Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473

Anonymous Aryan activist

A person posting from a variety of IP addresses, including:

• 24.39.124.4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.128.31 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.153 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.155 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.173 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 65.88.88.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

has been blocked under at least four addresses, in some cases twice, for the same small set of violations, despite warning after warning, despite block after block, despite semiprotection having been placed on both Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page (twice, in the case of the latter) on account of him.

He repeatedly deleted paragraphs he found offensive in Ten Lost Tribes, then kept posting the same off-topic diatribe over and over at the very top of Talk:Ten Lost Tribes, above the templates. He has repeatedly replaced Dardic with Aryan at the top of the Kashmiri people article, after having already been told that that's incorrect. He's made related changes in at least a couple of other articles. He has never once responded to anything I've written to him or seen anyone else write to him. His whole purpose in contributing is to push his POV.

He has been extremely active in Ten Lost Tribes since August 26. Having just taken a deeper look I see now that he has been making frequent improper revisions, deleting paragraphs, and inserting rants and statements of opinion into the Kashmiri people article under other 24.185.*.* and 24.*.*.* addresses, ever since at least April:

• 24.185.131.189 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.185.136.255 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• 24.191.12.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

He never provides citations to support his views over the ones he's replacing.

Meanwhile, ever after I've written warnings and AIV requests explaining his persistence and his refusal to knuckle under after all of the blocks that have been placed on him and the protections put up because of him, admins keep giving him 12-hour blocks and 31-hour blocks. This is not a first-time offender. He's a die-hard, calling for industrial-strength action.

What can be done with this character? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be needing a CU who can check the range to see what collateral damage may be caused by a rangeblock. As for the short blocks, if the vandal is using different ip's then blocking any one for a long length is pointless - they will just move onto the next. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Consider semi-protection of Kashmiri people for at least a month, and ask a checkuser about the wisdom of a rangeblock on 65.88.88.128/25 for a month. Though the abuse has continued for a long time, some of the IPs you have listed are not recently active, and many of the affected articles have enough normal activity to easily dilute any bad-faith IP editing. The recent semi-protection on Ten Lost Tribes was well-deserved. (That is one of his favorites). EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Note: according to a notice at their talk pages at least to of the 65.88.88.XXX IPs belong to the New York Public Library. Funny thing is, almost all the edits from those IPs seem to be related to India and South Asia, which you wouldn't really expect from a casual library user. In any event, wouldn't a rangeblock affect all library users? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I've decided not to do the rangeblock, after searching contributions from that range manually. (There are some good faith IP edits from other parts of the range). Due to long-term consistency over a multi-month period, I think the four 65.88.88.* IPs already listed above are the ones which are definitely our guy. Good enough consistency for a long block, so I've blocked three of them for two months each (anon only). The fourth already has a long block. Please comment if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive, COI & Sock Puppet Edits by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195

I would like an admin and intervene to check the edits made by BronsonPunchout & 68.175.98.195. I believe these are sock puppets of the same user and has been created simply to edit the page for the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. A quick look at the edits on the page shows [1] edits being made within minutes and seconds of each other by these two users often on the same exact topic/subject[2]. A deeper look into the edits of 68.175.98.195 shows that they have clearly attempted to game Wikipedia by linking the fairly generic topic of bits to Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre: diff here[3]. Additionally, the user in question has been harassing me and borderlining on revert war edits when I have attempted to add citation and reference tags or removed empty topics or trivial sections. Additionally he's harassing me [4] and claiming I have a connection to the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre because I have dared to enforce Wiki style. I will admit I have gone to shows at the UCB theater in NYC, but I have barely contributed anything to the UCB article to endure these claims of "ownership". Heck, BronsonPunchout claims my attempts to get the article in "Wiki shape" oppresses the growth of the article and "perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years." Ridiculous claim and my history of edits proves otherwise. Can an admin please step in and look over this mess. Perhaps someone who is an admin familiar with theater and improv egos and how they react to Wiki edits? --SpyMagician (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i too would like an admin to check the edits made by SpyMagician, under the ownership clauses, agressivley removing others contributions and using hostile citation. They have made edits without actually reading the edits, undoing others contributions and used contradictory explanations, such as removing citations added to sections, then removing the sections claiming lack of citation. When they claimed i was a sock puppet and connected, i had reason to believe the same about them and added that tag as well. I did not remove the tag against me cause that seemed bad faith, but they kept undoing the tag relating to themsevles. I believe this person has a grudge or something and has removed others contributions, leaving the article in poor shape and lacking large amounts of info. It is possible i have made errors in my lack of understanding, and i apologize. Even so, it seems there are many opportunties to leave up a citation needed tag, or a section stub tag as opposed to immediately undoing all contributions by other edits. THis is not an improv ego thing. I added basic history data and cited it all, but SpyMagician is agressively undoing. Perhaps they are a sock puppet, perhaps they are just terrtorial, perhaps i am in the wrong. Either way, please help. BronsonPunchout (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to reiterate that any admin should simply look at my history of edits in contrast to the edits of this user and potential sock puppetry. You can make claims all you want, but the logs tell the tale show and the trail of edits. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, let's see: is it the "Upright citizens brigade theater school", or the "Upright citizens brigade theater training center"? This is obviously a question on which the future of the world depends. (If you're having trouble figuring it out, I'm sarcastically saying that this dispute is totally incomprehensible to outsiders.) Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Looie496, that is is ridiculous, but i don't know what else to do. Go ahead and check ips, please. I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies, but i don't know how else to deal with the disruptive editing via hostile cite tagging SpyMagician is engaging in. SpyMagician is demonstrating a clear sense of ownership and impeding other contributors thru gaming/disruptive editing. BronsonPunchout (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looie496, I can make it simpler. Please check the edits made by BronsonPunchout and 68.175.98.195. These are clearly the same person and evidence of sock puppetry despite the fact that BronsonPunchout denies the connection. And despite the fact these two users have only editted UCB articles in the past month; they contribute in no other way to Wikipedia.. Also, the claims of "hostile cite tagging" are baseless; the most amount of edits I have made to this piece are today. Why can't I tag uncited sections to an article? And how is it hostile to do so or should one assume that everyone in the world knows who/what the UCB is and is beyond reproach. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, in general I'm going to say something that will make most actors and theater geeks faint: Most people don't know or don't care about theater details or history. Citations ARE needed for many of the claims being made on behalf of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. This is not unreasonable. What is bizarre is why I'm being harassed for daring to claim citations are needed. If a theater is closed due to fire code violations, provide the information. It's not hard to understand. And in between now and the time this nonsense started I have edited other articles without issue. If there is an admin with experience dealing with improv and theater articles, I welcome their input. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and places like Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre shouldn't be magically excluded from the rules that have helped make other articles great. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Catherineyronwode

Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as 64.142.90.33 (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment,[5] then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[6] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint,[7] and took the dispute to an unrelated article[8] with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking.[9] I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw (or clarify according to Atom' interpretation) the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable.

JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, maybe I am dense. I looked carefuly at the cited diff[10] "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer. This is intolerable and will be treated as such. catherine yronwode a.k.a." This sounds like a basic user dispute. She has not threatened any legal action, only mentioned two legal terms. I see no reason to block her. He comment regarding "a legal threat is real" was her concern that she what she perceivces as slander may damage her reputation as a freelance writer. She has not suggested that she plans on, or is threatening to sue anyone, and has only asked the uncivil editor to not do that any longer. Try asking her a direct question "Are you threatening legal action against editor Hrafn or Wikipedia?", and base your action on that? I think I will. Atom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Saying that expressing concerns about copyvios is "slander" or "libel" clearly runs afoul of WP:LEGAL. The fundamental problem with such statements and the point of LEGAL is that they can be highly intimidating to users. Even if someone doesn't file suit directly the same problem exists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Atom, for raising the issue more directly. I'm a bit concerned about the question "Do you have any immediate plans to sue Wikipedia, or User:Hrafn?" as it would still be a legal threat if deferred or conditional on some future action. It did seem pretty clear to me that "The legal threat is real" meant what it said in the context of the discussion, but it wasn't clear if she was aware of the policy and further clarification is useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

On first blush, I also interpreted her response as a legal threat, but upon careful reading (after Atom's post) I do see that it could be interpreted in various ways. It's best to ask.

BTW, Cat is a long term contributor to Wikipedia who has worked long and hard to add material and to create articles throughout Wikipedia. We certainly owe her the benefit of doubt here. Madman (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Threats of libel are enough. The account should be blocked and the issue dealt with on the talk page. This is, I believe, to stop wikipedia from getting into any legal problems with things being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a forum, the threats should just be removed or the user blocked while they deal with it or not. The user has already been asked and warned per the diffs above. Verbal chat 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Verbal, I saw (and respect) your opinion stated earlier. No need to reiterate it, I was just offering my own. Should I state mine again too? You said "threats of libel" my point was that she made no such threat, she only used the word. Atom (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't my intent to restate - I added some new thoughts I thought, such as WP not being a forum for discussing libel and slander. Saying a comment is libellous is enough too, just from using the word in that way. Dispute resolution should be used so this doesn't arise. My comment about WP liability was new also. No hard feelings. Verbal chat 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I thought carefully about the "Do you have any immediate plans..." wording. My thinking is that we need her current state of mind, not past or present. We could not hold someone to "I don't plan on legal action in the future" anyway. Our main desire is to determine if by definition, WP:NLT applies or not for this case. Atom (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

One point here. We really shouldn't be accusing fellow editors of committing illegal acts. If you are wrong, then that is a problem. WP:NLT doesn't give people carte blanche to accuse someone of everything and anything, and then yell WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response. Some common sense is required as well, and careful and professional handling of copyvios and other similar issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Good advice, though in this particular case it's wrong to suggest that the original accuser yelled "WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response." The question of it being a legal threat was introduced after Hrafn had struck his accusations and accepted that he was in error, when Aunt Entropy pointed out that legal threats are a blockable offence.[11] It was Catherine's response to that which included "The legal threat is real." [12] Catherine followed that up by stating on Hrafn's user talk page that "The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn", and that she would "continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize." Hrafn replied at 04:00 on the next morning, 3 September, then at 04:18 said that since she had made an explicit legal threat, he was "ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT".[13] In light of the statements below do you now consider it appropriate for Hrafn to reopen communications, and would you advise him to delete the comments she finds offensive? He's already struck the comments on the Haane talk page, and her assertion of "deliberate copyright violation in the Haanel article on Talk:The Science of Getting Rich"[14] appears to refer to Talk:The Science of Getting Rich#Page restored to existence again which makes no accusation of copyright violation, as it's an argument about which Wikipedia article text was taken from. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that i had deliberately committed a copyright violation was false and very harmful, since my *real name* (and therefore my *personal information*) was attached to it. I asked for Oversight to remove it, but they declined. Very shortly, however, hrafn, the editor who had made the charge, admitted he had been wrong, and acknowledged that the charge of copyvio was backwards -- that is, the web page on which he saw the text had actually copied the text from an earlier version of Wikipedia, and i had also pulled up the old Wikipedia text.

He then admitted to having based his belief that i was committing copyvio on the fact that my text had been dropped into Wikipedia as "short lines." The lines were short because i use a 65-character-width text editor when i work offline to help compensate for my low vision. (I have nystagmus and cannot read long lines.) That excuse was just silly enough to seem real. In my experience, hyper-vigilant people read all kinds of meanings into typography. :-)

Hrafn withdrew the charge against me and then, at my request, he also deleted the sub-head text in which my real name was connected with the charge of illegality. He did not apologize, but the matter ended there. That's all there is to it.

Building a controversy about this kerfluffle days after it all ended is a bit strange, 'cause anyone could have asked me what was up.

Meanwhile, it is true that i am preparing an AN/I report against hrafn in my user-space. He knows about it; it's no secret. It is based on a long pattern of editing by him and not on any specific incident involving me. The hoped-for result is not to block or ban hrafn from Wikipedia, but to restore, for review by other editors, the several pages he deleted without discussion, and, if possible, to restrict him from editing in that category unless he agrees to work cooperatively with, rather than against, other editors. I am taking my time to develop the AN/I statement, and have asked other editors to contribute to it and edit it, if they find it of value. There's no rush on it, and it is proceeding as i have spare time; hrafn's been making these undiscussed deletions for months, and it takes many hours to find out what's gone missing.

It is conceivable that the prospect of hrafn facing an AN/I report may have provoked this attempt to get me blocked or banned from Wikipedia, but of course, that may just be coincidence. None of the editors speaking against me here are ones i know through editing the pages concerned with the proposed AN/I report; perhaps they are friends of hrafn's.

In sum, the copyvio charge was retracted by hrafn, the connection between the charge and my *real name* was deleted by hrafn, and that's a closed book. Meanwhile, i am still working on the AN/I proposal in my user space -- but that's an entirely different matter.

So, onward and upward, as they say.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" 64.142.90.33 (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above statement lays out the detailed situation pretty well though the statement "the matter ended there" is rather misleading, the important point is covered in a similar statement on her talk page,[15] with her statement that "I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Wikipedia or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Wikipedia to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal."

The article talk page is a bit confusing due to interspersed comments,[16][17][18] but in essence the matter continued with an exchange about whether there was evidence suggesting copying, and was then left unresolved with Catherine's assertion that "The legal threat is real". In my country copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but your situation may vary.

I accept that the ANI complaint and the dispute on an unrelated article relate to her general dispute with Hrafn over removal of unverified or disputably verified material from articles, and should have made it clearer that these are not directly concerned with the legal threat. My involvement began when I was asked by Hrafn to take a look at the situation on that unrelated article, and while investigating I came across the legal threat and on consideration felt it should be raised here. In my opinion the threat appears to have been withdrawn, but I leave it to others to review that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sensing a bit of bad faith on the conjurer's part. Perhaps if we repeat these bad faith allegations re hrafn long enough, the spirit world will assist in his condemnation. Or maybe not. Bottom line is that Cat's allegations re hrafn's "evil" plan ring quite hollow. •Jim62sch•^dissera! 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

You aren't helping matters, User:Jim62sch, by name calling ("conjurer") and rehashing the dispute here. This matter concerns the perceived legal threat and that should be the only matter under discussion here. Madman (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Please, User:Jim62sch, don't call me names or lie about what i have written. I never wrote that hrafn or his intentions are "evil," so placing that word in quotes in a provocative and false statement on your part. Try to rmeain civil. My sandboxed notes for the AN/I proposal here have now been uploaded to the request for mediation against you, hrafn, and Dave Souza. Apparently some folks think that you folks operate as a tag-team or cabal.

As stated on my talk page, my research on hrafn grew out of requests from other users for my help in getting pages restored that hrafn had deleted or redirected without prior discussion, in all cases eliminating the entirety of the texts. In most cases i don't even know what the texts consisted of, as they are gone now, but i do note that they all fall into the broad ssubject-category of late 19th and early 20th secular self-help and religious New Thought and self-help authors and books. In researching those complaints, i found what i believe to be a pattern of elimination of text from many religion pages, falling short of deletion or redirection without consent. A pattern is evident. That's about all i know right now, but i worked a long time on establishing the dimensions of the deletiions and complaints, with a plan of trying to get the matter out in the open.

I reserve the word "evil" for serious matters; hrafn may be a one-purpose editor with a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint he wishes to enforce by elimination of historical material dealing with viewpoints counter to his own. That's not "evil"; that's just really, really POV-driven editing. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would like to make a brief response to Catherineyronwode's accusations. They are based upon confirmation bias, inaccurate hearsay repeated as fact, and misinterpretation of core policy (specifically WP:V). Her claims of "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" would appear to be directly related to her husband's (User:Self-ref) and her POV-pushing on Category:Pseudoskeptic Target and its CfD. I could provide lengthy difs correcting and clarifying many of her claims on User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal, but (i) this would take a great deal of time & (ii) they involve mainly content (and to a lesser extent WP:CIVIL) disputes that would appear to be off-topic for this page. I will however note that I apply my "hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" of attempting to see that WP:V is rigorously enforced, not to the "one-purpose" of New Thought articles, but to a wide range of topics, including my own editing speciality (articles relating to Creationism -- in which area an article of my creation, Academic Freedom bills‎, was recently favourably mentioned in the August issue [p11] of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology newsletter), as well as articles relating to the Unification Church, the woollier reaches of speculative Cosmology and other topics. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing evasion of block by Wikitestor

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours on August 29, 2008, for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block.

Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using 81.184.70.220. As a result, his block was extended to one week on August 29, 2008.

Because he continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period (see 81.184.38.52, 67.161.4.108, 62.57.197.139, 62.57.196.206, 81.184.38.42, and 62.57.197.82), his block was extended to one month on September 3, 2008.

Despite the one month block, he is continuing to edit with anonymous IP accounts. See 62.57.197.114, 62.57.213.3, 62.57.196.206, and 62.57.9.202. Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184 and his expression of pride in evading the blocks. If administrators are unwilling to make IP range blocks, then I request that all the articles he has edited be semi-protected. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked 62.57.0.0/16 for 48 hours - It's the same cable modem ISP in Spain for the whole block, and he's using wide swaths of it, as far as I can tell.

I am also leaving a message on User talk:Wikitestor about this. Hopefully he'll knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but he also is now using the 81.184 IP range. See 81.184.38.28, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Wikitestor. Tennis expert (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

81.184.0.0/16 has been blocked for 48 hours as well, and another message left on Wikitestor's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?

Are we no longer a wiki? All typo fixes must be supported by forms completed, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, subjected to public inquiry, lost, found, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as fire-lighters? People, BLP is not a carte blanche for imposing any restriction you like! We put full-protection in place only to protect from vandalism and edit-warring. Look at the history. See any problems? I don't.

People, can we please keep our fingers off the triggers? — Werdna • talk 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could trust our admins to not go and make content changes and wheel war on an article as prominent as that, I'd agree with you, but the current arbcom case indicates that we can not. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IMHO, admins should still be allowed to make non-content changes (such as spacing etc. fixes) w/o being potentially in violation of ArbCom. ffm 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree - most would, but there are some people around there that unfortunately, are too stuck on policies and are preventing things from being done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. You edit as an editor not an admin. If you want a change made you request it like anyone else. Keeps admins from going protect happy.Geni 12:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No problems in the recent history because its been full protected for awhile. What strikes me about the history is there are way, way more edits than there ought to be for a fully protected article. Avruch ^T 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell are fighting over Sarah Palin now in their own deathmatch version of the Wheel. aharon42 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

**Shrug** Even as a non-Admin, I could find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, accepted at Warp Speed compared to other ArbComs I've seen. And even as a non-Admin, isn't that the location for comments like this to be currently lodged? Or have I missed something fundamental about Wikipedia? Not trying to start a flame war, just can't understand why this comment is here and not there, in some form. Me, were I an Admin, I'd let ArbCom (or Jimmy, whatever) sort it out, or get involved there. But that's just me, an editor. Apologies if this comment violates something-or-other, or if there's something about AN/I I don't understand yet. LaughingVulcan 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gogandmagog2: sockpuppet vandal of User:Bjrothschild7

- - Similar name and disruptive editing as User:MagogAndGog.--Gregalton (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

-

Indef blocked and templated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, User page list, strange editing.

Not sure if this counts as sockpuppetry, but I think so. An IP, 79.65.160.18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits like this, which 'cite' User:JokerFan2.0#Top_100_Greatest_TV_and_Film_Villains, a user's personal list. The IP has made numerous edits to the userpage, including creating the list diff of six edits, and has edited right after JokerFan2.0 at times. I started to roll these back, but think a more serious investigation might be needed. It seems odd though. Either he's logging out to make what he must know will seem like bad edits, for plausible deniabiility, or an IP is spoofing the socking to get him in trouble. Those are the two obvious explanations I can come up with.ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that JokerFan2 does not revert the ip's edits to his/her page, so I would assume that they are the same or known to each other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Using both the IP and account to add this nonsense is bad, but it's also strange, so I brought it here. So now what? ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism at Sarah Palin

Resolved

 – High-visibility template reverted and protected Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that that is template vandalism. Celestra (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's affecting Singapore as well. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was Template:Bar percent. Reverted by Jredmond. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And I've protected it as a HRT. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fila3466757 alias Tharnton345 IP sock

As reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (3rd) the persistent sockpuppeter Fila3466757 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) has followed a block as Tharnton345 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) by continuing the same low level disruptive behaviour as 89.242.19.188 (talk⁺ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · CheckUser) Rather than block an IP in these circumstances I reported it, but since 89.242.19.188 has continued with the pattern of disruption and harassment,[19] I've indefinitely blocked the IP and placed an anonblock notice on the user's talk page as an interim measure. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Y2J RKO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Resolved

 – blocked 72 hours --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A user with a final warning for vandalism from July let loose with this personal attack today. I think it's time for a tap with a block-stick myself, but YMMV.Kww (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Thewikiqediarollbacker

I just blocked Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) because his initial edits were copies of FirefoxMan's user page and Alison's talk page into his own user and talk pages, respectively. He copied Alison's talk page twice and then copied my user page. After I left him a note, he threatened to take me to ArbCom and then copied the Main page and Main talk page into his user and talk pages. The account name didn't exactly sit with me very well either. Probably somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the inevitable unblock request proclaiming innocence just appeared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds as though he's up to no good and knows how to do it. Support block. Ty 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not that unusual for new editors to copy existing pages to theirs for experimentation purposes, to see what the markup does etc. This could just be innocent behavior, though an immediate threat to take someone to arbcom sounds non-new-userish. Let me take a closer look here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The behavior seems sort of suspicious, but ... I can't for the life of me see what policy you blocked him/her under. I don't know of any policy saying that you can't copy content out of another's talk page. Even though the arbcom reference seems unlike a new user, this seems pretty bitey.

