets a terrible standard. Correction for abuse of the tools in such a repeated and blatant fashion is simple: remove of the tools. This will stop this problem. Again the facts: the admin protects the article, makes massive changes--through protection--without allowing for consensus or discussion first, and then blocks a number of editors who opposed him, and reverts again. So who is being the disruptive one? Who is violating core policies? Who is abusing their admin tools? And what do we do about it when it happens? I think this may be a case for de-sysoping.

I will also point out that large amounts of legitimate content that was added through consensus among many established editors, and through compromise, was simply blanked without discussion, to to mention without consensus. When we have consensus for massive changes like that, then it would be fine. Until then it was correct to restore the material, as Trav tried to do. Yes, he edit warred by reverting 3 times, but guess what? An editor on the other side of the fence of the content dispute did the same thing, reverting 3 times. And only ONE party was blocked--the one the admin disagrees with in the content dispute. That is wrong on a number of levels, but it clear only one side of the POV dispute that is being punished, and not a single one of the editors deleting the material is blocked despite their edit warring, and despite them doing so against consensus. This is sending a chilling effect to all other editors, and this bullying though use of admin powers to effect content disputes is not only against policy, but sets a terrible example that should not go unchecked.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The block was 100% good. This thread is a waste of everyone's time. Raul654 (talk) 06:20, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• The block is reasonable. The editing through protection is problematical, especically when you see "Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now." For what it's worth, my enquiry as to why Connolley had edited through protection received the following reply; ": I *think* that you're trouble making. If you have some other purpose, do please explain more" ([136])... so much for assuming good faith. Black Kite 08:42, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • See also Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Personal_attack_by_an_administrator.2C_redux_from_above this new ANI thread. Black Kite 10:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

By the way, as a note, Travb is NOT a long time editor of the article. He showed up out of the blue and began reverting to the same version as several sockpuppets that were subsequently blocked. Jtrainor (talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You are wrong as his edits go as far back as December of 2007, [137], I would say that satisfies long time. I can check for ones further back but I think your mischaracterization has been proven wrong. --I Write Stuff (talk) 12:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Travb might be the single most longtime editor of the article, though he absented himself from it for quite some time. His edits seem to go back to August of 2006. He has 148 edits to the article itself and 856 to the talk page per wannabe kate. That's a fairly easy thing to check out, and it's better to do that first before accusing someone of showing up "out of the blue" and acting like sockpuppets. Part of what makes the article inhospitable is the constant accusations and bad faith from both sides.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 14:50, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He never passed 3RR also, he was on his 3rd when he was blocked. Just wanted to note that. Further Dance With The Devil who reverted Travb 3 times, was not blocked for disruptive editing, the only difference is one was supporting Williams edit,s the other was not.[138] [139] [140] --I Write Stuff (talk) 15:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Where has this mess got to? I would still be interested in an explanation by User:William M. Connolley as to why he made POV edits to an article after he protected it. - I didn't. Hopefully, after all his deletions are completed, it will have moved to the right so far that it reads like it was written by a Green Party european instead of how it reads now - WTF has this got to do with me? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:19, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

• I have refactored my comment from "why he made POV edits" to "why he made major edits". Black Kite 21:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
  • The other line was my sad attempt at humour pointing out the radical views of some of the other contributors. Apologies if it didn't come across as I intended. --DHeyward (talk) 21:55, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
    • Ah, confusing. I wasn't quoting you, I was quoting BK, who appeared to be quoting me. At least, he was using the quote against me, which I found inexplicable, and still do William M. Connolley (talk) 21:58, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

REQUEST: WATCH TTN

Hello. It appears that out old friend TTN, who was restricted not to long ago, is trying to bypass his restrictions by having other people try to do his "work" for him. Examples of such cases can be found in the following pages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Sgeureka#Some_video_game_articles

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ashnard

Also, despite being restricted, he still persist in controversal edits and uncivil "MY WAY OR THE HIGHWAY" ethic as shown here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Question_about_Super_transformation

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

You don't have to take this in consideration, but I need to tell you. Just incase he continues this behavior, watch him. Thank you for your time. -- "Anonymous" (Contact) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)