Can you please explain your blocking rationale in more detail? The page only existed for a couple of minutes before you deleted, it appears to be BITE and failure to AGF on your part. Plus no warnings. If there's a sequence of other behavior that this might be a sock of, that's one thing, but standing by itself this needs much more clarification...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it was a lack of AGF at all, since it is obvious that this editor was not a new editor to Wikipedia. You have a user name that references a feature that a new editor is not likely to know about. The first edit of a full copy of one administrator's user page followed by a full copy of another administrator's talk page, it is rather suspicious. Then following up with references to ArbCom and a copy of my own user page, this shows me that this is not a newbie at all. The unblock of making only three edits is totally bogus since the first edit references the deleted edits. If anything, I feel that I gave him too much AGF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Copying material from another user's User or Talk pages is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornix_talk 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a username violation regardless. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes on both GFDL and name violation - however, temporary copies to study the content and layout are (again) not unusual here. The usual response to name violations is a polite "you need to change your name" message, and to really abusive name violations a username block, but that's not the reasons given here.

Agreed that it's probably a sock of an existing user of some sort - but we only indef socks which are abusive, and the actions here only rise to technical violations of policy rather than gross violations. For technical violations, we warn and allow for correction. For apparent socks without evident real abuse, we warn and perhaps CU, but don't indef. This could turn out to be any number of abusive users, but the evidence is poor so far. Hammer too big. Try something smaller. AGF and checkuser to verify? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your assessment that this is a new editor temporarily studying the content and layout of user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We AGF in the lack of evidence to the contrary. This person knows their way around wiki and knows exactly what they're doing by creating a false user page claiming to be an admin. They then post a cleverly false unblock rationale: "I'm not quite sure what I have been blocked for? Just check my contribs. I've made 3. Two of them have been to Gogo's talk page, and 1 to my own." They made 9 edits, but of course the deleted ones don't show up in contributions. That is not the conduct of someone genuine but misunderstood. Can we not waste any more time over this: that's exactly what it's designed to do. Ty 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius' assessment. The "3 contribs error" implies that this is a bad faith user who's ignorant of admin tools. A new editor could be expected to remember those 6 extra edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block reviews on administrator Kaihsu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

A little while ago, User:Da monster under your bed became concerned about several long-duration IP address blocks issued by administrator User:Kaihsu. Monster mentioned this to User:Gogo Dodo and apparently administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 noticed on his own.

I just flipped around and reviewed the last several IP address blocks, and I found them extremely suspicious - 1-year blocks after 4 questionable but not horridly abusive edits, with no warnings; an IP address indef blocked; multiple IP address blocks with no block message left on the IP talk page.

More administrator eyes on this needed. I'm going to ask him for clarification, but more review further back is probably a good idea. These may be sufficiently out of policy to overturn. I'm not going to do more than ask about it, as I'm going to bed soon, but more eyes on it seems like a really good idea. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These blocks are extremely problematic. I am very keen to see the explanation from Kaihsu. If there is no response by morning my time, I intend to unblock the IPs. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't even see the vandalism for the last two, though the third and fourth (especially!) certainly are. I also think the tariffs generally are far too severe. I note that Kaihsu is another "older style" sysop enabled account, and might not be as up to speed on current practice as most. The only saving grace is that these actions are infrequent (although that would be no comfort to a potential editor with that addy). A response would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have check all my blocks and think that they have been unblocked by fellow administrators. I will keep away from blocking until I am sure that I have a better understanding of the policy. Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:138.251.242.2 Concerns

(Realized I posted this to the wrong noticeboard, so here's a copy paste from WP:AN.)

First, a quick Google search of 138.251.242.2 shows this is the IP of known spammers [20]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [21] ("incredible narcissism") and [22] [23] [24] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [25]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours - please feel free to undo if you feel it was inappropriate, it's almost 5AM and I'm a bit irritable from lack of sleep and a late-night duty call. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

P.S. - And yes, I have no business being online at this hour, I know. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a school ip, see the whois report. --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

correction it is a University Ip address. I know the admins at the university and will ask them to look into it. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of sock puppetry: It sure seems that Buspar is in fact Xuanwu. They both edit the same articles in the same ways. Buspar's user page even says "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003!" Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Onethirtyeightdot"... gee, I wonder who it could be. JuJube (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's not too hard at all to figure out who it is. Xuanwu says he "Started this Okashina Okashi page and have fleshed it out with time, making it a very comprehensive source page. Unfortunately, it was deleted." Buspar made his first edit ever to remake that article. Xuanwu and Buspar both have spent their time editing Hess Educational Organization and Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. So it's not hard at all to figure out that they are blatant sockpuppets, writing self-promotional wikipedia articles about themselves. The only question is what you're going to do about it. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help? Obviously not it seems.

This diff [[26]] seems to have affected several sections, altering or removing some text. Can't get my head around what happened, and can't undo because of intervening edits. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely, it looks like there was an edit conflict when Einsteindonut was removing a comment from another editor editing. I have had similar problems with using the "copy & paste" method of dealing with edit conflicts - anything posted between the initial conflict and the eventual successful save gets lost on the way. Don't know how to fix it though. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Almost only way I can think of to resolve easily at this point is to C/P the accidentally removed sections back into the board. (Though I could be wrong about that.) LaughingVulcan 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, god, I don't fancy doing that. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I will do it if anyone wants. Doesnt bother me I do it all the time at work. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very decent of you - thanks! I have just asked at VP/T if anyone there knows a way to fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

where the hell do I start there have been over 50 posts since it went wrong. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe best to wait for someone with special powers (that's if any admins actually notice that parts of the board have been lost). DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There's only like 5 sections that were obliterated to C/P. I think I know a way that (hopefully) won't make things worse. Let me have a go at it. LaughingVulcan 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably best me thinks. Otherwise I can revert something that has been resolved so that admins think that it hasnt. I will leave it to the professionsals. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

On cursory review, I'm finding all the deleted sections still present on the page so far (3 for 5,) from that diff. Maybe somebody already resolved it??? Still looking. LaughingVulcan 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There are definitely still comments missing within some sections. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There definitely are, and the user is still editing the page and apparently changing text at will. I'm posting a request to his Talk page to cease editing this board temporarily. This isn't "vandalism" but it is certainly disruptive... ;) LaughingVulcan 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As I think I mentioned, I have done a similar thing before. The problem arises with the way Wikipedia tells people to cope with edit-conflicts (i.e. copy-paste). On a busy page like this it is very easy to accidentally blank comments made in the time between one's original attempt to post, and one's eventual successful save. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Very true. And I believe you're right - it's very hard to sort out what's been cut out. I had hoped to address the original diff provided and just c/p what's been pulled. (Think you looked at doing the same.) But I think you're right; this is something I can't tackle, either. So we still need some help here. LaughingVulcan 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I think I have now restored the lost material - but of course if anyone spots anything I have missed it would be wonderful if they could either fix it or let me know. I'll just add that I am sure that it was accidental, and a result of the unfortunate instructions given on the edit-conflict screen. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that. For the record, a reasonably good way to fix such breakage is to use the undo feature and manually reinstate the intended edit (e.g. by selectively cut-and-pasting from the diff view). Of course, this assumes that MediaWiki will still let you undo the edit in the first place. I do could it might be a good idea to clarify the instructions at MediaWiki:Explainconflict for thread mode pages, where the currently suggested method is often difficult and error-prone. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

When I clicked "undo", it told me that the edit could not be undone. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have mentioned the problem at the talk page for the edit-conflict message, I am unable to actually edit the message. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I just made some changes to the message that should hopefully help a bit. Any further improvements are welcome. (If you're not an admin yourself and have some changes you'd like to make, leave me a note or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happened again :( Stifle (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So fixit. The header also needs to be edited to say something on the lines of "Owing to the Wiki software being unable to cope with the volume of edits on this page, the threads on this page cannot be taken as an accurate record of the actual posts. Posts may be lost or corrupted as a result of edit conflicts, and DuncanHill will not always be available or willing to spend the time fixing them". DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The page needs to be protected, and an admin then to copy and paste back in the lost parts. I had tried to start doing it, but getting too many edit conflicts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I think I've managed to restore the only bit that Satori Son hasn't restored. Deor (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - I was getting very frustrated. There was one more bit, which I just got. I still think the page needs a warning that threads may be misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting GAN fails

I wondered if someone uninvolved could take a look at this. Goodone121 (talk · contribs) is continuing to renominate Huntington's disease at WP:GAN after Jfdwolff and I each failed it once since yesterday. S/he reverted Jfdwolff today and then after I failed the article removed the link to the second GA review and removed the evidence of it from the article history template. Goodone121 has not been a major contributor to the article and has been asked by the article's main contributor not to renom it until the concerns from the second review have been dealt with. I asked them to stop reverting at User talk:Goodone121#Huntington's disease, because I feel it's becoming disruptive. I hope I'm not acting prematurely by bringing this here, but I'd like to step back and have someone else get involved, any advice would be most welcome. delldot ∇. 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I'll remove it and make a note in the ongoing discussion on his talk page. For something failed that recently, the place to go is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, not back to GAN. I don't really want the article there either (because the problems can just be fixed by editors and the article renominated), but if s/he wants to run it up the flagpole, that is the place. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I reverted edits I felt were good-faith, but against process. I will promply bring the matter to GAR.BTW, I'm a male.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has just suggested that GAR may not be the best place. How about actually implementing earlier recommendations by Delldot and myself so we can then rapidly promote it to GA? JFW | T@lk 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• That someone was me. I don't think it should go to GAR, but if it between it going there and us blocking this editor (or others) due to edit warring on GAN, I would much rather it just go to GAR and be disposed of there. However, it appears as though the editor in question isn't planning on renominating it without consensus, so this may be solved...insofar as AN/I is concerned. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I was trying to explain that it might not be the wisest move to blatantly disregard advice given only 42 minutes (and 1 edit) earlier.

I think Goodone121's reponses to Delldot and myself on his talkpage are worth reviewing. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Understood. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of fair use image removal at List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day

Over the past three days, a slow revert war has been happening over the removal of fair use images from that article per WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. See article history. A very similar dispute happened at Supporting Harry Potter characters recently. Please see this from the AN/I archive and Talk:Supporting_Harry_Potter_characters#Overuse_of_fair_use_images. The result of that edit war was article protection, and ultimately reduction of fair use images down to two (which is appropriate per the guideline).

Currently, I have been removing the images and attempting to communicate [27] to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the policy and guidelines under which this was done. User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has used his rollback privileges inappropriately, and continues to treat the removals and tagging of the article for other issues by User:Pd THOR as vandalism, for example "Removing the images and plastering with unnecessary tags is vandalism." [28].

I'd appreciate it if an administrator would please step in and advise User:Blofeld of SPECTRE to halt his actions, as they are in violation of policy and further to caution him in calling legitimate edits vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I've informed Blofeld about this notice, and commented. I see the article has now been sent to AFD. Black Kite 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes to articles I see as delibrately destructive in my view as perfectly accpetable. PD Thor isn't exactly justification either given that he attempted to delete the list of allies in Die Another Day too. What is the point in coming crying to ANI when I'm not here? The Bald One ^{White cat} 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:E-FlyBoy-M

E-FlyBoy-M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I wish AIV could handle slightly more complex cases ... I hate bringing these things to ANI. Anyway, this account diddled around on his user page for months, apparently just to become autoconfirmed and able to be used to vandalize semi-protected pages. Hit Miley Cyrus today, blanking it. No valid edits outside of his bizarre userpage.Kww (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably related to TylerTown101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who pulled the same stunt.Kww (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerTown101 filed as well.Kww (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow what waste of their time if this turns out to be the case. Months of checking the account only to have the one vandal edit reverted by a bot almost immediatly. let's see what the checkuser comes up with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I have a hard time believing that it was worth the effort for whatever kind of silly internal reward vandals receive. TylerTown101's edits look related to the whole 4chan attack we had on Miley Cyrus Friday night. The edit patterns of the two accounts are identical, and the timing of their edits is within a 10 minute timespan. TylerTown101 makes two edits, gets reverted in 3 minutes, and E-Flyboy-M blanks the page 7 minutes later.Kww (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford (talk · contribs) blocked

The above user was recently blocked by Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) for off wiki harassment (link in the block log). This was under instruction from Sceptre (talk · contribs) on IRC. Since I do not believe the decision is correct, I bring it to the scrutiny of the community. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears resolved per User talk:Bedford. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The block log shows that Stwalkerster undid his block 23 minutes after making it. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected Wikipedia:Requested moves

• I regrettably felt forced to semiprotect Wikipedia:Requested moves, after a bout of 15 IPA anonymous users (or the same person 15 times) replacing its contents with indecent ascii art in less than an hour. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That should take care of them. Well, frankly speaking, it is what my father calls "a bunch of lunatics", doing nothing than complete nonsense and indecent humor... Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been about four hours now, so I'm unprotecting it (hopefully it'll be alright). If they go at it again and the page is protected again, though, could someone make a place for new and unregistered users to actually request a move? The sprot template directs them to the talk page, and the talk page directs them back to the project page. WODUP 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It was 4chan's /b/, again. I browse it from time to time and noticed that some idiot was spamming all the threads with automated edit url's to do this action. It's probably safe to consider it over now. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks to have calmed down. Short-term semi is usually enough to deal with these problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation of TTN's Restriction?

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [29] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation (if this is not the proper place to discuss this then please let me know).75.93.9.235 (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically belongs at Arbitration Enforcement, but whatever. I'm currently too tired to look into it just now, but I'm sure someone will be by soon. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking at it, he hasn't deleted anything - the characters that look like they've been removed are mentioned in other paragraphs, and don't look to be important enough to warrant that huge slab of plot summary that existed there before. This looks fine to me. Black Kite 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN trimmed some minor characters out of a list, and reduced the article size by approximately 20%. Doesn't even approach a violation of his arbcom restrictions, so it doesn't belong there, either.Kww (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Kww, the only reason I bring this up is because the situation looks very similar to these [30] [31], which resulted in a ban. I'll move the discussion to enforcement though, since that's where it belongs (does that mean I should delete this section?). 75.93.9.235 (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it means that you should stop shopping this item from place to place until you find someone that overreacts.Kww (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not trying to shop it around, in regards to this article I just want to know if the precedent is to remove material that was mistakingly posted. 75.93.9.235 (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Manacpowers

He's keeping being very uncivil and even did a personal attack.

Called another editor "bad faith editor"[32], and "retarded" or "retard"[33] [34].

Kept Calling an editor who's not banned a "banned user" and an "abusive sock"[35] [36] [37] [38] [39].

Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[40].

He kept uncivil even after being warned[41].

Called an editor "banned user" again and reverted the edit again. He keeps saying that it is an original research although it is cited.[42].

Said "i laugh at your ridiculous and Bad faith forking"[43].

Called another editor's comment "funny" and say "are you kidding?"[44]

He doesn't feel any regret for what he has done even when he was warned again.[45]

He is so self-righteous and shows no manners. I don't think he is a suitable wikipedian. I suggest that he be blocked for a bit long time.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[46]"

your content forking, distorted edit, wrong reference, unconsensus page move, and malforemd 3rr report(intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file) [47][48][49][50] is a cleary bad faith.

however, i did not use "retarded" word. possibly i used "ret*****". but i did not used "ratarded".

even some user(Sennen goroshi) said uncivil word to me, "Your source is crap and biased",[51] however, i did not report it.

sorry, but anyone can revert banned user edit. it was firt inserted by abusive sock account of Pabopa(Webcamera)[52], and after sock account is deadWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa, newbie account is appeard[53][54], and it revert again.[55] Pabopa was a only one person who stick to injo kowtow. "possibly" these newbie accounts(Bentecbye, Mabemabe) are resurrection accounts of abusive sock. also he confirmed as a "likely" sock. it is not baseless at all.

you says, Called an editor "banned user" again. [56] but, i just revert banned user version edit. it is not mean you are banned user.(but who know? you are sock or not)

You say to me as a "rudness" is also uncivil manner. [57]

i said, "it is a your ridiculous interpret", because you intentionally omitted from source, and you distoring source, it is a ridiculous to me. i think it is not a personal attack. [58]

"funny" is not a uncvil word. i never heard it.

sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.

1. you redirected article title without any user consensus.[59]

2. He(Michael Friedrich) was not intention of avoiding edit war.[60][61] many user opposed his edit.[62][63][64][65] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.

3. Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[66]

i think you are not a suitlabe editor of wikipedia. Manacpowers (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers is habitual offender of edit war.example,7th revert,6th revert.He does not have proper reason.He revert in many places.He is too bad.--Bentecbye (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich and me already blocked for 24 hrs by 3rr reports. it is already done. also it is not violated 3rr rule, it is not within 24 hrs.

and Bentecbye your engaged reverting edit war. you are also keep reverted again.

Bentecbye is a confirmed as a "likey" sock of Pabopa who abusive sock puppetry and indefinite banned user. after Pabopa account is dead, this "new" account Bentecbye appeard. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa Manacpowers (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bentecbye make a memo list. i think this is his stalking list.[67] he trace my edit history. Manacpowers (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a place to fight with you, but I comment on your points.

First, I am not talking about 3rr now. Don't change the subject.

Second, "ret***ed" clearly means "retarded". Using *** means nothing. This is nothing but a personal attack. Your comment above proves that you don't feel any regret for what you have done. You don't seem to understand that you're being uncivil and what is uncivility either.

Third, Sennen goroshi does not have anything to do with this. Don't change the subject. If you think his deed is a personal attack, don't mention it here and make another section, please.

Fourth, whether Bentecbye is a sock puppet is not decided yet. You kept removing information only because it is first added by Bentecbye although it is cited and some, including me, oppose you.[68]

Fifth, calling your deed rude is not a uncivil manner or a personal attack. I was only warning you. If the word "rudeness" were a personal attack, "uncivility" would also be a personal attack. I used the word "rudeness" because it appears in Wikipedia's guidelineWikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.

Sixth, using the word "ridiculous" is uncivil. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages. It says "Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively." Even "poorly written" is against etiquette. So are "rediculous" and "funny", not to mention "i laugh" and "are you kidding?". Read [[Wikipedia:Civility#]Situations that may foster incivility]] too.

Seventh, as for my redirect, I thought it was OK to move the article to a proper name (the name I used is a direct translation from the original word, 朝鮮史編修會) because there was another editor who had moved the article to another name before me[69]. And you moved the article too, without any consensus[70] and the name you used is your POV (Read Club for Editing of Korean History#Michael Friedrich's moves).

Eighth, as for edit war, it is a content dispute. Not a personal attack or uncivility. Besides, I am the one who started the discussion at Kumdo[71], Korean History Compilation Committee[72], Dojang[73]. You kept ignoring me and reverting edits without saying anything until recently although I tried to talk to you many times (see User talk:Manacpowers#No reference?!). You kept reverting my edits without discussion even after I tried to talk to you (see [edit on Korean influence on Japanese Culture]and my comment to Mancpower User talk:Manacpowers#Sogano Umako. Manacpowers ignored me and kept reverting the page). I don't want you to say I have no intention to avoid edit war althogh you kept ignoring me although I tried to talk to you many times. You have no intention of avoiding edit wars either.

As for sock puppet, I have sereral pieces of evidence (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/4.23.83.100). This is different from what you did and I was told to ask him about it. So I did so. What's wrong about it?

Conclusion. What you said above is irrelavent here. Please do not change the subject.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kumdo dispute

Sorry for bothering you, but there is a long dispute which seems not to be solved. I think [edit] is properly sourced. But there're a few who say this is an original reseach and POV-pushing. It seems this dispute cannot be solved without a third party. If possible, I'd like someone neutral to judge whether it is properly sourced or not.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you wrong interpret, contents forking, and heavy POV is problem, and it is still going on discussion page of Kumdo. you are first, and only one person who make disruptive edit war of kumdo article. many user opposed it. Manacpowers (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Many users? It seems there are only you and Objectiveye. And there's one who's on my side, Bentecbye. This is not a place to dispute. I am asking for a third party's judgement in order to know if my edit could be called POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooey Parks vandal

69.112.43.77 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - If some users could keep an eye on contributions from this account, it would be very much appreciated. In between good edits, the editor attempts to sneak subtle factual errors across various articles, and occasionally creates hoax pages for fictitious films in talk pages for non-existent articles, with "Wooey Parks" listed in the cast. Dancter (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:C

I am not sure if this is a copyright, but the pages read the same:

Fuel hedging and http://www.hometravelagency.com/dictionary/fuel-hedging.html Brusegadi (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good find. That page is older than our article. --Carnildo (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited

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.

NYScholar has been adopted by Shell who is aware of the issues raised in this discussion and the previous discussion ... ; no need to continue this discussion. If any editors have an issue or concerns they should contact Shell on her talk page.

---

(See 236936770) Gnangarra 11:06, 8 September 2008

---

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Wikipedia. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Wikipedia policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Wikipedia saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Wikipedia, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Wikipedia. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review,[74] a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

• • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Wikipedia "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" [I had to search for that].

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Wikipedia editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report baofsed on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his [Ecoleetage's] request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption. [He removed the adoption template from my talk page after canceling the adoption. He is no longer my "mentor" and I am no longer his "mentee" or "adoptee".]

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet[ed]. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. [I actually did far more work on the article than he did.] Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Wikipedia that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Wikipedia.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Wikipedia (and hence Wikipedia); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Wikipedia to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Wikipedia editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Wikipedia.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all [at least to my recollection; there is no reason for "diffs." here, and in his manner, OIC has simply ignored my talk page and user box notices not to take my talk page comments out of context; he seems inevitably to take things out of context and to skew them to support false interpretations (misinterpretations) of the contexts.]

All my communications with him [Ecoleetage], except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or [series of images--2 in one article, 1 in another] is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on [the current one(s) I've been working on], if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Wikipedia work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Wikipedia that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my [user] page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[I missed some typographical errors in previewing and am now too tired to hunt for and correct them further; there are some important ones; I hope that the mistyping will not be too confusing. I'm exhausted by all this. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)]

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Wikipedia in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Wikipedia. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Wikipedia better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Wikipedia in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Wikipedia process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm in summary mode and diffs would be overkill. The behavior is on display here too. We're not going to come to terms with this unless we stop beating around the bush with Wikipedia-speak and recognize this for what it is, an editing pattern and expressed sentiments for other editors that are far out of the norm. Or to use language that others have, hyper-editing coupled with constant accusations. This has been going on indefinitely and seems unabated so we can assume it will continue. It's clearly bad for the project. Any page this lands on more or less shuts down, degrades in quality, and more or less shuts down until the editor moves on. Efforts to change the project have all failed. So are we going to live with it or not? Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.

Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.

At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.

Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

There are diffs in the opening post. If you follow the very first diff cited in the opening post you will find the archived discussion of the last ANI and there you will find more diffs to other discussions. The relevant diffs are all in the opening post, no one is asking you to go searching the archives. Sarah 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Wikipedia is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Wikipedia results from the open editing procedure. To change Wikipedia from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Wikipedia. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Wikipedia, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Wikipedia. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me.  ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Wikipedia (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Wikipedia user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sanctioned": I have reviewed my archived 21 and see that "sanctioned" as used there refers to a "block"; I am not an administrator, and I do not always remember the lingo used by administrators; I was required to be adopted by the conditions of a "block" placed by User:John Carter (see my talk page archive 21), and, as soon as an adopter came forward to adopt me, I accepted the offer to be adopted by him (User:Ecoleetage); I've provided links to the exchanges between John Carter and me below, in reply to comments by ThuranX, which distort what actually occurred and claim the opposite of what occurred, claiming that I was "reluctant" to accept the adoption; that is entirely untrue and unsubstantiated and proved false by the archive exchange in archive page 21. --NYScholar (talk) 04:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Message from Eco Lee Tage I was hoping not to come back, as I am trying to take an extended Wikibreak due to personal problems that I need to address offline -- and the very last thing I need at this point in time is melodramatic distraction. Based on what I am reading here, however, I need to step back and answer some matters.

First, when I received permission from John Carter to "adopt" NYScholar, I received no parameters, rules or time limits on mentorship. Nor did I receive any instructions that I had to report to any person or entity that the mentorship was concluded. The statement "if you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community" is specifically not Wikipedia policy in regard to WP:BLOCK (as the adoption was linked to NYScholar's unblocking), nor was it part of my communications with the blocking admin in this case. Without specific instructions, I chose to exercise my rights as the adoptive editor and state that I did all I could for NYScholar.

The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely my decision, based on what I saw as NYScholar's positive contributions to the project and the appreciation of other editors to his work, most notably Keeper76's unusually strong praise. Keeper is not one to give out praise lightly, so his endorsement convinced me that there was no reason to keep the "adoption" going. Based on this editor's writing and referencing skills, and the manner in which he was interacting with other editors, it was my editorial judgment that NYScholar no longer required mentoring. Perhaps he requires muzzling, given his propensity to use 5,000 words when five would be sufficient. (That is a joke, by the way.)

Since nobody gave me directions on the mentorship, I find it odd that we are getting after-the-fact attempts to re-open a closed and resolved case and bring new punishment on someone who has already been held up to ridicule by his peers and blocked.

Furthermore, the mentorship concluded a month ago -- you people just noticed it now?

I also want to take a moment to address a comment made by one of the editors who felt NYScholar's "behavior is simply not normal." Not normal? This man has not brought physical, emotional or professional injury to any member of this project. He talks too much? Yeah, tell me something I don't know. His editing is overly exuberant? Uh, yeah, I know that, too. And do you know what the cited article, Czesława_Kwoka, is about? I originally rallied to save that article from deletion -- it is the story of a young girl who perished in the Holocaust. The main reason that article has been preserved and went on to win DYK honours is because NYScholar took his time and energy to expand the article's sourcing and provide it with content that ensured that poor child's life story wouldn't be erased from our pages. I don't recall any of NYScholar's accusers lifting a finger to help save that article. Thank you, NYScholar -- because of you, and solely because of you, that poor child did not have to die a second time by having her memory erased.

If there is any shred of decency out there, drop this matter immediately. This does not contribute to the betterment of the project in any way, shape or form. And if anyone here who finds fault with NYScholar want to make him a better editor, I happily invite them to step up to the proverbial plate, "adopt" him and find success where you feel that I failed.

I am now returning to my Wikibreak. If you need to reach me, please contact me by e-mail since I will not be returning to these pages for some time. Thank you, and please be nice to each other. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:43, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ecoleetage. I see that Ecoleetage (who I know to be male from his self-description on his website and only from that) also assumes that I am a man. [I meant to type user page in last sent.; I don't know if he has a website; my only interaction w/ him is via our Wikipedia talk pages. --Ed. (NYS)] Even Ecoleetage does not know my gender. I can't believe how all of you regard this attack on both Ecoleetage and me to be reasonable or even "normal" (using a word he quotes from a comment that I haven't seen yet). May I just remind everyone again that scholars may be male or female. Re: the Holocaust-related article: I have done some specialized literary-related research pertaining to the Holocaust and given a paper at a major scholarly conference on the Holocaust, so the closely-interrelated subjects of Kwoka and then Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist became very interesting to work on and, because of (in my view) enormous importance as human rights issues (another subject of my work outside of Wikipedia), it became very important to me to make these articles well-documented and reliable and in keeping with Wikipedia's core policies and editing guidelines. The problems with the images are of concern to me because I fear that if they are not properly uploaded with all the proper licenses and proper fair-use rationales or whatever they need, down the road some administrator will come along and delete the whole article on Kwoka; I have taken it as a challenge to improve the Kwoka article and to create and develop the other two, but it is not a "personal" matter; it is an editorial matter. I am a very conscientious responsible editor (in actual life) and take such work very seriously. Perhaps that does not seem "normal" to others; but I also have devoted many, many hours to getting these articles where they are and I would not like that work to be lost to Wikipedia and other Wikipedia readers (as is the case w/ all the articles that I work on). My professional work is described in general terms in an archived talk page answer to someone who said I didn't have the degrees that I do have and so on. That too was highly offensive. Re: the anon IP user recently blocked: I rarely delete things from my current talk page; but that just seemed unnecessary to bear, and look what that anon IP user did to my user and talk pages afterward. I was unaware until administrators had reverted the changes bec. there is no orange bar for changes to a user page it seems. I was happy to have missed all that aggravation. --NYScholar (talk) 04:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

What "waving"? I am so tired of your false accusations and AGF violations. I've hardly said anything and, in fact, am barely even on Wikipedia these days. I'm sorry but you were sanctioned. You were indefinitely blocked and required to undergo mentorship. If the community feels you no longer need mentorship, fine, I don't really care either way (although I think the screeds you've been posting here and elsewhere as linked by Orderinchaos indicate otherwise) but you can't just revoke a community imposed mentorship on your own. You have to come back here and tell the community and be willing to discuss it. It's most unfortunate that you insist on posting these incredibly long rants because all you're doing is making it incredibly unlikely that uninvolved admins will bother to step in and review it. And that's unfortunate for all parties. I would suggest, if you think you no longer need to be mentored, that you start a new SHORT section stating so so that it can be reviewed by uninvolved users. Sarah 22:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Follow up SHORT(er) section [Well, it was....]

• From the top of this project page noticeboard:
  

Welcome to the incident noticeboard. This page is for reporting and discussing incidents on the English Wikipedia that require the intervention of administrators. Any user of Wikipedia may post here.

Please keep your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting (you may use the There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. template to do so). Please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes. Please use neutral section titles that identify the user(s) or article(s) involved, as appropriate.
This noticeboard is a busy and vital part of Wikipedia's administration. Complaints that are not serious and substantiated requests for administrator intervention do not belong here. Please do not clutter this page with accusations or side-discussions within a discussion.

Before posting a grievance about a user here, it is advised that you take it up with them on their user talk page.

1. I apologize for not being concise. I did not see the request for being "concise" until after I posted my long replies. The replies are long because of the unfounded and unsupported claims being made initially by Orderinchaos (at top of this long section).
2. OrderinChaos did not take his "grievance" up with me prior to posting this "notice".
3. OrderinChaos did not post any link to this notice to me to let me know that it was here. I came upon it by accident.
4. None of those posting their current (in some cases not concise either) comments making claims about a past incident (not this one) are posting any "diffs." links. The links in Orderinchao's first post here go to pages, not "diffs." If he examined the actual diffs., he would see that in one instance I moved an item intact to the appropriate article talk page (it was not deleted it was moved); the subsequent edits document that, and I refer to my clear notice in the "N.B." section to the poster in doing that. It was not deleted it was moved.
5. There is no truth whatsoever to the claims of "collusion" between the voluntary adopter Ecoleetage and me; that is patently untrue. My own talk page and archive pages 21 and 22 includes all comments by him and me posted there, and the whole history of our interaction. His practice is to delete old exchanges from his talk page, but they can be found in the editing history there. I am not responsible for his maintenance of his own talk page.
6. I will not be bullied into not responding to false accusations with continued complaints about the length of a response. If it takes time and space to respond, I am doing so. This is not a "rant" or a "screed" (and those are scare quotes). This is a reply.
7. It violates WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF to characterize another editor's sincere reply as a "rant" and to malign the person for having replied.

--NYScholar (talk) 01:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• After a problem involving editing of The Dark Knight (which I have not edited since and would not touch with a ten-foot pole), I posted a kind message to Sarah. I will look for the "diffs." to it and post the link here in a moment. I was actually shocked to see Sarah's first and subsquent comments here. I posted the kind message to Sarah while Ecoleetage was my adopter, having learned from him the value of compassion and small acts of kindness. (Be back in a moment.) --NYScholar (talk) 01:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It will take a while longer for me to find the comments via editing history or an archive at Sarah's talk page. I will also post the "diffs." link to the item in OrderinChaos's first post here. Please bear with me. [I corrected the above link to the article on the film so it doesn't go to the disambig. page.] --NYScholar (talk) 01:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the Diffs. from the editing history of July 16, 2008, containing my thank you post to Sarah; I learned how to use that "smile" template from my early interaction with Ecoleetage. I posted smiles to him around that time for his guidance at the time, but posting the smile to Sarah was my own idea and not discussed with him in any way at all. I was applying what I was learning from reading his talk page and seeing how he interacted then (July 2008) with other Wikipedians. I admired and tried to emulate his example of civility and kindness. I am only familiar with him from that point in summer 2008 until now, as documented in my talk page archives 21 and 22 and current talk page, not yet archived by the bot (which I hope is working okay again now). Sarah placed my post to her and her reply to me in her archive 17, which can be found via her current talk page and which also contains earlier archived exchanges from before my adoption by Ecoleetage.

Note: At the time I posted that, I expected to be away from Wikipedia for an extended period of time; but that was the period of time coincidentally that the film The Dark Knight was released and, as a "major contributor," I continued to edit Heath Ledger in order to update it and keep it up to date; one link would lead to another in Wikipedia as I added sources, and I would find myself making corrections and adding sources to other articles; around that time I was interacting with my then new adopter and attempting to follow his example in my editing. In the past month, I have not been "adopted"; after Ecoleetage suggested that I take a look at a few articles, I got involved in editing them and creating a couple of related articles. I will probably take a break now, due to exhaustion from the process of editing those articles and the upset caused by this "incident" notice. --NYScholar (talk) 01:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sarah, OrderinChaos, Wikidemo and others were involved in the previous incident, but this situation is not that situation, and if they are going to ask for a block of me or a ban of me, they are required to post "diffs." in an official action of some kind. In my view, on the basis of my editing of Wikipedia since my adoption, any such action would fail. They seem to be engaging here in instigating a punitive block (not in keeping with block policy) or ban, but, again, I do not see how any such thing is warranted. As I stated way above and as Ecoleetage and Keeper have also stated, OrderinChaos's initial post and subsequent ones by others are entirely unwarranted and this whole thing should be dropped and expunged. It is not I nor Ecoleetage nor Keeper who looks bad here, but other administrators (Keeper is an admin.) who are not even able to follow the instructions given at the top of this page (just quoted). I may be wordy, but being wordy is not a punishable act in Wikipedia; my intention is not "disruption"; my intention when I comment is the opposite: clarification to the benefit of Wikipedia and other Wikipedians and Wikipedia readers. --NYScholar (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I recognize the poster below as another one of my main detractors from the past already-resolved incident (which again is not this "incident" that is being listed by OrderinChaos, without "diffs.", which I have been unable to locate that refer to what he is talking about); the one posting below (ThuranX) also has done so frequently in the past incident without posting actual "Diffs." and constantly makes repeated accusations without backing them up with "Diffs."; that is not what this project noticeboard is for; and it is also not for dredging up past documented situations as if they still are happening. They aren't.

Big LIE (another) [by ThuranX] below in another subsection just added; I added the subheading: I did not "reluctantly" accept mentoring; I wholeheartedly and completely accepted it, even turning down an offer from User:John Carter to allow an informal adoption and no template of adoption; I accepted a formal adoption offer and the formal adoption template was posted. --NYScholar (talk) 02:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link (made linkable for purposes of linking here) from the automatic-bot archived sec of my archive page 21: [75] Hope it works. --NYScholar (talk) 03:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the link to the [automatic-bot-]archived section (mostly about the archivingbot that I am voluntarily using (not a requirement); the adopttion is discussed in section above it): Response to John Carter; we were working together to try to develop the best archiving bot for the situation. Frequently, it archives things out of chronological order, and it hasn't been doing anything lately, so I've had to doing some archiving after material has been there 2 days myself at times, or straighten out the chronological order of archived things.]. I'll see if [Diffs.] are accessible from my current talk page editing history, though I don't think it's necessary for me to post them. It is, however, necessary, for the initiating user (OrderinChaos) to post them so people know what he's referring to and can follow the previous and next edits. The bot was doing the archiving after mid-July 2008, not me, except for recent problems w/ its functioning. I've asked for help w/ it but none has arrived yet. --NYScholar (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[Note: Adding another arbitrary break below. See Sarah's suggestion re: SHORT; mine is only "SHORT(er)"; due to the additional comments added by ThuranX; it became longer; I don't know what "Tl;dr" means. Perhaps someone will translate it into English for me. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 03:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

tl;dr - too long; didn't read •Florrie•leave a note• 11:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Tl;dr. Didn't have to, NYScholar is back to NYScholar's old tricks. NYScholar again with the proclamation that NYScholar never does wrong, everyone else just doesn't understand what they themselves say, and so we should all listen to NYScholar . I note that NYScholar began by interrupting others comments, a behavior that has come up before as inappropriate. NYScholar then decided to fill two screens with a lengthy, platitude and vapid nothings filled response playing the innocent (to the specific nature of the restrictions previously instituted), and victim to a group who just want to get NYScholar. It goes downhill from there. When confronted with 'Mentorship or community ban', NYScholar reluctantly accepted mentorship, only to be rapidly released from it to engage in more behavior of at best dubious ethical style. Again NYScholar protests, feigns cluelessness, which can't have happened, given how many policies were thrown in NYScholar's direction during previous troubles. By now, NYScholar should be aware that NYScholar should be editing and acting in a cautious nature when unsure, and should follow up with questions when unsure, instead of more bold editing, which so often gets NYScholar in trouble. It seems clear that the troubles NYScholar regularly stirs up are of greater weight than the edits done, which so often go undiscussed and cause trouble. I therefore support a community ban. All other avenues of recourse having been tried, and the clear demonstration of a lack of desire to comply being evident, there's no choice left but to 'ask' NYScholar to leave this project for greener pastures. ThuranX (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• The above poster is distorting documented facts; see my comment above this section (posted while I was still writing it) and notice the lack of "diffs.". This is terrible. --NYScholar (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blah Blah blah 'diffs'. This is nice, and would this be some infantile payback for the 'diffs' problem last time around? face up to things. You have a problem interacting with others. You're unwilling to listen to others about this problem. You have an arrogance problem. You don't believe you need to listen to others about this problem. You don't think you're wrong, and know you don't need to listen to others about this problem. As such, I stand by my assertion. As for diffs, the above, and previously linked archives support my contentions just fine, I see no value in reposting all those links again. ThuranX (talk) 03:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, ThuranX: But if you would actually read the archived section with the exchanges between User:John Carter and me and between User:Ecoleetage (my adopter from mid-July to first week of August--about 3 weeks), you would see that they already contain the "diffs." and everything is archived. This procedure (AN/I) requires posting of "diffs." to back up any accusations against another Wikipedia user/editor; you are not doing that now, and you did not do that before. I am not "arrogant"; I am fair, serious-minded, a good-faith editor, and I contribute important and well-documented content to Wikipedia. Your opinion of me is your opinion. Apparently, you were not able to "get over" the AN/I that I initiated about another user to whom you refer as "Stu"; Stu apologized to me, and I accepted his apology; he offered to be "sanctioned" himself, but you and others supported no one sanctioning him. It's all discussed in the archived discussion in my archive page 21, linked to above. Please do not use uncivil and offensive language in your editing summaries; and please explain what your abbreviations at the beginning of your post above mean. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 03:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

thank you for agreeing that it's all already linked. that means I don't have to link it all again. There's your interpretation of previous events, which you harangue about here, and there's the interpretation of your behavior which I, Sarah, steve, erik, and numerous others saw. Its' really that simple. I've said my piece here about your constant wikilawyering, arrogance, and general inability to socialize here in a way conducive to editing. I leave it to others to either agree, and put an end to your tenure here, or to find some OTHER other other way of getting your to behave. ThuranX (talk) 03:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: WP:BB: I do not follow that at all. I do not really accept "bold editing" as worthwhile. I follow WP:POL not qualified by WP:BB. I have never said to anyone "be bold" and I have never tried to "be bold" myself; I have tried to follow WP:MOS when I can (though it is often difficult to understand and inconsistent): see discussion re: that between me and Keeper in Talk:Heath Ledger, now probably archived. It can be found in the editing history. --NYScholar (talk) 03:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't remember how to code Keeper's user name; I'll try to fix it later. Scroll up to Keeper's comments (way up) in the meantime. I'll add the section later if that helps. --NYScholar (talk) 03:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the exchange from the archived page 9 of Talk:Heath Ledger Please correct typographical error]: It was a request while the article was fully protected from editing due to repeated acts of vandalism throughout its history; it has been either fully protected or partly protected since January 22, 2008, the day Ledger died, and it was frequently protected at various times before that (if I recall). I have edited it between Jan. 2008 and now. It is an article that I have contributed a lot of time and energy to keeping well-documented. It was the biographical article on Ledger that first led me to the article The Dark Knight, which I began working on and encountered a group of editors who specialize in film editing (it seems to me) who know one another and who did not appreciate my working on the article and drove me away from editing it, via the AN/I that is being referred to throughout this current AN/I discussion. --NYScholar (talk) 04:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not "released" from mentorship; Ecoleetage canceled it, as was his prerogative. The only reason that I am commenting here is because of the outrageousness of Orderinchaos's claims in the top posts. All the rest of this stuff relates to a resolved matter. Where are the "diffs." to current matters. My comments in response here to others' false statements are not cause for "sanctioning" me; those who make false statements and statements without "diffs." need "sanctioning"; see WP:AGF and WP:NPA and WP:AN/I (this page at top). Please don't just jump on a bandwagon; read the top of the section and from then on first. I responded and no one is reading what I said earlier. Read Ecoleetage's replies and Keeper's replies. This is not a matter of "supporters"; they are simply replying to the outrageous comments of previous posters here. --NYScholar (talk) 06:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

• For what Orderinchaos has initially claimed (and been refuted) see top of this AN/I. It was filed by Orderinchaos who did not discuss anything relating to it with me on my talk page before doing so and did not notify me of this AN/I involving me after doing so. I found it, as I say above, by accident. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Keeper posted comments about this current AN/I a couple of days ago, saying that it appears to be a "travesty" and suggesting that it be dropped, as has Ecoleetage, who also sets the record straight re: the adoption. (Apparently, John Carter had not required Ecoleetage to consult with him when Ecoleetage thought it time to "cancel" the adoption, in part based on my then current editing and engaging with other Wikipedians and Keeper's praise of it; Ecoleetage simply informed me that he was canceling it, and I thought that meant that he was canceling it via John Carter; apparently, it was not a condition of my adoption that there be a time period or that the adopter inform the blocking administrator of the time when it was canceled. I was adopted by Ecoleetage from mid-July to the first week of August, about 3 weeks (which I refer to as "briefly"); actually 3 weeks is fairly standard for some adoptions, I learned when looking at adoption information in Wikipedia. Their time frame varies. Please scroll up to their comments. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• As I have already communicated, the only thing about Ecoleetage's initial telling me that he was nominated in an RfA that I was concerned about, as I express in my "support" of it, was that he couldn't perhaps serve after the end of the adoption to advise me about Wikipedia matters anymore, because he might become too busy as an administrator, and that he wouldn't have time to contribute to content of articles. The charge by Orderinchaos was of "collusion"; both Ecoleetage and I and Keeper have most emphatically said that charge to be false. Everything was entirely above board, and everything in my talk page exchanges with Ecoleetage is either still current or archived. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

[NOTE: I have to go offline for personal reasons and can no longer comment in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 04:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

To me this seems like beating up NYscholar to take out enmity against Ecoleetage. NY is a good contributor, who has done many good things for this projects. So what if the mentorship was terminated without consensus? Did any evil come of it? Provide a link to one bad thing that is a direct effect of the termination of the mentorship. Having trouble? That's because there isn't one. Come on, ANI is for serious things that require the attention of admins, not silly squabbles over non-issues like this. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 04:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you get that idea from. I have never had anything to do with Ecoleetage, never participated in his RfA and don't know enough about him to have an opinion about him either way and I don't the other admins and editors have had anything to do with Ecoleetage either so your claim is a rather poor show of ABF, IMO. I'm really rather astounded that anyone could look at NYScholar's posts to this page and conclude that the problem is everyone else. Sarah 05:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Same. I had never even heard of Ecoleetage until two days ago. The reason I did not take my "grievance" up with NYScholar is that it was not a grievance against that party's behaviour, but a community decision which had been undermined to which the community's attention needed to be drawn. Orderinchaos 10:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

An outside opinion: I remember the last AN/I report involving NYScholar very clearly. Sara and ThuranX have accurately characterized the problems with NYS here. NYScholar accuses others of bad faith motives while simultaneously demanding good faith in return in page after page of prose. He or she gets angry if an editor innocently refers to her or him with any particular pronoun that may portray one sex or the other. The editor edits profusely contributing pages, mostly to talkpages, while at the same time disingenuously claims to be "too busy" in real life to edit here at all, especially when others request his or her attention. These issues were brought forth on the last report. These issues still exist. There was no justification that I can see for NYS to be released from mentorship, and I would hope if NYS continues to edit here, that one of his or her supporters would consider continuing the mentorship. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

We are not supposed to be relying on your or anyone else's "memory" in this proceeding; scroll up to the instructions; if you have a specific and current complaint: please file links to "Diffs." as the instructions say and as other admininistrators have asked everyone complaining to do. Thank you. (I do not feel well and will be offline.)--NYScholar (talk) 06:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A "diff" you say? Well, you don't exactly make it easy. Here, in the last paragraph of your edit, you told us you would no longer respond to this page. That is disingenuous. Below, you show bad faith of Sarah, accusing her of "baiting" you and vindictiveness, lack of compassion while also complaining of the editorial environment here. Then you accuse her of personal attacks without proof while simultaneously demanding diffs from her and me. Now that is chutzpah. Aunt Entropy (talk) 06:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

PRESENT AN/I not past; read what comes above. And see last post. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do you say you are going offline when you don't? In fact, I knew you would respond immediately, because that's what you've done in the past and that's what you are doing now. You haven't changed since the last AN/I at all. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: [name removed] comments: As in the past, she makes statements, does not provide "diffs." to support them, baits me into responding, and then complains that I respond or how I respond or at what length I respond. Everyone can examine my own talk page archive to see at what length she has posted comments to me. [personal attack removed] both against [name removed] (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page and against me is beyond chutzpah. It is hardly a way to improve the environment in Wikipedia. At this point, I wonder if those continuing to engage in such machinations should themselves be under review. Please desist. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 06:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear me. It is most unfortunate that you continue making such unfounded personal attacks and accusations. I have made five edits in total to this discussion: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I really have no clue at all how, in good faith, you can characterise my posts here as "continuing attacks", "unfair", "vindictive", "lacking humane compassion", "baiting", and "the reason why [you] do not feel well". Yes, I have asked you to try to be concise instead of flooding ANI with long slabs of text, but this is because I understand how ANI works and I know that the more you overwhelm it with these long rants and screens full of text, the less likely it is that any sane uninvolved admin will want to review this issue properly and comment. For example, this single post of yours was 2016 words long, later stretched to 2157. This is a problem, it's why I asked you to be concise here. As the ANi intro says, posting these long slabs of text deters people from reviewing and it's exactly what happened last time and it illustrates precisely why you need to be under some form of restrictions. My request that you try to be concise is entirely consistent with the ANI introduction at the top of the page which states, "please make your comments concise, as administrators are less likely to pay attention to long diatribes." I have always found your false accusations offensive but this has gone beyond that and is just really very sad. I have deliberately tried to say little here and have only commented when I have seen others have held mistaken beliefs of have misunderstood. As for diffs, I haven't provided any diffs because I haven't needed to. The previous discussion is linked to in Orderinchaos's opening post and there's no need for me to repost the diffs he has already posted. The only other comment that could conceivably need diffs is my reference to your flood of posts to this ANI report but they're all right here for everyone to see so I see no need to present diffs for them. Sarah 12:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, in the midst of your accusations about me, you state: "the sheer and utter outrageousness of the ongoing vindictiveness both against Ecoleetage (scroll way up) by those who were involved in commenting on his RfA long before I went to the page...is beyond chutzpah." (italics on "were" in your original) Yes, it really is "beyond chutzpah" and I must insist that you present diffs showing that I, Orderinchaos, ThuranX and Wikidemon participated in Ecoleetage's RfA (at all, let alone before you went there). I cannot speak for what others were doing, but I know that I was not even editing Wikipedia during the three week period that included the week of Ecoleetage's RfA, so there is no way that I participated in it. I look forward to seeing some evidence from you regarding the others you accuse because, while I'm sadly becoming rather used to being the target of your personal attacks and bogus accusations, it really is an unfair personal attack to make such vicious accusations if said accusations are blatantly untrue. Sarah 14:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I didn't even know there was an RfA, and had never heard of the candidate, until a day or so after it closed. I didn't comment on it, and my single comment on E's talk page was made after the result was certain and most of the commiserations had been posted. I had been made aware only a few hours earlier of the issues involved, and had looked into it to try and figure out what had happened. The false allegations are becoming tiresome. Orderinchaos 08:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

More of the same from Sarah above.

If anyone is a "target" here, it is not Sarah, but I (see the heading in the filing of this notice).

In an earlier comment above (scroll way up), in response to my saying that I wanted to end commenting here and go offline, Sarah demands that I reply. I have said that I would prefer not to be here.

I am the one being "accused" here, not Sarah. This filing is not about her. It is about me. Her entering the debate and dredging up a previous resolved incident (in which the "indefinite block" of me ended after about a day) made it about herself. I readily accepted adoption by Ecoleetage (see his accounts and my links to archive page 21 of my talk page earlier).

I would like to see the posting of "diffs." to something that I have written in Wikipedia (outside of my admittedly-too-lengthy responses to this convoluted noticeboard filing) to indicate that I deserve any kind of "sanctions" at all for my so-called behavior. My behavior in Wikipedia has been entirely civil and entirely done in good faith.

My comments here have been entirely within the requirements of Etiquette. I have intended not to comment here after my initial comments, but the continuing attacks on me and unsubstantiated false accusations against me regarding my work in Wikipedia (in both articles and talk pages re: images) required responses; in one comment above, Sarah demands that I respond in this space. --NYScholar (talk) 16:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So in other words you are unable to present diffs supporting those accusations because once again your accusations are utterly untrue. The fact is none of us participated in Ecoleetage's RfA or did any of the other things you accused us of doing. Really, enough is enough. How much longer must we tolerate your bogus accusations and self-indulgent essay length posts that side track and bog down discussions? And no, your accusations are most certainly not "entirely within the requirements of Etiquette"; they are offensive, disruptive and destructive. They are blatant personal attacks and WP:CIVIL violations which you ought to retract post haste. Sarah 17:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No one is demanding you respond immediately. You can't shut people up by claiming to go offline. Sorry. Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sarah is quite confused; it is up to the users posting their onslaught of comments against me here to post their own "diffs." (see the instructions). It is not up to me to do so for them. I have already posted "diffs." about the past incident, as archived in my archive page 21; I initiated that AN/I about another user named Stuthomas in relation to what I felt were breaches of WP:NPA, WP:AGF, WP:3RR, and Wikipedia:Etiquette directed at me by him; Sarah entered that discussion and proceeded to make it about me, changed the heading to include my name and others, dredged up another then-past series of events (which had been resolved earlier), and it went on and on and on. Any "diffs." relating to that did not occur between the period of time that OrderinChaos filed this "incident" about: July 15 to Sept. 5, 2008. I am not responsible for posting "diffs." for the complaints against me. Those making such complaints are responsible for doing so. And if they are going to comment and characterize what I write, they have to read what I write, and stop claiming that because it's too long, they are not going to read it (e.g., ThuranX and at times Sarah, and others). If you are going to participate, you must read what other users respond to you; I read what you wrote, you need to read what I wrote. Otherwise, this is just wasting your and my time even more. And don't tell me that I have to "respond" to you when you won't read my response. I don't, and if I don't want to respond anymore, I won't. Why would someone continue responding when the people he or she is responding to refuse to read the responses? Just in that itself, you violate Wikipedia:Etiquette. There is no requirement that I respond at all. But I responded due to the nature of the statements made without "diffs." given that do not follow the instructions given above, which I have already quoted. But maybe you all didn't read that either. From this procedure, it becomes more and more obvious that those who do not treat me with respect do not in turn deserve mine. --NYScholar (talk) 00:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's right, it's up to the accuser to post diffs, so please post diffs supporting your various accusations including the allegation that we are vindictively pursuing Ecoleetage and your insistence that we participated in his RFA. If you are unable to find diffs of us editing Ecoleetage's RfA page then I would suggest you retract your accusations post haste because you are in jeopardy of CIVIL and NPA. Sarah 02:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have filed a request for review of what is going on here in Requests for Arbitration. I do not feel well (have a terrible headache from all this), and have asked for relief. I have too much of a headache now to find the link to the Arbitration request. It's currently at the bottom of the pile. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's called "the first step" in such a process at Wikietiquette Alerts: [76]. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 06:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw no such action on the RFArb page. please link to your already filed complaint there. ThuranX (talk) 17:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for closure

People, I am trying to take a Wikibreak, okay? I don't want to keep coming back here to ride this carousel. Let me repeat what I already said (which didn't seem to get noticed the first go-round).

1. My adoption of NYScholar did not come with any set parameters on length or depth. In fact, I received no instructions whatsoever except to "adopt" the editor because that was the sole requirement for unblocking on a matter that was resolved and closed two months ago.

2. The decision to conclude the mentorship was solely mine to make, as the adoptive editor. NYScholar had no say in the matter. At the time, I felt my judgment was justified based on the editor's renewed contributions to the project and on positive feedback from the admin Keeper76, who awarded NYScholar a barnstar for excellent work.

3. There is no policy requiring community approval on the concluding of Wiki-adoptions.

4. The adoption ended a month ago.

Dead horses are to be buried, not beaten. Ecoleetage (talk) 13:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Once again, is there any sort of bad thing that came out of the severing of the adoption? No. There is no point to this thread. Maybe we should block Eco, on a long Wikibreak, for 24 hours? Or maybe we should block NYScholar for doing something wrong that everyone remembers but no one has proof of? No. I don't get what users want to get out of this thread other than drama. Any block would clearly be vindictive and punitive, not preventive as blocks are supposed to be. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 14:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Having just the last 2 hours reading through all of this and the linked discussion the problem is that the when the unblocking occurred there was a failure in Ecoleetage recieving the intent of the adoption and what was meant to be achieved. Also as part ot the unblocking there was a requirement for NYS to change the way in which his/her talk page is archived that being that all discussion get bot archived 48 hours after the last posting to it NYS talk page has a notice saying I archive them when I feel discussions are over and/or when I have no further time to participate in them a clear challenge to and total disregard to conditions of unblocking. There where also ettiquette and incivility issues raised though no clear sanction was proposed, one can only presume that an assumption was made that such problems would during the course of being mentored/adopted be addressed. IMHO there is reason to re-instate the block, before doing so I like to give NYS the opportunity to relist as requesting adoption and to remove the User_talk:NYScholar#N.B. section from his talk page. Gnangarra 14:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, no one wants to block Ecoleetage or sanction him in anyway at all so talking about blocking him seems rather silly. I really wonder if you're actually reading this section (and with one single post to it being more than two thousand words long, I honestly don't blame you if you haven't read it) but your comments really aren't helpful. This is a long term behavioural issue that really needs to be resolved once at for all. I don't agree with the way Ecoleetage conducted his mentorship of NYScholar, especially given that it came about as a result of an indefinite block and a near community ban (again, the last ANI that resulted in the mentorship is linked in the opening post) and the behavioural problems that needed working on were very clearly discussed in that discussion, but Ecoleetage was acting in good faith and obviously hasn't done anything to warrant blocking. So it's silly to even be talking about such a thing. The idea that this is all just about the terminated mentorship and that there must be a demonstration of "something bad" happening as a direct result of the mentorship being terminated is incorrect. I kind of expected that the thousands and thousands of words NYScholar's posted to this section with utterly untrue, unfounded and hysterical accusations against numerous editors and administrators would speak for itself, especially in light of previous ANIs. I feel like you've just read the first post and then the last post by NYScholar proclaiming that we're all vindictively pursuing him and Ecoleetage and nothing in between. Sarah 15:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Sarah, I'm disappointed in how Ecoleetage's mentorship worked out, but like her, I don't place 'blame' on Eco. However, the immediate reversion of NYScholar to his/her/its/their/NYScholar's old behavior shows that NYScholar continues to be unable to work with others. Consider below that NYSCholar has restated, with incredible fluffing up, all prior arguemnts taht it's everyone else. Community ban. ThuranX (talk) 17:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed with the above people - there would be absolutely no point or value whatsoever in blocking Ecoleetage, and it would be a breach of our blocking policy. This is a case of taking on a responsibility and then not fulfilling it, likely through a lack of understanding of what the responsibility entailed, which probably comes back to a communication issue (i.e. Eco was not informed precisely of the conditions). One would not block a mediator for declaring a situation resolved when it isn't, which is probably the closest equivalent. There's no blame to be assigned. Orderinchaos 02:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Second of Ecoleetage's call for closure and related statement

[An "editing conflict" intervened and Sarah posted her message while I was trying to save this one; I haven't read what she wrote on 7 Sept. yet]

I was taking a "Wikibreak" too after filing a request for help from Wikiquette alerts. I also do not want to have to return here.

As I state clearly on my talk page: Please do not copy and paste my words and take them out of context; it is possible to provide a link so that people can read them in context.

Corrections of the above statement by garra:

1. There is a bot on my talk page that archives it automatically: the bot was not a requirement of the past situation brought up by others over and over above.
2. There has been no (I repeat: no) incivility or breaches of Etiquette on my part. Others have vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked for their acts of vandalism. I had not seen that vandalism prior to those blocks being instituted by administrators. (See the editing history in my user talk page and my current talk page.)
3. Here is the context for the out-of-context quotation by garra: N.B.. [had to fix link here. --NYScholar (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]
4. Notice the reference to the archive bot.
5. I added the parenthetical ref. to it in July 2008. My intention was to draw attention to the fact that it is there; see top template re: the bot.
6. As per the Wikipedia policies and guidelines referenced by links in "N.B." and at the top of my talk page, and entirely properly, I have and take my prerogatives re: maintenance of my "User" space (user page and user talk page) in Wikipedia.
7. I remove what I find to be personally-offensive, harassing, and/or uncivil remarks; I remove unsigned comments; I remove uncivil comments made by anon. IP users (some of whom have recently vandalized my user and talk space and been blocked by administrators). As per Wikipedia user talk page guidelines, I delete common template notices not involving "sanctions" after I have read them (common practice).
8. A few times since the bot began operation and there appeared to be glitches in its operation. I have manually had to archive a few exchanges after 2 days/48 hrs. and after clear evidence that the exchanges were finished (as the bot was doing does when there were no bot glitches). Currently, there seems to be a problem w/ its functioning, as it hasn't archived anything properly recently, and I've asked for administrative assistance w/ it), beginning last week. Therfore, if it failed to archive finished exchanges after 2 days and 48 hrs., and after more than 2 date/time-stamped replies, I have occasionally had to do that manually.
9. There is no reason to re-instate this block or to have any other "sanction"; to do so would be punitive retribution based on false accusations.

Related points

1. The previous "indefinite block" lasted for about a day; as per its condition, I accepted the offer of an adopter immediately upon its being made.
2. The adoption lasted from July 15, 2008 to August 5, 2008 [about 3 weeks; double-checked archive page 21 and 22 and corrected dates]. It was canceled by the adopter, who stated that he believes that it is no longer necessary.
3. If adoption is still warranted (which I do not believe it is), I would be happy to be adopted by anyone who is reasonable and pleasant to work with and who observes WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, including my past adopterUser:Ecoleetage, whom I feel I learned a lot from (even how to be concise). I do not feel that he "failed" his role as an adopter.
4. Ecoleetage did what he was directed to do, and, prior to the beginning of the formal acceptance of his offer, I summarized the past difficulties that I had been told I had in Wikipedia for him.
5. See archive page 21 of my archive: I've already linked to it above.
6. My academic propensity for wordiness and thoroughness of expression is not his responsiblity, it is mine. I am aware that online communications can be unclear, and I strive for clarity. That takes use of words. I am an academic in the humanities; this is how I communicate. I am a writer, an editor, a teacher, and a consultant in the humanities.
7. Anyone who volunteers to adopt me needs to be aware that I am very busy for extended periods of time doing other non-Wikipedia-related work and that I may not be working on Wikipedia at all at times. The template notices on my talk page alert people to that. My work schedule is not always predictable, and, now that we are in the fall of 2008, I will be more and more busy with other things. I was working very hard on real-life projects that had to get to press by early August, and in and out of Wikipedia from mid-July through early August. For the past 3 weeks I have worked on articles that were pointed out to me by Ecoleetage and got heavily involved in striving to improve them; that coincided with the image problems that I pointed out relating to them and with Ecoleetage's RfA (which he notified me of last week).
8. When unfair actions and breaches of basic human rights occur against me and others, I speak up. That is my prerogative as a citizen of the United States and as a supporter of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I will be adding that user box to my user boxes so that people understand my longstanding adherence to it. Wikipedia should not be a "place" where people's rights to express themselves and to maintain their dignity are abused.
9. I see no necessity for any "sanction" ("block" or "ban") of me or anyone else at this time.
10. The filing of this notice in this noticeboard and continuing comments about it were and are in my view and in the view of others who have commented above inappropriate and misguided and a total waste of everyone's time and peace of mind.
11. I second the call for "closure". --NYScholar (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Closure would mean reinstating the indefinite block - if that's what NYScholar wants so be it. I don't see that the community has changed its mind that NYScholar must accept mentorship / adoption in order to continue editing. If a qualified willing volunteer can be found then we should continue as before but with a clear notice to NYScholar and the volunteer that the editing restrictions will remain in place: until the community lifts the ban NYScholar may only edit as long as a suitable adoption arrangement is in place. If Ecoleetage or anyone else wants to volunterr that should be approved first. Wikidemon (talk) 17:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, that is not what I mean by "closure"; "closure" means ending this absurd discussion. I already placed an adoptauser template on my talk page. It's up to someone to respond and offer to adopt me. If the person wants to do it via User:John Carter, who both initiated and removed the previous "indefinite block" (which lasted about a day), fine. But please Wikedemon, cut it out. I posted my "Update" below before you even posted this one above: look at the time/date stamps. --NYScholar (talk) 19:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Point of information: Wikidemon is not an administrator. --NYScholar (talk) 20:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close is either with NYScholar blocked or under ongoing mentorship, per the terms of the last closure.Wikidemon (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

I have placed an adoptauser template on my current talk page, signaling that I am looking for someone to adopt me. If User:Ecoleetage wants to renew his adoption of me, as he is now familiar with all of the complaints made above by others and all of the responses by himself and others to them, perhaps he will volunteer again. There never was any so-called "collusion" between him and me (as we have proved), and there is no reason why he could not resume his task as adopter (if he is so willing); if not, perhaps someone else, I hope as kind and considerate and humane as he is, will step up to the plate and volunteer. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 17:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not available as an adopter, sorry. After slogging through this thread, I am going offline to read something a lot lighter and fluffier -- Tolstoy's "War and Peace"! :-) Ecoleetage (talk) 19:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That's all right, Ecoleetage. I understand. All offers of adoption need to be posted on my talk page, not here. --NYScholar (talk) 19:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I have contacted another potential adopter currently listed in the adopt-a-user project and requested consideration of adoption. --NYScholar (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Shell Kinney, an administrator, has offered to adopt me. I have thanked her and accepted her offer. I don't know if she has seen my reply yet; but it seems as though this adoption is now in progress. I have asked her to stop by here to post the relevant information. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 02:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Right after I posted this, Shell updated the adopt-a-user template to indicate that she has adopted me. I look forward to learning from her. --NYScholar (talk) 02:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I would suggest that the only reasonable way to close this matter is to state "closed with no action taken" and to archive this discussion. I've already posted the adoptauser on my talk page.

This matter needs to be ended (closed and closed with no action) and archived. That's that.

For the record: The number of words that I have written in this procedure has been instigated by the nature of the procedure and the number of posts made by others. When so many people have made (in my view and that of some others) outrageous claims, with no "diffs." to back them up pertaining to my actual contributions to Wikipedia between July 15, 2008 and September 5, 2008 (Scroll up to top post by Orderinchaos), their statements have required responses from me and others to set the record straight. --NYScholar (talk) 21:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC) [Had to move this subsection down so as to avoid confusion; posted after previous subsection. Had added the subsection heading after writing it and was in section mode and couldn't see where it posted. --NYScholar (talk) 21:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)]

I oppose this entirely. NYScholar's proposal is effectively to accept that everything in this and prior proceedings is bullshit and we should leave NYScholar alone, despite the fully substantiated behavioral issues as raised last time, and the nature of this new thread. NYScholar never demonstrated real acceptance of the reasons for the enforcement of ban or mentor, and went with mentor for obvious reasons (it let NYScholar keep editing.) As seen here, and opined by multiple editors, the pattern of behavior has reemerged, and again, NYScholar deflects all criticisms with wikilawyering and counter-accusations. Until we get clear acknowledgment from NYScholar about the nature of the problem, recognition of if within NYScholar's self, and clear intent to actually change, then nothing can move forward, and certainly we cannot dismiss the section. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Post the "Diffs." that relate to the period from July 15 to August 5, 2008, and please cut this out. Thanks. My archive 21 and archive 22 pages document all my discussions in my talk pages during that period. ThuranX just won't give up on this witch hunt, which is still what it appears to me and others who have already comment on this "travesty" to be. Please watch your language and treat other users with respect. These are Wikipedia guidelines for behavior, not mine: WP:CIVIL and WP:Etiquette. Thank you. --NYScholar (talk) 23:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I would ask you to do three things: quit assuming bad faith while demanding others show you good faith, quit attacking others while demanding civility from others, and quit saying you are signing off when you don't. Aunt Entropy (talk) 00:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User has been adopted

• NYScholar requested I act as a mentor and it appears that we're both in agreement on how to handle things (User_talk:NYScholar#Adoption_Request). I've looked over the concerns here, but if there are any other incidents that might help me make sure NYScholar is getting the best advice possible, please feel free to drop a note on my talk page, or shoot me an email. I'll do my best to keep an eye on how everything is going, but I'd like to ask that if any incidents come up that NYScholar is involved in, please try bringing the concern to one of our talk pages first so we can try to work things out. Thanks. Shell ^babelfish 02:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Given Shell's previous comments at the last ANI discussion, I believe that she understands the interpersonal and behavioural issues and I am happy to give her the chance to pursue mentorship with NYScholar. However, I will make it known now that I consider this a last chance and while I've previously been opposed to blocks and bans because of NYScholar's productive mainspace contributions, if we're back here again without improvement and with the exact same issues unresolved, I will be withdrawing my opposition to a community ban. Sarah 03:06, 8 September 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.

Offensive content about a user on another user's userpage

Resolved

(for now)

Description: User:Evenin'_scrot! has posted the following message:

"I enjoy practicing law without a license, fishing, and collecting parking tickets from all over the U.S. I also enjoy cleaning up/correcting the numerous mistakes made by other Wikipedia editors, the majority of which are made by Non Curat Lex."

I find this inaccurate (I have made less than 500 edits, I cannot possibly be responsible for the majority of wikipedia's mistakes), offensive to me personally, and advocacy of unlawful activity (e.g. practicing law without a license) should not be condoned, even on a user page.

In aggravation, it should also be pointed out that the user is a sock of user:snookerhorn; between the two socks (and a third I cannot locate), there is a history of discipline for abusive and disruptive edits.

Administrative intervention is requested. Non Curat Lex (talk) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Buspar has removed the reference to you with the summary WP:NPA. If he restores it, feel free to leave him a civil comment about it.

About your suspicion of sockpuppetry, the place to comment is WP:SSP.

עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am somewhat reassured by the fact that Wikipedia currently has only a maximum of 950+/- mistakes... if the figures given above are correct. On a serious note, does anyone else have any problem with the editors (no, not the latin derived one!) username? LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Soft blocked for username. Gwen Gale (talk) 11:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you -- my ANI concern appears to be resolved for now. Sysop Lar seems to be taking care of the sockpuppeting problem. Thank you Gale, and everyone else.Non Curat Lex (talk) 06:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism of Spoken Wikipedia template

Resolved

 – Both accounts indef blocked by Zzuuzz.  —SMALLJIM  10:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Could someone introduce Keeper of the matrix (talk · contribs) to a block of some sort. They appear to have uploaded Image:Vote McCain.jpg for the specific purpose of vandalizing Template:Infobox Senator and Template:Spoken Wikipedia. Also, considering how widespread the usage of Spoken Wikipedia is across Wikipedia, is there a reason why it doesn't have full protection turned on? Looks like the senator infobox has already been protected. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 20:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

My ability to assume good faith only stretchs so far. I blocked the account for 99 hours and deleted the image in question as it was only being used for vandalism. --Kralizec! (talk) 20:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May I suggest an indefinite block? Corvus cornix_talk 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Second that. Perhaps the block should be until Nov 4 2008 (election day). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jctw769 (talk • contribs) 21:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

May be ban-evading Bsrboy

Based on a look at his editing habits (mostly to Plymouth, and up until today, pretty exemplary) I think that User:Keeper of the matrix is probably a sock of banned User:Bsrboy. I also noted that this account was created just three minutes after one named Bsrboy376. However, if it is the same person, he's evidently changed ISP, because the rangeblocks (86.29.128.0/21 and 86.29.136.0/21) that were implemented for him are still in place. Bsrboy was known for vandalising while logged out, so a CU may reveal more.  —SMALLJIM  21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism

There is some template vandalism at the bottom of the Canada article, and I'm having trouble locating the exact template involved. Any help would be appreciated. AlexiusHoratius 03:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Must have been fixed. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 03:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Fixed by Jeff3000 (talk · contribs) - thanks. I blocked 190.139.108.170 (talk · contribs) for a week, as it's not the first template vandalism they've done, and it's a nuisance to find. Acroterion _(talk) 03:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's gone for me too, it must have been a cache issue with me; I had seen the revert on the template's history, but the vandalism was still showing up. Thanks AlexiusHoratius 03:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A note: this is part of a pattern of vandalism via proxies, aimed at templates and always inserting the same vandalism. A number of commonly-used templates were targeted and have been indefinitely fully-protected, and a couple of proxy IP's blocked for two years. Acroterion _(talk) 11:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

persitent 'semi vandalism' to multiple pages involving the verbs 'comprised (of)', and 'composed (of)'

I'm not 100% whether this could be considered outright vandalism, however it appears that the edits of User:Giraffedata are detrimental to the encyclopedia. Giraffedata has edited multiple articles and has vigorously removed the verbs "comprised {of}" from each article. Occasionally he substitutes other verbs such as "composed of" or "containing" and therefore, many of the newly edited articles no longer make sense. Some examples:

• [77]
• [78]
• [79]
• [80]
• [81]

Numerous users have requested that he explain his actions on his talk page, but to no avail.

Cheers --Fatal!ty ^(T☠LK) 07:39, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• His edits look fine to me. "Comprised of" is grammatically incorrect. Epbr123 (talk) 07:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It is incorrect to use the phrase "comprised of". See this MOS discussion for refs, but almost all style sources say to use comprises when the meaning is includes and use another verb for the passive voice meaning is made up of. Jim Miller ^{See me | Touch me} 07:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I also consider the disputed edits OK. Deor (talk) 09:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• He's replacing a non-standard variant most people consider to be an error by one that is standard in all dialects of English. How is this vandalism? — Coren ^(talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think that's the problem, I'm not sure 'most people' would consider it an error; grammatical 'errors' in common speech and writing are pretty common, I think this is just one of them. They certainly should be corrected, but all these edits would have needed was an edit summary, and there wouldn't have been an issue (at least not for here). --Ged UK (talk) 12:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The edit summary looked fine to me, and a quick look in any manual of usage confirms these edits are good. Brilliantine (talk) 14:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree; all these edits by Giraffedata seem correct. The verb "to comprise" means to contain, so "X is comprised of Y" is wrong - this should be "X comprises Y" or any of the other variants Giraffedata has used in the above diffs. Even though "is comprised of" is sometimes incorrectly used, this does not make it correct. This is in no way vandalism. Please note that WP:VAN specifically states that vandalism is a deliberate effort to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Is he back? (talk) 14:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Shoemaker's Holiday

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here, move alongTznkai (talk) 06:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

There was just now a little flap over at the talk page of the NPOV policy. Things were going fine, till Shoemaker's Holiday came in and poisoned the well against me. He didn't even get it right. I removed it, but he put it back. This is not the first time he has tried to get me. I would like someone here to issue him some sort of warning that this kind of pursuit of me is inappropriate. Now, everyone here knows what his other username was. Everyone knows (as he revealed it in his request for adminship recently) that he was desysoped partly for a block of me, and also that I played a major role in his RfC, which the ArbCom no doubt took into account when they desysoped him. I am sick and tired of his following me around and trying to "get" me. I have refrained from bring up his past, which of course is even more relevant than mine, in discussions. He has not accorded me the same courtesy. Here are only the recent diffs. I can, of course, dig up the other diffs of his trying to get me, on several occasions which I remember. But I am not here to try and get him sanctioned. All I want is a warning to him that this vengeful behavior should not go on any more.

I remove it here Here is the section where it's put back and discussed. He continues to compound it. FYI, I'm under sanction only for disruption, and POV pushing is one of the things which people spectacularly failed to prove against me. I even requested the ArbCom tell me if they thought that such was the case.

If the people here would like to go over and raise the tone of the general discussion it would be of great help. I personally don't think edits undertaken with such care over such a long time should be met with such surprise. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 04:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I dispute Martinphi's description of my arbcom case; however, it is also merely a distraction from the matter at hand, as I can prove my description was correct:

From the Arbcom decision:

2) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has engaged in a variety of disruptive behavior ([5]), including, but not limited to, using Wikipedia as a soapbox ([6], [7]), threatening disruption of the project ([8]), and making deliberately provocative edits ([9], [10]).

Then later:

1) Martinphi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is subject to an editing restriction for one year. Should they make any edits which are judged by an administrator to be disruptive, they may be banned from any affected page or set of pages. The ban will take effect once a notice has been posted on their talk page by the administrator and properly logged. Should they violate this ban, they may be blocked for the duration specified in the enforcement ruling below.

He is cited for soapboxing, and this is the first diff the arbcom cites as evidence of Martinphi's soapboxing: "I just want to get parapsychology defined as a science on Wikipedia, because I keep getting stuff from people who say, it is not a science, there is absolutely nothing to this. I want to be able to cite it as a science, rather than just something some crazies study." I'm sorry, but the arbcom clearly intended disruptive editing to include POV-pushing.

Here are the diffs to the NPOV policy:

Long-standing version	New version
None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular one.	In order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible, in a neutral manner, to the reader, no single view, even the most popular, should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth".
Minority views can receive attention on pages specifically devoted to them—Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. But on such pages, though a view may be spelled out in great detail, the article should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant, and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite majority-view content strictly from the perspective of the minority view.	Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	[Deleted]

Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please note the related thread at WP:AE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Amazing: Shoemaker hasn't read the edited version. The paragraph he says was deleted was revised to:

Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates. Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

Further, I think he may not even presenting the actual original, that is a recently edited version.

But let's say he's right. Poisoning the well and saying I'm in the soup for POV pushing when I'm not, and insisting on keeping up the attack- wow. ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Martin, that's two other paragraphs in the original, that's not the deleted paragraph. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 05:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of my own sanity, I'm going to be dealing with both User Shoemaker and Martinphi over at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Arbitration_enforcement#Martinphi_at_WP:NPOV.--Tznkai (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I see there is a bit of it therre, but not much, and it's rather changed in foxcus. More accvurately::

Original	Changed
NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally not include tiny-minority views at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, a view of a distinct minority. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view.	Articles in Wikipedia should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: Articles that compare views should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and will generally omit views that have little to no support. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. For example, the article on the Earth gives less attention to cultural and religious beliefs about the earth than to the modern scientific understanding, and does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept at all, since that has no significant scientific or popular following. Similarly, the article on Flat Earth does not cover such things as the Earth's chemical composition, orbit and rotation, and tectonic plates.
Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. This applies not only to article text, but to images, external links, categories, and all other material as well.	Wikipedia always aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. N.B. This section comes later: Articles may be specifically devoted to Notable minority views. In such articles, the minority view should be described in detail. References to the majority viewpoints should be made in proportion to prominence in the sources.
Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. Just as giving undue weight to a viewpoint is not neutral, so is giving undue weight to other verifiable and sourced statements. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.	This applies to article text (in terms of wording, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements), and also to the use and placement of images, external links, categories, and all other article material.

It is, at the least, a major shift in focus. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 06:07, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• I absolutely agree. Martinphi is the canonical example of the civil POV-pusher, as far as I can tell his main focus within Wikipedia is to legitimise fringe and pseudoscience topics. This behaviour is completely repeatable, and to find him trying to change the policy under which he has been repeatedly knocked back in his attempts to lend legitimacy to the fringe views he supports is definitely disruptive - not only does it violate the ArbCom restriction, it also violates the policies he appears to be trying to change! Guy (Help!) 08:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry JzG, but when you said "this behaviour is completely repeatable" I presume you meant something else like "irrepressible," "repugnant," or something similar? If that is the case, I agree completely. --Kralizec! (talk) 17:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I mean that it is repeated wherever he is active. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Would be nice if you commented on the content rather than the contributor. I have no desire to wade into the fringe/mainstream debate, but just a friendly reminder. Brilliantine (talk) 15:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Where do you think the content comes from? A contributor, and one who has been sanctioned for using Wikipedia for using articles as a soapbox for his own personal opinions on fringe topics. It's all fine and good to say we should focus on the content, but the reason the content keeps going bad is because MartinPhi's goals are completely contrary to Wikipedia's goals, and there's no reason to think he will ever change. People have to focus on the real problems or else we're all just wasting our time here. Why play whack-a-mole over and over and over again? The time spent could be better used improving the encyclopedia instead of constantly fighting back someone whose goals are incompatible with the entire project. DreamGuy (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was specifically referring to Guy's comment. The discussion above it was not particularly superb, but was at least substantive. Guy's comment offered nothing of any further use and was the type of comment that generally only serves to inflame situations. Since he's acknowledged some civility problems himself, I'm sure he won't mind me pointing this out. It's merely supposed to be helpful. Brilliantine (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Could we please leave off this subject? There is currently no damage that I am aware of or that has been reported to me. --Tznkai (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Request for resolution of a dispute with a moderator

Hi

I have been threatened with a ban by OhanaUnited for what he considers to be inappropriate editing. As he is currently busy with a new job he doesn't have time to conclude our discussion on the matter. I have no problems with real life taking him away from Wiki, however this leaves me in limbo and I don't like having things like this hanging with no idea when its going to get resolved. So I was wondering if someone could pick up where he left off and help conclude the situation. My disputed editing can be found here[[82]].I just want to get things resolved so that I can get back to editing.

Thanks

FlashNerdX (talk) 16:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What part of "don't delete talk page discussions" do you not understand? Corvus cornix_talk 19:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks like he was archiving not deleting.--Crossmr (talk) 22:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I did once delete things on the talk page for my account because I didn't know/understand archiving at that point. I removed a notice of speedy deletion for an attempt at an article on the Klub Foot and a notice of Orphaned non-free media, both times because I didn't think it would really matter. (Please note that I kept the discussion about my edits on the RuneScape article). Later, when there were multiple instances on an articles talk page of the same discussion and dead topics I then archived and edited it's talk page to try and make it better, following the guidelines. btw I thought WP:BITE was supposed to be in play around here?FlashNerdX (talk) 16:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Block evasion on Latino (demonym)

Resolved

 – sock blocked, block reviewed. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted edits by 888aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Upon checking the page history at Latino (demonym) it became obvious that this is a sockpuppet of 999aaa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) who is blocked indefinitely. Please block 888aaa and check if there is any more problems. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 22:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Obvious sock blocked. Feel free to revert any problematic edits. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 23:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Canvassing

Just a note, disruptive canvassing at this DRV. NonvocalScream (talk) 11:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You should bear in mind though that, as you were the closing user, this post here can be seen as canvassing as well. Not that I want to imply it, I just think you should have contacted a neutral admin directly instead of posting it here. SoWhy 12:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No. AN/I is not canvassing. Protonk (talk) 14:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't say it is. I say it can be seen as canvassing. Users may assume bad faith if the one, who accuses them of canvassing, himself goes and posts the debate somewhere with high traffic. While WP:AGF is of course important (and I do not assume bad faith that those editors will actually complain), I still think that this should be taken into account. Just to prevent any reason for complaints from popping up. SoWhy 14:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it can't. AGF doesn't even play a role. "Canvassing" is the gathering of a particular SET of editors who share a certain point of view in order to for those editors to participate in a discussion. Usually what follows that is "with the intent to shift the results" but intent is tricky to judge. the admins and editors who read AN/I do not comprise a specific set of editors with regard to this particular (or honestly, most any) debate. Bringing an issue that needs admin attention here is appropriate. We may say that other, lower level methods should have been exhausted but that isn't necessary. And lowering the threshold of the accusation from "canvassing" to "this may seem like canvassing" is not cool. It maintains the cloud of impropriety over the accused but allows the accuser to disclaim responsibility. Protonk (talk) 15:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• No, this is an incident, and this is ANI. My message fits no criteria for bad canvassing. I did not canvass keep voters, and my message here is neutrally worded. Thanks, NonvocalScream (talk) 14:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ballard Designs

(Copied from my talk page) --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 14:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:216.235.145.178

I was hoping that, as the most (relatively) recent administrator to deal with this user, you could look into user 216.235.145.178 and see whether or not another block should be applied. Previously, a four month block was imposed in November 2007 due to several instances of spamming pages with external links to a 'Ballard Designs' business. But as soon as that block was removed in March 2008, the user began to spam a number of pages, and even contributed links to the page Ballard Designs that was created by another user.

Was it the user's attempt to make the subject more legitimate? Likely. But it stinks of advertising.

I only came across the user's violations because of a previous incident of linkspam from August 2007 that I removed just today. Granted, there aren't as many incidences of linkspam as before the Nov 07 block. However, looking at his/her most recent edits - March 2008 to August 2008 - I am inclined to believe that he/she is going slow and steady in his/her linking, as to avoid arousing suspicion. With this user's edits and Atlrshr's creation of the Ballard Designs page, I suspect this is his/her/their attempt to not only legitimize, but defend the idea that his/her links/edits aren't incidences of (business) spam, as was put forth in the previous argument over the Nov 07 block.

That said, would it also be possible to see if there is a relation between user 216.235.145.178 and user Atlrshr? I find it highly suspicious that Atlrshr creates a page and edits on a topic that was previously a point of contention.

I edit a lot but by no means am I experienced in this sort of thing. Any help that you can manage will be appreciated. Please and thank you. Ultatri (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Article probably needs to go to AfD anyway (my opinion is made pretty obvious by the article's talkpage). An assumption of good faith suggests that User:Atlrsher may have simply forgotten to login but, I think otherwise you may want WP:SSP as opposed to here (though as usual I could be wrong). Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, the SSP part is obvious and incontrovertible. The trick is handling the article and the named editor. Whole article and named editor might need to go. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 15:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Since this IP removed an advertisement tag in August 2008 from an article about their own products, it's safe to say there has been no reform. I know that hardblocks are drastic, but according to WHOIS this IP belongs to Ballard Designs. A hardblock of the IP for three months should take care of Atlrshr if they *are* a sock, and will have no effect on them if they are not. (Saving the time and trouble of a checkuser). EdJohnston (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Good idea. I'll do that. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blacklist is also a possibility here. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 17:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Bot like actions for user

Resolved

 – Blocked.

Can someone please see what they think of User:Psaywer1972 ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked. Didn't respond to talk page messages, practically all edits unconstructive. If they want to explain themselves they can RFU. Black Kite 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. ·Add§hore· ^Talk/_Cont 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It looks to me like this was a "Random article" vandal, repeatedly clicking on that link and adding one {{fact}} tag somewhere in each article. Deor (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Trainwreck of an AfD

It isn't time to close it yet, unfortunately, but can some other admins keep an eye on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir? It seems every day I'm getting another request on my talk page to block some obvious set of sockpuppets, and the discussion has rather fallen apart a bit. Keep an eye out for some of the less obvious sockpuppets I haven't taken care of yet, and if necessary please close this mess early. Thanks. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 15:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

That certainly is some trainwreck of an AfD and it certainly is a mess. Wow, its good im not an admin and i feel for whoever has to close that one. Good luck! Monster Under Your Bed ^(talk) 04:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Nichalp has proposed a solution at Wikipedia Talk:Articles for deletion/Pakistan occupied Kashmir. It looks good to me, but I'd welcome input from more experienced admins. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 19:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Pakhtun Tanoli

Here's a list of edits on my user talk: [83], [84], [85] and corresponding admin action, [86] and [87].

What is strange though, is that Pakhtun Tanoli has a number of confirmed and blocked socks, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Pakhtun Tanoli, and a heap of suspected IP socks but his original account itself seems to be open. So Tznkai suggested I report this here. De728631 (talk) 17:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A little background. De728631 reported[88] this incident on WP:AIV and I declined[89] it at the time. Following a conversation on my talk page I've reviewed the differences determined the following:

• Pakhtun Tanoli and the reported IPs are almost definitely the same user.
• This user probably doesn't understand the appropriate place for the contributions.
• This user is not evading a block via sockpuppeting, because I can't find any recent blocks to evade.
• This is not vandalism as such, but it is problematic.
• This user does not stick with any one IP for any significant duration.

This leaves us with something of a sticky widget, because I'm not going to range block all of 88.*.*.*--Tznkai (talk) 18:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh g'wan. Do it. It'll be funny. HalfShadow 18:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, for starters, if we've determined its abusive sockpuppetry, we could start by blocking the main account and all the registered socks, and worry about the IP's later. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 18:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, the biggest CIDR range we can block is a /16, so that one would take rather a long time ;) Stifle (talk) 18:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I was somewhat involved when this first blew up earlier this year and am familiar with the history. I'm going to indef the root account ( Pakhtun Tanoli (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ). I'm also going to put a 72-hour block on 88.3.0.0/16 (the source of most of the recent foo). De728631 - I recommend that you have your talk page semi-protected for a week or so. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Delancey

D.G.DeL-Dorchester Mass (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - long time nuisance talk-page contributor whom I'm sure has been discussed here before. See web page maintained by victims!. It seems to me to call for long term deprivation of editing privileges. I mentioned this on vandalism page, but since he has only made two edits to real articles, they sent me here. The problem is trying to discuss something with this guy (over several days) only to find out after wading through his junk that it is pretty much total nonsense. I thought I was holding a discussion with a non-native and was trying to be extra careful. Eccentrics can be fun, I suppose, but do we really need him? 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Am I missing something? The site you linked to is an artists' site. It's on DGD's work. - Revolving Bugbear 00:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Hard to follow, I agree. Here is one a bit easier, inside Wikipedia, on a serious issue: Talk:Slavery#To_The_Economics_of_Slavery. Apparently he always writes like this according to the website. This is disruptive. I thought he was serious for a day or so and finally decided to examine his user page for some sort of clue. That's when I discovered that he is not a serious editor. I guess if he is just part of the landscape and something we all have to put up with occasionally, like old Uncle Ned, we can do it, I suppose. I'm not sure why, though. 11:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like classic schizophrenia (disorganized type) to me. He probably has no idea that what he is writing is gibberish. (See word salad or schizophasia). Looie496 (talk) 21:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat block review

Blocks for legal threats are not my forte, so I would appreciate a review of my actions. I indefinitely blocked 83.104.51.181 (talk · contribs · block log) for this legal threat against Daniel Case (talk · contribs). --Kralizec! (talk) 18:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good NLT block, maybe shorten it to a year since it looks like a residential IP that will eventually be re-assigned. MBisanz ^talk 18:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Pretty blatant legal threat, yeah, the block looks fine. And that IP looks quite static - a review of its contribs suggests an interest in footballers and other problem edits in the past anyhow. (Mind you, we don't usually block IPs indef - I'd suggest shortening it to a definite time.) Tony Fox (arf!) 18:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was not real sure what to do about the block duration, but since the {{uw-lblock}} defaults to indef, that is what I went ahead and used. This IP has threated the just switch IPs before [90], but has not, to the best of my knowledge, done it. --Kralizec! (talk) 18:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, but I recommend a block duration of 3 years or so. IPs are usually not indefblocked.  Sandstein  19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Cooper Brown

Can someone who doesn't have a history with the editors involved (there must be someone) put a stop to the current idiocy at Cooper Brown? Brief background; CB is a parody column in an British newspaper – and a blatantly obvious parody to any British reader – but one US-based editor is insisting on treating him as a genuine journalist. ("I wanted to flag the notion that maybe this is fiction. Maybe even probably is fiction. We know that the newspaper isn't fact-checking it. Guantanamo Bay is in Mexico? My operating assumption is that it's a spoof. But I can't put my operating assumptions into the article.") Can someone break out a fresh box of TROUTs and deliver them appropriately? – iridescent 19:34, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• We could just send it to XfD. All of that back and forth and no one has sources...hmmm. Protonk (talk) 19:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The trouble it, it's undoubtedly a genuine (albeit fake) column – and written by TV star Dom Joly, who's undoubtedly notable – so an AfD would almost certainly fail. – iridescent 19:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Fair enough. Also, count me surprised that the article is parsimonious. Protonk (talk) 19:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:65.117.144.104

Resolved

Last warnings are no good unless they really are last warnings. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 20:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I have blocked the IP, but for future reference AIV is that way →. Tiptoety ^talk 20:42, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is this really OK?

Um... anyone think it's something less than a good idea for an admin, User:Future Perfect at Sunrise, to be hovering over the contributions of an editor he's recently been in conflict with,([91],[92], [93] (DunstandandRann),[94], etc) not because the editor (me) has done anything wrong, but because the editor doesn't subscribe to the admin's ideas about policy?

As for watching your steps, well, yes, I am. As per my original response on the RfC, I never make a secret out of it. Not a retaliation for your behaviour on the RfC, but a consequence of what I've seen of you defending bad uploads elsewhere. ([95] Emphasis added.)

Since when has it become suspicious behavior to disagree with an admin about whether an image upload is policy-compliant or not? This really doesn't seem right. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If an admin suspects that someone may violate policy it makes sense for that admin to monitor the person. I don't know who's right about the policy (I haven't looked into the dispute), but keeping an eye on someone is a perfectly acceptable thing to do. --Tango (talk) 07:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Like everyone else, my contribs are out in the open, available for inspection, all 22,000 of them, and if FPS or another admin came across instances of bad actions and decided to keep an eye on me, that would be one thing. I've done that same for a number of vandals -- they do some vandalizing, you check their contributions to see if there's more, when you find it you undo it and post warnings, and if you're an admin perhaps you eventually decide to block. But that's not what FPS admits to doing. He admits that he's keeping an eye on me because I disagree with his interpretation of policy. Doesn't that strike anyone as a dangerous thing that can lead to no disagreements about policy, because there's no discussion, because the herd has been culled and anyone who disagrees has been hounded off the project?

Let's be clear, I'm not accusing FPS of that, not in any way shape and form, nor am I suggesting that such behavior is going on, or prophesying that it will happen. I simply think that using a difference of opinion as a basis for following someone around and checking their edits is kind of a real bad idea. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed's antics about non-free images included edit-warring to keep an obviously replaceable map graphics, and another [96] that he aggressively defended with the bizarre argument that while it was being used just as a "substitute" for a possible free image, it was nevertheless not "replaceable" by the latter (here). This is enough to give me reasonable grounds for expecting some more of his image work probably requires cleanup. Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. We can review all our past arguments again if you'd like, but I doubt anyone would be terribly interested, and the point here is that all these things are cases where I did nothing wrong, I simply disagreed with you, and in most of those instances, other people disagreed with you as well. Are you so entirely and positively certain that your interpretation, your views, your opinions, your analysis, your take on image policy is so completely, totally, absolutely 100% percent correct that whenever you declare an image to be non-compliant, even to disagree with your declaration is tantamount to misbehaving? Can you not see why someone might find such a view to be disquieting, to say the least? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:04, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, RFCs aren't supposed to be a way of forcing an editor away from an area they have been working at and in this case the doesn't seem to be an overwhelming consensus against FPAS. The correct forum to discuss this is the RFC. Sorry to say this Ed but your conduct here just makes you look like a petty wikilawyer and I really thought more of you then that. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikilawyering? How do you figure that? I came here because this is the place where you come for administrative action. I thought that if my view of FPS's behavior was shared by uninvolved admins, someone could advise him to, you know, not go out of his way to shadow me. But, in any case, as I remarked elsewhere, if FPS sees something wrong with an image I upload, how difficult would it be for him to run it by another editor, who could then contact me if they agreed? In what respect is that trying to "force [him] away" from image work?

You know, maybe I'm wrong, maybe it's the community's consensus that this sort of thing is acceptable behavior. If that's the case... I don't know. ... I guess I'd have to seriously reconsider my committment to the project, because that's something I would find it quite difficult to live with, I think. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:29, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble with the "wikilawyering" thing. The man posts on my talk page, at first I laugh his Big Brother act off, but then it starts to bother me, and then it starts to bother me a lot, so I come here to see if something might be done about it, and I'm accused of "wikilawyering"? Wow. Just... wow. I'm not coming here in an hysterical state, screaming and carrying on and calling for people to be desysoped, as so often happens when there's conflict between an editor and an admin, and a charge of "wikilawyering" is laid on me? Huh.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I apologise for referring to petty wikilawyering. Perhaps forum shopping would fit better? You have an RFC but you want to extend the drama to an admin noticeboard as well. So I think petty forum shopping is a better discription. My apologise for mischaracterising your behaviour but you really need to settled for a single location for your crusade against Fut perf. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Humor me for a moment, and assume that I'm telling the truth, that FPS's post on my talk page actually concerned me. Now, if I wanted some administrative relief, how would posting about his actions on the RfCU help me? Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 08:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Seriously? We aren't going to block FPAS for leaving messages on your talk page so there isn't any admin action that is going to follow from a message here & and do you honestly think it would help having someone tell him to lay off? If you raise it in the RFC and there is extensive support that FPAS shouldn't be reviewing your contribs then there will be a significant level of moral pressure on him not to. The trouble is that an RFC inevitally raises the entire temperature on any dispute and this kind of thing, is, I'm afraid, what happens. Perhaps I should have been nicer in my comments but honestly, I wonder what people expect sometimes when they get embroiled in personal disputes like this. It not like we haven't seen it before and its high time that we stopped chasing out defenders of the NFCC. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Where did I ask for a block? Am I being in some way unclear about what I hoped would happen here? Geez, talk about "raising the temperature"!Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(ec)Admins don't have any special powers except blocking, deleting and protecting. Aside from that being an admin adds no extra cachet to any discussion. So, if you don't want a block, would you like us to delete or protect FPAS? Otherwise this isn't something that requires admin action. If its having a word then anyone can do that. If its to guague community consensus on his actions you already have a RFC to play on. So, seriously, what did you expect us to do about this that requires the use of admin tools?. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

And, they have the power of the bully pulpit!

Indulge me and, once again, assume that I'm telling the truth, and further assume that some folks here saw my post and agreed with my concerns, at least to the point where they thought it was worthwhile to talk to FPS. So, if those admins were to go to FPS and suggest that it would be preferable, for the sake of avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest, for FPS to channel any concerns about my image-related behavior through another uninvolved admin, don't you think that might carry a little more weight than if I made that suggestion? You see, that's administrative relief.

And there's a larger point - I really think it's a pretty crummy precedent to set, and if that kind of behavior becomes broadly tolerated or acceptable, Wikipedia would be a decidely less pleasant place to be, so, besides my specific concern about FPS, I wanted to raise, for administrators, in a place that administrators frequent, this issue for their consideration, something which, again, can't be done at FPS's RfCU.

I'm not asking for special dispensation from the pope to misbehave, or to not have my edits scrutinized by FPS or anyone else, I'm simply suggesting that FPS and I are, in the Wikipedian sense, involved, with all the problems that brings with it, and that his following me around on the basis of our disagreement over policy is a really bad idea. I honestly didn't think it would be a controversial concept.Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 09:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

(Undent) Anyone who edit warred in the last few days to keep this image obviously does not understand our policies on non-free content, and so reviewing their uploads is perfectly acceptable. FPAS has done nothing wrong here. Honestly, what do you want us to do? Jump at FPAS and say he shouldn't be reviewing your edits, as they're obviously all sound? Well, they're not. Would you be happy if I was reviewing your edits instead? It makes no difference, we're both admins experienced in the same area. J Milburn (talk) 18:24, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

J Milburn, if you would do that, I'd be grateful. There seemed to be a couple, the next few down his upload log, that were movie screenshots of actors in some movie role, used (as far as I could tell at a first brief glance) without any substantial commentary and with captions that implied they were used only to show what the actor looked like. Those would have been the next batch that would need a bit of looking into. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Checked down to mid-August, and I believe Spartaz is reviewing them also. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

We can't actually see the image, or the image page to check out the fair use rationale put forward. No link provided to the deletion review so err how do we judge? Since edit warring was mentioned, how about the removal of images from articles, to declare them orphaned so they can be speedily deleted and then edit warring to keep them orphaned. Justin talk 20:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The image was of a map- the map itself was not significant, it was being used to show the location. Obviously replaceable, but Ed removed the replaceable fair use notice without comment, not once, but twice. Anyone who has done that in the last couple of weeks obviously has little to no understanding of our non-free content policies. J Milburn (talk) 10:22, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Since when is badgering ok?

There is no reason for FPAS to follow Ed around as Ed is an editor in good standing. Just because you have lost a number of fights with him does not make him a bad editor. If this were any other person doing it, they would be rightly called for wikistalking. Given that the two have been in a number of disputes, I believe that FPAS should cease his antagonistic behavior and find something else to do. Yes, Virginia, the project will survive even if FPAS isn't following Ed around. That and the fact that it is FPAS, not Ed, who currently has a behavioral RFC open against him. --Dragon695 (talk) 23:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

• Valid point. Fut Perf, your thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Those are not valid concerns. Ed has little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg. I see no issue with tracking the edits of a problematic user in this field, with someone who openly disregards our policies and guidelines towards copyright. seicer | talk | contribs 02:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Seicer, I personally have a grasp on the subject matter and disagree sometimes with FutPerf. So what? Just because I don't agree with one person's interpretation of some vague rules doesn't mean every action I take should be scrutinized. Talk pages are there for discussion and reasonable people can disagree about things. As for these the "little knowledge of Fair Use, NFCC and other image content guidelines and policies, as evidenced in the discussions regarding Image:TBN-Crest Blockletters.jpg" I'll assume you meant something else because there is no evidence contained on that page whatsoever and the image in question seems appropriate under its fair use rationale. Am I missing something here? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Are you Ed? seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
    • Seicer, just because Ed's knowledge of Fair-Use and NFCC (which is correct I might add, but that is neither here nor there) differs from yours, it is no reason for an admin (Fur. Perf.) to follow (read: stalk) Ed around Wikipedia. - NeutralHomer • Talk 05:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, there's the somewhat interesting fact that even though pretty much everybody in the discussion about that logo agreed that its appearance on 120 pages was not a policy problem per se, Seicer posted this on FPS's RfCU (which I presume he was aiming my way, but maybe not):

If one user cannot see why the usage of one non-free logo on 120 articles, they should be sanctioned as such, especially when such unconstructive behavior spreads across four noticeboards and several talk pages.

So according to Seicer I'm so dumb and irresponsible, and know so little about fair-use and Wikipedia image policy, that I thought it was hunky-dorey to use an image on a large number of pages: Q.E.D.!! What a maroon!!! Except that in the discussion right here on WP:AN/I, both sides ended up agreeing that the number of pages it appeared on wasn't an issue.

So, who is it who knows nothing about fair-use and image policy? (And who, incidentally, felt it necessary to insult me personally in that thread?)

*sigh* You know, I wouldn't presume to know how much Seicer knows about fair-use, or Wikipedia image policy, or the cost of ponies in Peoria. "Seicer" is just a name connected to some text to me. And I've never, to my recollection, said that FPS doesn't know a lot about those subjects (fair-use and image policy, not necessarily about the ponies) - in fact, I presume he knows more than I do. But those have never been the issues in this conflict. The issues have been about the way policy is being enforced, and, specifically, the conduct of FPS in enforcing it, and I certainly know more than enough about those subjects. (And I supposed I will learn even more about it in the future, since it seems to be of little interest to folks here that an admin is dogging the steps of an editor based not on the editor's actions but on the editor's opinions.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 04:50, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope. All but one administrator agreed, and of course, the hotbed of a few vocal editors who can't tell the difference between abusive fair use in 120 articles and fair use in one article. It was taken to multiple forums and the image was not unprotected or restored; you're only crying about spoiled milk at this point, because its entirely moot. It won't be overturned, and it won't be unprotected for as long as we have editors who ramble on about reinserting the images. FPS may have some issues with being a hothead, but your posting history reveals much the same when tensions run high and emotions turn sour. Your mischaracterizations on your userpages, as noted below, is just one example of that. seicer | talk | contribs 13:09, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, speaking of wikistalking, someone might want to have a look at Ed's little attack page in his user space, here. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking? Attack page? Interesting interpretation -- but, hey, feel free to rummage through the attic. Hey, if you find my old copy of Introducing... The Beatles, would you let me know? (Unless it's a pool of melted black vinyl - in that case, help yourself, maybe you can get a quarter for it or something.) Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 06:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, you probably thought it was an attack page, because I copied this quotation onto it:

Being dragged in a kangaroo court is bad enough. Having a kangaroo court manned with delusional and/or abusive kangaroos is not to be borne. If they won't retract voluntarily, it's a matter for the community to resolve. Be a mensch, go and strike out those signatures, and we can talk, the rest of us. If the community wants to talk with me, the community needs to create an environment where that can reasonably be done. If the community can't get these abusive elements off my back, the community can go f... itself.

Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:RedSpruce

I can see where the negative vibes and disdain for the community and its processes in this quote could lead you to believe that it was an attack page, but fear not, I do not endorse the opinions in that quote, I'm just keeping it as an example of how not to comport yourself in Wikispace. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 07:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed, on first impression that section of your Todo page strikes me as rather disturbing and stalkeriffic. Putting it in sarcastic glowing terms doesn't get around that, it makes it worse.

I had been hoping that this was just a one-on-one conflict, but your ongoing behavior here and the existence of that page are convincing me that you do in fact have a behavior problem. It would be a sign of good faith to remove that section. It would be another sign of good faith to tone down the discussion on this page. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a source of endless fascination. Quite extraordinary, really. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 10:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have removed the material indicated from that page, as per your instructions. Next, I will deal with posting justifications for a number of images I've uploaded (mostly pictures of cast members on film articles) which have been nominated for deletion by User:J Milburn as being "decorative".

Fascinating.

Mr. Spock
Star Trek
(TV and film series, 1966-1991)

Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that quote above is not what I meant at all. Ed is perfectly free to quote me on that. I meant more the list of enemies and the little jibe against the "little admin that wasn't" (we all know who's meant there.) Fut.Perf. ☼ 07:31, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Partial Solution

If there is some reason for which a deletion is contested (even a speedy deletion), perhaps it should simply be put through the regular deletion process. Plenty of new users want to contribute and simply make a mistake (yours truly is included in this bunch). By simply giving it a few days to work itself out, reasonable people can come to a reasonable conclusion. This would avoid the appearance of the person who nominates an image for speedy deletion, keeps it an orphan through edit warring, and then ultimately deletes it as something that simply cannot be done. No matter the correctness/incorrectness of such an outcome, there will always be the thought that such an individual was judge, jury, and executioner. By taking this route, it would avoid the appearance of impropriety. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 04:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse I really don't see the problem with this. NFCC policy isn't always the black/white digital decision portrayed and there is often a need for for debate and community consensus denied by the inappropriate application of the Speedy process. Justin talk 08:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Firstly, leaving obviously poor non-free images in an article, even if the uploader really wants it there, is not always the best idea. If anything, the image should be removed while it is discussed, even if there is a reasonable debate- this is always the way I have worked it, even when others are challenging my own images. Secondly, that's not really what this thread is about, so this does come across as forum shopping- this thread is about how FPOS 'stalked' another user. Frankly, if we're in an environment where an admin cannot check the contributions of another editor, when that editor has shown he has extremely bad judgement on a topic, then we have a very strange situation indeed. Ed has admitted he would do the same thing with vandals/trolls, and I do not see how this is different- I do not think Ed is deliberately out to harm the project, obviously. Before someone jumps down my throat, pointing out that disagreeing with an admin does not mean you're ignorant of policy, note the example I gave in my last post. Ed's understanding is clearly poor. J Milburn (talk) 08:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comments below. This suggestion is an attempt to avoid any appearance of undue bias by any admin, not this specific one. I also concur that an image need not necessarily be included in an article while the IfD process unfolds. That said, perhaps we need to include a disclaimer stating the image should not simply be labeled as "orphaned", but something along the lines of "removed from some article. As there is no longer a use for such an image, it should be deleted." Without that link to the article, there is no way to easily link it back to its placement to see whether it was appropriate or not. Thoughts? — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you referring to the example we can't actually see? Justin talk 08:57, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Admins can see it [97]. It was a map showing the area of the Southeastern Anatolia Project in Turkey. Maps can always be re-drawn, so they are always replaceable (unless they are themselves being discussed as unique historic documents of course). This one could have been replaced with any existing map of the same geographical area; moreover, there was already a similar (and more informative) free map in the article (Image:Ataturk regions-GAP.jpg). Ed edit-warred on the image description page, using the "undo" function without stating any reason in the edit summary, twice removing a deletion template that had been placed there (not by me), which is explicitly prohibited. This was clearly disruptive behaviour on more than one level. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

• BQzip, get your facts straight. There hasn't even been any allegation in this thread that I put anything not through the regular deletion process. In fact, I didn't delete (or even nominate) anything at all. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:11, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  FutPerf, please re-read the above and note I never even mentioned you specifically. I stated a solution to the appearance of a problem which could be remedied by a simple change in policy (not saying this is necessarily the best option available either, just trying to foster a solution). I didn't say anything in this section specifically regarding you. — BQZip01 — ^talk 02:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Honestly, I still can't see anything requiring any admin time in this issue. Ed has made it pretty clear that he resents Fut perf checking his contribs. Fine but frankly we can't not watch for image vios and since we don't actually have very many admins willing to do this, who is going to do it if Fut perf doesn't? The earliest comments show blatent forum shopping and the comment about Admins being able to bully people shows what this thread is really about. There is no evidence of Fut perf behaving unreasonably in reviewing Ed's edits and his interactions look reasonable right now. So, no. This isn't something for admins to deal with. Spartaz ^Humbug! 09:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Speaking as someone who has been involved in the RfC and such, I have to agree with FutPer and Spartaz to a degree here. There is nothing requiring admin intervention nor is it productive to batter FutPer around wikipedia trying to find someone to lynch him. Now, do I think that FutPer going through the contribution history of those he is in conflict with is a great idea? No. I don't. I think it will lead to fights and to problems, but we are not FutPer's mother to stop him from doing things that might end badly. This kind of thing is best left to people like Spartaz who have FutPer's best interests at heart and who will, I am sure, let him know if he takes something too far. There are plenty of admin, it seem, watching each other so we also have to trust in them to step in. In summation: Lets just get some editing done. Narson (talk) 10:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  How, though, will these admins become aware of whether FPS takes something "too far" if FPS's actions aren't noted by somebody somewhere? Also, does suggesting that someone might speak to FPS about toning down his behavior really constitute "trying to find someone to lynch him"? As I've mentioned above, I'm not here with hysterical claims, calling for FPS's head or demanding that he be desysoped or topic banned - that would be ludicrous under the circumstances.

  Clearly, though, and to my chagrin and dismay, the consensus of people on this page is that it is perfectly OK for an involved admin to dog the steps of an editor he's involved with based solely on the fact that the editor disagrees with the admin on policy issues. I think that's a pretty darn dangerous precedent to set, but so be it. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 11:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

  When a user is being berated across multiple pages for the same thing, you can be sure other admin have taken an interest, and it does feel as though that editor is being lynced. It is pretty obvious that I have my issues with FPS. I found him to be callous and downright rude at times. However, he has acknowledged he gets frustrated from time to time and that is what caused his flirtation with the civility. He has stated on his RfC that he aims to try and avoid such behaviour in future and I believe he deserves a fair shake of the stick. God knows, I would hate to have people examining my faults, for they are many, so FPS has earned a degree of my respect through this process. Now, that being said, the other issue Ed is that what you want is not really what ANI can give, I don't think. Your issue with FPS is as a pattern of behaviour that you see on his part. Nor are 'precedents' set here. If you truely believe that FPS is beyond redemption, that his behaviour is so bad, then there is always ArbCom, but I would ask if you can't, perhaps, give FPS the benefit of the doubt and only react to his words, rather than a perceived (real or not) pattern of behaviour? Narson (talk) 11:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe that I have ever said or implied that FPS was "beyond redemption", and I think I've been fairly clear (see above at various points) about what my reasons for coming to AN/I were. Of course, that seems moot at this point, since it's pretty clear that the concern I felt is not shared by a majority of commenters here. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wonder of It All

Apparently, I'm such a profound threat to Wikipedia that I've now got three admins, working around the clock, vetting every image I ever uploaded! (See here and here.) Simply amazing. As I said, an endless source of fascination. One hopes there's a sociologist or a social psychologist keeping tabs on all this stuff. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 12:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

"If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it. " ? I would just be thankful for the attention and move on. If, in fact, it is stalking and it is unmerited, then they will eventually look like dicks. If it is temporary "Hey, this guy is talking a lot on AN/I, I'll go look at his contributions", then it will fade away. Further, if what they are doing improves what you have submitted, then it's pretty defensible. Protonk (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I am most certainly moving on. Ed Fitzgerald "unreachable by rational discourse"^{(t / c)} 14:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

DRV needs looked at

Can someone take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_8#Mathmo where I have reverted my close of the AFD in question. Does the DRV need to be closed now? The AFD can be reclosed by an admin - cause that is what it takes to grok consensus here? NonvocalScream (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I closed the DRV and relisted the AfD. It can be closed whenever anyone likes. Cheers. lifebaka++ 01:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Medes

For the past two months, 87.211.199.102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been consistently edit-warring to push a Kurdish nationalist POV at Medes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). He has been reverted by numerous editors in line with talk page consensus but has continued despite multiple warnings. I would like an uninvolved administrator to review his contributions and the article history and determine if preventative measures are appropriate. I would favour blocking the IP but, as I have been one of the editors to revert, I wish to avoid the appearance of impropriety by doing so myself. CIreland (talk) 23:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked 48 hours for steady edit warring for weeks over the same shred of content, with no talk page discussion at all. I'll keep watching the article. Gwen Gale (talk) 00:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Is 217.95.240.21 a bot?

Earlier today, 217.95.240.21 started editing for the first time, and for the next 4 hours or so, edited approximately a page every other minute. Some of these edits were to archived AFDs (see here, here, and here), and many were to user pages.

If it's a bot, it's not following policy. If it isn't a bot, it's something that (imo) should be looked into. Thanks... Dori (Talk • Contribs) 23:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it making good edits? If so, welcome him/her/it. A page every other minute is not fast if the person is doing wiki-gnome stuff. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've welcomed it and encouraged it to get an account. It's edits appear to be good and constructive. Erik the Red 2 (AVE·CAESAR) 00:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought I was clear about this when I said it was editing archived AFDs and user pages--no, not all of the edits are good. Having looked at them, about two-thirds were edits that shouldn't be done by a bot (or even an over-zealous newbie) (47 of 135 were good, if you want to be precise). I don't think that dropping 80+ warnings on an IP address would help any, which is why I brought it here. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 01:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Dorismith here. Something is definitely strange. Its one thing for a newbie to do a few small changes.. but this is hours of tedious editing. Good on them if they actually did it... but editing user pages and closed AfDs isn't appropriate.--Crossmr (talk) 01:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

They seem to be consistently changing The Lord of The Rings to The Lord of the Rings across a large number of articles. I don't think it's a 'bot, because sometimes they also fixed another typo in an article when doing so.[98] The only problems are that 1) they don't use edit summaries, and 2) they're fixing user pages, talk pages, and archive pages that aren't worth fixing. They even fixed something in a sandbox.[99]. So don't bite them; just educate them a bit. Thanks. --John Nagle (talk) 03:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Fullfilms - only for SPAM

Please see contributions here. USer is only adding youtube links and links to a site they seem to be associated with based on the name. --FilmFan69 (talk) 01:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

A spammer in the works. He was indef-blocked by User:Orangemike. [100] Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Arutam- Shuar mythology

Resolved

In 2006, I posted an article on Arutam (The name of ancestral spirit given by Shuar; Amazonian tribe). Administrator: riana_dzasta decided that my article is a copy of a web page. Sure it is a copy of MY web page at http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/arutam.html

If he or she will do some basic search, she will find that I am the owner of minelinks.com address and my name is plastered on many pages along with my picture. No, he or she quickly decided that I was a plagiarist; a direct defamation. Voiding the information based on shallow research.

Thanks... that what one gets for contributing something unique, not a rehash of digested information. So, thanks anyway, my future contributions are over. I don't need to face shallow evaluation and quick decisions. Anybody interested in Amazonian Mythology can go to my pages starting at: http://www.minelinks.com/ecuador/index.html

I know what I am talking about since I live for last 20 years in Amazon basin next/with to dying (REAL) cultures.

Rafal Swiecki, geological engineer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.25.197.67 (talk) 05:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Sadly Rafal, it is often impossible to verify whether such articles are copyright violations - after all, anyone could have registered your username and claimed to be you. However, although the article was deleted for being a copyright violation, it would have been deleted anyway - it read like an essay, was unsourced and it was actually difficult to discern what the article was about. Should you change your mind and return to Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help you in an attempt to rewrite such an article. Yours, Black Kite 06:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Argentina Article needs attention

Someone appears to've tampered with either a template or the article itself so a rather offensive floating text piece pops up with a racist/anti-semitic message and some poor fellow's personal info. Unfortunately figuring out how they did it is beyond my ken of wikipedia. Zelse81 (talk) 06:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Community sanction/ban proposal on User:Naadapriya

Background

Last week, following some edit-warring concerns, I'd opened an article RFC on contentious material Naadapriya has been pushing to keep included in the article. I'd expressed the concern that his edits violated WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, WP:RS and at times, WP:V. Although at first it seemed the article RFC lacked input except that of User:erachima who had a very poor understanding of policy as it were, it eventually had more than adaquate feedback: User:JzG, User:Shoemaker's Holiday, User:Mspraveen, User:RegentsPark, User:David_J_Wilson and User:VasuVR were among the several uninvolved users that have shared the concern I have over the content Naadapriya insists on including, and the poor conduct he has continually exhibited. Naadapriya's page and talk page speaks for itself - the concerns have been expressed by other editors and administrators and those concerns have not been put to rest. But the bulk of the problems can be found from this section onwards on the article talk page. I have provided a few diffs below, but one can detect the problems just going through those 2 or 3 sections.

Users have found that Naadapriya:

• misrepresented sources (most particularly through novel synthesis, but sometimes also making statements that are not found in those sources which violates verifiability policy);
• often used unreliable sourcing (violating reliable sources policy);
• makes assumptions of bad faith that editors such as myself, in improving in the article, are submitting "weasels or make believe books and Jl articles" which have less weight than self-published sources. [101] (Note: this diff also demonstrates the POV he has been pushing since he arrived at Wikipedia - which is why he resorted to sockpuppetry in the past);
• gave undue weight to a view that is not widely held (violating of NPOV policy);
• has a habit of edit-warring - see Special:Log&page=Carnatic_music;
• engaged in wikilawyering over the block he received for edit-warring [102];
• restated arguments that were already addressed (a classic example of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT), and;
• continually makes assumptions of bad faith for several of those users who gave their uninvolved input in the article RFC, while disrupting Wikipedia - using it as a battleground to harass those users who do not conform to his POV-pushing. A clear example is found here. Another example consists of a recurring theme - Naadapriya is repeatedly claiming I vandalized the article [103] [104] [105] [106] [107] when it didn't occur, and he was told in no uncertain terms that insisting that it has, is very problematic [108]. Yet his response has shown no change [109].

The ultimate conclusion of the RFC was that the content could not be included. Naadapriya has meanwhile vowed to reinclude the contentious content. I think it is reasonably clear that these sorts of issues cannot adaquately be dealt with through the usual means of dispute resolution. I therefore submit the following proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the user is acting in bad faith, but he or she is certainly very difficult to ork with. For instance, after I analysed some of the sources that were online and found they didn't really back the claims - ambiguous statements were made definite; statements about a class of subjects were rewritten as if one of the subjects in that class had sole possession of that class's attributes, and that kind of thing. When I then asked Naadapriya to quote the section of the book he or she had, so as to check a claim sourced to it, they went off on tangents four times.

I don't think there's bad faith, but they are extremely disruptive. Their lack of research skills isn't in itself a problem, as such things are teachable, but combined with a fanatical defense of the poor content, it becomes highly problematic. I'd suggest a mentor. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 1

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is banned from editing Wikipedia for 1 year.

• Support; if he edits in another area instead, the editors in that area are also going to end up ripping their hair out as well. Ncmvocalist (talk) 11:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Hmmm. I would be inclined to try a topic ban first; if this user can contribute productively in areas where they are less emotionally vested, then perhaps we may resolve this without the need to boot them. If they cannot keep to a topic ban, or choose to engage in the same behaviour elsewhere, then we have a clear indication that they are not Wikipedia material. Guy (Help!) 11:43, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• I'd also rather see a hard topic ban (which I do think is needed). Gwen Gale (talk) 11:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Okay, left a proposal below. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed remedy 2

Naadapriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited from editing pages relating to Carnatic music, broadly construed.

• Support - this minimum measure (community sanction) is certainly needed. Ncmvocalist (talk) 12:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, I'd looked into this a few weeks ago and think a topic ban would be fitting. This would be a way to let Naadapriya keep editing the other Indian topics he seems more helpfully drawn to. Gwen Gale (talk) 12:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support, a topic ban should be attempted before more permanent actions. GlassCobra 15:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. I don't hold out much hope of this editor's activities' ever making a net positive contribution to Wikipedia. His responses to the concerns raised by other editors seem to me to have been utterly bizarre. Nevertheless, I think it's worth giving him a chance to show that he can make positive contributions to other articles. It appears that no-one had previously informed him of this proposal. I have now done so. —David Wilson (talk · cont) 15:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support if (and only if) combined with mentorship. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 00:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. It is possible that User:Naadapriya is acting in good faith and believes that their view is neutral and accurate. Which it may well be but the reality is that the sources don't stand up to scrutiny and the content of those sources is often exaggerated. A topic ban will give him/her the opportunity to demonstrate a commitment to the encyclopedia beyond this article and is the appropriate first step before more permanent actions. --Regents Park (count the magpies) 01:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Support. As per User:David_J_Wilson, I found the editor's responses, to the questions raised by other editors, not helpful. He seems to be an editor who is hard to discuss with and that could be frustrating at times. Though this might be a temporary suggestion, with an able mentor, I hope that the editor improves in his standing with his other contributions. Mspraveen (talk) 03:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Works for me. As others have said, without doubting the user's good faith, it is clear that he is unwilling or unable to understand why his proposed edits are problematic. Perhaps if he edits some topics on which he has less fixed opinions, he may come to understand and in the end become a valued contributor. Guy (Help!) 09:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unprotection review

If others would review my action here, I would appreciate it. Today I happened across User talk:193.62.43.202, which was indefinitely semi-protected [110] in November 2006 (672 days ago) by (retired?) Can't sleep, clown will eat me (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Bizarrely this semi-protection appears to be in response to this unblock request. Since I cannot fathom any reason to leave this IP's talk page indefinitely semi-protected, and as Can't sleep, clown will eat me is not around to answer any questions (not that he ever answered questions about his admin actions), I have gone ahead and unprotected the page. Since this is violating my personal 0RR for admin actions, I wanted to post it here for review. If consensus holds that my unprotection was unwarranted, I will revert myself and re-protect. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM made a lot of unwarranted IP talk page protections, and you were right to lift the protection on this one. Endorsed. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

In 2006, the software feature to set an expiration date on protections had not been created yet. All protections from 2006 were indefinite so an indefinite protection going that far back shouldn't be looked at as necessarily abusive - just one that was put in place and nobody bothered to lift it. --B (talk) 13:36, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick glance at his log shows a good amount of long protected user pages. I might just go through a few myself. This might be something worth having a bot running through and pumping out a list for. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:96.250.13.105

96.250.13.105 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) repeatedly removes referenced content and replaces with unreferenced opinions on the Impellitteri page despite repeated warnings. Hondo77 (talk) 05:19, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This looks like a slow-moving content dispute, better suited to the article talkpage than ANI. I've left the IP editor a note, as there does seem to be some confusion about what constitutes reliable sources and original research, but for future reference, explaining to an editor why they are in violation of policy and opening a discussion is usually preferable to templating warnings on their talkpage and arguing in edit summaries ;) Dispute resolution might be helpful too. EyeSerene^talk 08:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Fairuse pic on the main page? Pls remove it.

• Copied from WP:ERRORS:

Image:MRstatue.jpg is a {{derivative}} work; there's no Freedom of Panorama for U.S. statues, so the photo should be fair use (unless there's permission from the sculptor). --dave pape (talk) 02:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's switch to Image:St Wulfran's Church, Ovingdean 20.jpg and remove the fairuse pic which somehow misses a fairuse tag. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 04:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting {{editprotect}} at the DYK talkpage gets no response yet. --199.71.174.100 (talk) 06:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive editor on Obama / Palin

Brand new WP:SPA editor Orangejumpsuit (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), after disrupting the Sarah Palin article[111] and abusing editors there[112][113][114] started adding disparaging trivia at Barack Obama with abusive edit summaries[115][116] - reverted by 3 or 4 editors - and directly insulting editors (in this case me) there.[117][118][119][120][121] The editor was already warned by an administrator that further abuse would result in a block[122] and that the Obama pages are under article probation,[123] and invited to learn editing policies.[124] None of this seems to work. I'll step back and avoid any further engagement (it only seems to be inciting this person), and leave it in your capable hands. Thanks, Wikidemon (talk) 07:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This condescending editor has censored and escalated this conflict though his/her accusations, threats and intimidations. Now he can game this by bullying me, gaming the rules and play this game, but truth is truth and the world is watching...Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It's probably because of his radical left-wing nuttery. OR you may have forgotten to hand in your preconceptions at the door. user:Everyme 07:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

OR may be not removing my reasonable comment and threats of "Banning" it would be a pleasant editing environment if disagreement of opinions are not labeled as "personal attacks" by editor unwilling to be polite.Orangejumpsuit (talk) 07:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Stick to talking about reliable sources, please be polite and folks will stop talking about blocking you. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

This comment left on the Obama talk page isn't discussing ways to improve the article - it is just an attack on other editors. Tvoz/talk 08:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Way true. Rather than harking loudly to Orwell, less kerfuffle is stirred up by calling it systemic bias, followed by politely citing a reliable source. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 12 hours, hope he would edit more cooperatively after cooling of Alex Bakharev (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry and POV-pushing on Austrian School and related topics

I have stumbled into a mess regarding the Austrian School of economics. Apparently, there are WP:VERIFY, WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE issues in that most mainstream economists view the philosophy as heterodoxy (at least that's my layman's take on the situation). Proponents of the philosophy, however, want very much for it to be reflected favorably, and frequently, in Wikipedia articles. This disagreement has spilled into numerous articles, including Austrian Business Cycle Theory, Credit crunch, Credit cycle, Fractional-reserve banking, Full-reserve banking, Inflation, Monetary inflation, Monetary reform, etc., etc.

My first involvement here was dealing with the blatant sockpuppetry of Karmaisking (block log). See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Karmaisking. I also recently blocked a new SPA for 3RR at WP:AN3#User:Misessus reported by User:Gregalton (Result: Blocked). Some time ago, Gregalton asked for my advice, to which I basically replied “Don’t worry about it.” (See User talk:Satori Son/Archive 8#Why.) I can see now that my casualness was a mistake. The POV-pushing, sockpuppetry, harassment, and edit-warring have become extremely disruptive. And now Gregalton, one of the few editors working to keep the various articles NPOV and properly verified by reliable sources, in my personal opinion, has been blocked for 12 hours for edit warring. See WP:AN3#Gregalton reported by Vision Thing (Result: 12 hours).

Quite frankly, I am in over my head and this report is rapidly become WP:TLDR. In short, I am proposing the following:

1. A community ban of Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log). See Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking and Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Karmaisking.
2. An unblock of Gregalton (talk · contribs · count · block log), whose edits were not an actual 3RR violation, and not disruptive under the circumstances. He has so requested.[125]
3. A possible topic ban for SPA Misessus (talk · contribs). Does that typically require an RFC?

Most importantly, I am also requesting watchlisting of these articles by experienced editors, preferably those with an economics background. As such, I will post notices of this discussion at WP:Fringe theories/Noticeboard and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Economics. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:13, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that this is a big problem. I don't think the mainstream view is so much that the Austrian school is heterodox, but rather that it was a stream of thought more or less within the mainstream that ran out some time ago, and that most of what was valuable in it has now been absorbed. What's left is a bunch of people more interested in talking about the greatness of the Austrian school (for example, here on Wikipedia) than in doing economics.JQ (talk) 23:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually it hasn't been so much absorbed as debunked and superceded. That said, there are certain concerns related to the use of mathematics in economics that cannot be written off as fringe but much of it can including what is being debated here. Note that there has been a campaign among so-called civil POV pushers for years to push these heterodox theories on Wikipedia - and not just Austrian economics. Anyone who dares confront these people are met by armies of sock puppets and/or meat puppets. EconomicsGuy (talk) 23:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring and sockpuppetry are clearly worries with this article. However, ANI is not a topic forum: This is neither the place to discuss opinions on the topic, nor the article content. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

In general, I agree with that. But occasionally it is necessary "to discuss opinions on the topic" to insure that edits comply with the official policies of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. If the edits do not, and a pattern of blatantly disregarding those polices is shown, then admin action is entirely appropriate. I renew my call for a community site ban for Karmaisking (talk · contribs · block log) and consideration of a topic ban for Misessus (talk · contribs). — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have no problems with the 'Austrian' editors as long as they 'play nice' (no sockpuppetry, no revert warring, no personal attacks, no pushing POV, minding WP:UNDUE). The trouble is that they don't play nice. Their continual harassment prevents real progress in economics articles. lk (talk) 07:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

A look at Inflation certainly confirms the problem. Lots of edit warring and a complete POV Fork at Monetary inflation.JQ (talk) 22:12, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

During Congressional hearings on monetary policy before the Committee on Financial Services in 2000, Alan Greenspan, at the time chairman of the Federal Reserve, when asked about the view of the Austrian school on inflation and business cycles said the following: "I will be glad to give you a long academic discussion on the Austrian school and its implications with respect to modern views of how the economy works having actually attended a seminar of Ludwig Mises, when he was probably 90, and I was a very small fraction of that. So I was aware of a great deal of what those teachings were, and a lot of them still are right. There is no question that they have been absorbed into the general view of the academic profession in many different ways, and you can see a goodly part of the teachings of the Austrian school in many of the academic materials that come out in today's various journals, even though they are rarely, if ever, discussed in those terms. [...] So all I can say is that the long tentacles, you might say, of the Austrian school have reached far into the future from when most of them practiced and have had a profound and, in my judgment, probably an irreversible effect on how most mainstream economists think in this country." [126] -- Vision Thing -- 07:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

You have taken Mr. Greenspan's comments out of context and, thus, misinterpreted their application to modern day proponents of this fringe pseudoscience. I encourage everyone to read the excellent rebuttals to Vision Thing at WT:ECON#Input requested regarding Austrian School as well as the comments at WP:FTN#Input requested regarding Austrian School. I realize ANI is not the forum for strict content disputes, but Vision Thing and Misessus are aggressively pushing a fringe POV on numerous economics articles and in blatant violation of WP:VERIFY and WP:UNDUE. Any further assistance with cleaning up this mess would be greatly appreciated. — Satori Son 12:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, I'm the only one who bothered to look up what relevant people say on the position of the Austrian school instead of loudly presenting my personal opinions as a matter of fact. -- Vision Thing -- 13:20, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If anyone wants to know what is going on I suggest they start by examining how economics lost its FA status. This has been going on for years and is not restricted to the Austrian school. Some of these people are so persistent that any attempt to deal with this is met with fierce and exhausting incivility and gaming of the rules. What you are seeing in this thread is nothing compared to what else is going on but unfortunately it has been very difficult to get any administrators to help out and the one or two I've encountered in the past gave up due to exhaustion. I don't blame them as so did I. EconomicsGuy (talk) 13:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Unblock request for Gregalton

I have asked Stifle to consider unblocking Gregalton. Obviously, that was not my primary reason for posting here. — Satori Son 21:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I am about to head off for the night — anyone can feel free to unblock if you feel it's justified. Just to note that he has violated 3RR 1 2 3 4, and none of the reverts were simple and obvious vandalism. Stifle (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits one and two show only one revert since there was no "previous version reverted to" (see this comment by uninvolved Coppertwig). The third edit seems entirely unrelated, and the fourth edit is clearly a simple vandalism revert. Perhaps these are not the correct diffs, but based on them, and since Stifle has retired for the evening, I have unblocked Gregalton. I am soon to retire myself, but further discussion is encouraged. — Satori Son 02:32, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Concern about image

Hi, I recently rm'ed links to Image:Penis_van_een_Puber.jpg in a couple articles where it was really adding nothing. I suspect the licensing info may qualify it for speedy by CSD-I4, but I don't feel like merely tagging it with "no licence" before prodding. I'm thinking that there's another CSD for putative images of teenagers' erections that an admin here might want to employ. Pete.Hurd (talk)

It's on Commons, you'll have to get it removed from there. But I imagine 16 years old is legal in the Netherlands. Corvus cornix_talk 21:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Legal for what? Being naked in a picture? It depends on whether the image would be considered pornography. If the image were pornographic in nature, the depicted person would have to be at least 18 years old. --Atlan (talk) 21:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Corvus cornix. It's on Commons, so it can't be deleted as CSD#I4 here. It's not a specific en-wiki image (or problem). But, further agreeing, I do not think that this picture is meant to be pornographic in nature but to illustrate the relevant articles on the nl-wiki, where it's used on their article on puberty (and another one). I do not think it is to be treated as pornographic and thus there is no reason to remove it. SoWhy 12:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Robinepowell

Another report about User:Robinepowell.

This user's contributions show a continued pattern of doing what she will, ignoring requests, warnings, blocks, and previous notifications at ANI and 3RR. To sum all this up, she marks her edits as Minor when they aren't, engages in multiple WP:3RRs, removes content and references, reformats references so they don't work, changes formatting set out by the WP:MOS to a style that is plain and simply wrong, and uses a scornful tone in edit summaries.

The first ANI thread about her was in December 2006, regarding the removal of references here: [128], [129], [130]. As a result she was blocked for 24 hours. Following that, she received numerous warnings about removing/refactoring references: [131], [132], [133], about changing the date format in articles: [134], [135] and [136], [137], and other formatting issues [138], which resulted in her first 3RR report and second block ([139]).

Upon returning, she was repeatedly asked not to carry out similar disruptive and vandalistic edits, [140], [141], and [142].

This year to date, she has been blocked six times. My very first interaction with Robin was in late January of this year, when I gave her a level 4 warning for content removal (she'd already had three other warnings in the same thread for doing the same to other pages). For the next seven days she continued to be warned for committing similar edits, until she was blocked for 48 hours [143]. As soon as she returned, she was warned for committing the same offence [144]. For the next seven days, the same warnings and requests [145], until she was blocked for four days [146]. Not two weeks later, she was blocked again for a week.

I gave her another warning a month after that for content removal and date formatting [147], and User:The Rambling Man opened a line of communication. I then extended an olive branch, [148] but this had no effect either. In April 2008 she was given numerous warnings for content removal, 3RR, etc, and was blocked for 48 hours. The same day the block was lifted, April 29, she was reported at ANI. She was then blocked for a week, before the blocking admin, User:Pigman, decided to up it to two weeks, due to the number of blocks she'd already had for similar things.

As soon as that block had expired, she again continued with her disruptive edits and on May 12 was reported to ANI for a third time. User:Ckatz blocked her for two weeks, although it was extended to one month by User:EdJohnston.

Finally, last week, she was asked to stop messing around with date formatting yet again by myself and User:Bignole [149] for these edits: [150], [151], [152], [153], [154]. Today she went ahead and made exactly the same kind of edit that she has repeatedly been asked not to. While date formatting may not seem like a big problem, it can be. Linking dates is now depreciated by WP:DATES, allowing all readers to see dates in the way the editor originally intended them. Removing commas is grammatically incorrect. Additionally, she is changing the format of dates from Commonwealth (dd-mm-yyyy) to American (mm-dd-yyyy) in articles that does not call for it. Degrassi: The Next Generation is a Canadian tv series. The article date format says that Canadians use either format. The MOS says to stick with the established format so there is no reason to switch them around. This is especially true now dates are not linked (autoformatting would have arranged them as set in user preferences). Another reason Degrassi: The Next Generation should stay using the commonwealth format is that it is part of a Featured topic, and all the other articles in it also use the commonwealth format.

Something really needs to be done with this user. At her last ANI report, User:EdJohnston said her next block should be indefinite. I am inclined to agree. Despite the warnings, and despite the blocks, she continues with her tendentious and disruptive editing. As evidenced by her talk page (which helpfully hasn't been archived) I don't think she is willing to listen when people try to help, or has any intention of stopping. Ever. I do not wish to block her myself as I've had too many dealings with her in the past. Someone else needs to do it, please. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 09:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• support if anyone needs support..this is pretty obvious. Uncooperative, long term, plenty of chances to change.--Crossmr (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for six months. Robin has been blocked nine times since December 2006, all for disruptive behaviour. She has also demonstrated a distinct unwillingness to listen to expressed concerns, or to modify her behaviour - despite ample warnings and efforts by others to help her. I would support extending this further if others feel it is appropriate. --Ckatz^chat_spy 10:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Endorse block, and support extension to indef. The above report and links do not make pretty reading, and there's every indication that once the block has expired we'll just see more of the same. With over 3000 article edits and two years on the site, there's no excuse for not knowing how things work by now. This person needs to find somewhere else to play. EyeSerene^talk 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
• Endorse block, and support extending to indef. There is no data to sugggest that further patience would do any good. EdJohnston (talk) 13:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Adjusted to indefinite per the above discussion. --Ckatz^chat_spy 18:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Dominic Edward Aragon

Resolved

He called me "chicken nuggets" in a comment he made about putting past winners in the 2009 Las Vegas 400 when there is already information in the main Las Vegas 400 page, which I have reverted twice for "vandalism". This user needs to be temporarily blocked for user insults and abuse. NoseNuggets (talk) 9:38 AM US EDT Sept 9 2008. —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:37, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't look like an attack of any sort, merely someone getting your nick wrong. I'd advise (a) getting a thicker skin, and (b) engaging with the user in question calmly before running to tell tales. ➨ ❝ЯEDVERS❞ has nothing to declare except his jeans 13:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Administrative negligence and affront towards me; reporting vandalism and personal attacks

Resolved

 – frivolous report Toddst1 (talk) 21:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Grey_Fox-9589 has proposed my blocking (here) because of 8 fallacious reverts of mine. The administrator (Tiptoety), ostensibly impressed simply by the sheer number, not only blocks me, but accuses me of disruptive editing ([155]), which is as insupportable as rootless - I demand from him to explain which edits of mine he finds disruptive, when he follows the calumnies of the proponent, who picked up 8 accidential edits of mine on this day and misrepresented them as reversions - 4 of them are falsified (evidence here) and the fifth is removing defamation! The proponent for my blocking is a vandal as per Wikipedia:Vandalism ("Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary."):

• First vandal blanking of a whole section with 7 reliable (6 of them with articles here on wiki) independent sources from 4 countries in 3 continents
• Second vandal [blanking of a whole section with 7 reliable independent sources from 4 countries in 3 continents
• third blanking of large amount of text with contumelies launched against three great Russian medias (two of them with own articles here) simply for being Russian - discrimination!
• The consecutive deletion of Russian source and replacing with Template:fact !
• Fourth discriminatice removal of Russian source.
• Fifth disruption of three Russian sources (two of them are among the greatest in the coutry with articles here)
• Sixth deletion of reliable source (book, evidently by eye-witness) with crucial numbers and facts and replacing it with common talk and a dubitable web site.
• (Seventh) Reckless blanking of a large amount of sourced material (from the same book), full with crucial descriptions and numbers and replacing it with a general recapitulation with no facts or numbers.
• (Eighth) The same reckless blanking of the same (inconvenient) text.

The thorough evidence shows that the user has a pernicious (for the articles) propensity towards obliterating as many as possible Russian sources which encounters with the repeated derogation of illegitimacy. The user is obviously not Russian, he does not know the Russian language and notwithstanding his persistence in deleting Russian sources without showing the slightst knowledge of the concept "verification" is intransigent amd on an amazingly prolific scale (if deletions can be at all...) and makes his accusations of the source (many of which in the foreign Russian language) reprehensible, to say the least.

I declare thereby that I have never ever engaged in vandal blanking of sourced material and demand apology from the administrator who uttered this mendacious rootless affront ([156], disruptive editing, when the (refuted) accusation is 3RR) towards me completely overlooking the disruptor and reexamination of the precipitate blocking by a neutral administrator.

The edits of this user are directed towards deletion of inconvenient information no matter how many sources support it and are the exact thing where disruption is to be found. Bogorm (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Personal attack: here (the 8 alleged reversions, 5 of which mendacious, are visible too): "This user is extremely hard to deal with (he can't be convinced of anything)" the user commenting on me. Bogorm (talk) 20:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Endorse block: Serious 3RR violator - I would have given much more than 24 hours. Toddst1 (talk) 20:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, founded on 8 accidentially handpicked edits, half of which false? (In the report section on WP:ANI/3RR there is "previous version reverted to" link, which was deliberately not completed by the proponent). So, are numbers more impressive than presenting evidence? Am I going to hear one single justification/explanation in lieu of sheer "succinct" contra-accusations? Bogorm (talk) 21:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Bogorm, please don't take it personal that I reported you for 3rr. 3rr is like an electric fence and I don't care who violates it, whoever does is not allowed to. I'm not allowed to break 3rr rule myself and on a page like the South Ossetia war it's extremely important that nobody else does. Again, please don't take it personal. Grey Fox (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the "disruptive edits", many of them or on pages you're not involved with so I assume you've been going through my contributions. Note that on every single page I do effort to discuss issues on the talk page, and anything else you disagree with you can always discuss with me. Grey Fox (talk) 00:42, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Admin not using proper procedures or protocol, indef blocked user without any prior history

Tom Harrison appears to be abusing his administrator powers. A friend of mine contacted me by e-mail to get involved in this, as he has been indefinitely blocked from editing and the blocking admin does not appear willing to discuss the issue. In short, my friend's account is registered under the name Dine Peril. He is brand new to Wikipedia and is just becoming familiar with the rules. He has no warning for misbehaviour whatsoever on his talk page, and the history of the Talk Page will confirm this. He made a good-faith edit to today's Featured Article, but failed to cite his source. Immediately afterward, Tom Harrison indefinitely blocked him without any warning or notice. None of the proper templates for issuing warnings were used. I believe this was not a fair use of administrative powers and I would like to see some sort of action taken in this matter. Thank you. Ace Trigonometry (talk) 14:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I highly recommend you familiarize yourself with WP:MEAT--Tznkai (talk) 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

And your little dog too. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:56, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the edit in question [157]; note the highly deceptive edit summary. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Tut Kralizec, surely you mean 'descriptive' edit summary? Pints of Badde Fayth all round please landlord! Srsly, good block ;) EyeSerene^talk 15:05, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To put it in further context this was Dine Peril's previous contribution. ϢereSpielChequers 15:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good block, even if not obviously a WP:MEAT puppet. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked User:Ace Trigonometry as a sockpuppet of User:Dine Peril. The account was created 2 minutes after Dine Peril's post on his Talk page, and the other contribs have a, how shall I say, similar quality to them. Sanity check plz. SHEFFIELDSTEEL^TALK 17:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Dine Peril's obvious expectation of receiving some sort of warning prior to a block indicates to me that he knows the workings of Wikipedia, and is trying to game the system. Corvus cornix_talk 20:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Just more sockery from User:Swamilive. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 16:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Seeyou

• Seeyou (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
• Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Seeyou

Seeyou is a WP:SPA editing articles related to Bates method. There is some evidence that Seeyou has a COI with the subject, but not enough to make a case for WP:COIN.

Seeyou's behavior is once again becoming highly disruptive, to the point where there are discussions to expand the RfC/U with the problems since it was written.

Seeyou is not fluent in English, which exasperates the problems.

The problems since the RfC/U include canvassing, personal attacks, gaming the MedCab and RFC processes, and general WP:OWN problems. The problems appear to be quickly escalating. --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with what Ronz is saying. I initially got involved on the articles to stop IP spamming and wound up getting involved in the arguments. When I started editing the talk page, Seeyou was hardly civil or neutral, accusing Famousdog (talk · contribs) of paid editing and creating sections titled "For the Objective Reader Part <foo> of X". Recently, however, he's dropped these behaviors if only to use WP:MEDCAB as his own personal artillery. Practically all of his Medcab cases have been closed without resolution. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Bodging WP edit by edit)} 18:16, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

To add to that, Seeyou also accused me of being a sockpuppet of users AED and MastCell (among others) and being responsible for the anonymous edits which were made using an open proxy. Famousdog (talk) 17:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to either start another RfC, or if you believe the issues to be serious enough, a request for arbitration. Wizardman 18:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism, ongoing right now, across the wiki

Resolved

 – Standard 31-hour vandal block issued

Would someone check out this edit history. A bunch of us are reverting piecemeal and leaving notes on this IP editor's talk page, but I think stronger action is called for. David in DC (talk) 16:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Temporarily blocked. For future reference, this sort of thing is normally handled on WP:AIV. Thanks ;) EyeSerene^talk 16:47, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Also, at least one edit wasn't actually vandalism. HalfShadow 16:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but the next five weren't so helpful... EyeSerene^talk 17:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd almost say it was a school-IP, only I can't get anything proving it. HalfShadow 17:33, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Help against personal attacks

Hi: I would greatly appreciate some admin help with the situation that has unfolded on the talk pages at Talk:Circumcision#Wikipedia is not Wiktionary where User Finncalder (talk · contribs) uses some plum words against me when I have said nothing against him personally in any way, in the course of a general discussion. How can I ignore it when he says: "is a skill to talking out of your arse and you have certainly mastered it" [158] or when I requested [159] [160] that he please sign some of his unsigned comments with the four tildes, after quickly deleting my brief reminder [161] he responded on my talk page User talk:IZAK#Don't lecture me with a string of personal attacks: "Keep your hypocritical lectures for those who are stupid enough to pay attention to your incoherent ramblings. I correct both my unsigned comments a before you sent that stupid message' so in the future, kindly keep your vacuous nonsense to yourself." [162] And: "Given the vile judgemental filth you have been posting in the circumcision article name debate, you are not only a hypocrite; but anything I have said to you is remarkably restrained.It is clear that your only motives are to troll and to push a truly perverted point-of-view." [163]. I am always glad to conduct open and civil discussions on talk pages. I have requested that he refrain from violating WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND at least three times [164] [165] [166], but it seems to no avail. I would appreciate it if an admin could review the matter. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 14:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Pending further input, I think this was way over the line, so I've issued a 24-hour WP:NPA block. Review welcome. EyeSerene^talk 15:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Concur. I think maybe Finncalder needs to avoid interacting with IZAK for a while, as well, and maybe both of them need to step back from the Circumcision article. I will add the article to my watchlist. -- Donald Albury 15:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of the emotional connection to an article, calling another editor a "…pathetic little man.…a pervert and no better than a paedophile." is completely uncalled for under any circumstances, in my opinion. -- Avi (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And for comparison's sakes, for the Americans here, read the following:

And don't bother giving me that tired old crap about 'Yid' being offensive and anti-Semitic, when it is Yiddish slang and used on a daily basis by most of the Jews in London.

— Finncalder, 10:53, September 9, 2008

Now replace "Yid" with "n***er," "anti-Semitic" with "racist," "Yiddish slang" with "gangsta slang," "Jews" with "African-Americans," and "London" with "New York." Completely unacceptable in either case as well. (PS. no offense meant; use of pejorative terms necessary to demonstrate the actual depth of the slur) -- Avi (talk) 15:38, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Certainly as a Jew from London, I can say that "Yid" is not regared as harmless over here. The claim is hand-waving nonsense. And I thought in America that it's not n***er but n***a that is used by those wishing to reclaim it.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Block extension due to overt sockpuppetry threats?

If someone needs to vent by calling me a member of a Yid pro-circ cabal, even after I tried to be what I thought was relatively polite, I feel bad for them, but that is no big deal. I have been called worse here on wiki. However, making overt socking threats such as As if I would really care that I have been blocked (and as if a block would actually stop me editing on Wikipedia). LOL does concern me. Is there reason to consider an indef here? The user has just delivered a shot across the bow that socking to circumvent a block is coming. -- Avi (talk) 16:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• Hmm, this is a difficult one. Incivility, personal attacks, rounded off with a nice dose of arrogance, racial attacks and a promise to keep socking if blocked. Hopefully the door won't hit him too hard on the way out. Indef blocked. Black Kite 17:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, that was only headed in one direction. I'm sure he'll be sorely missed. EyeSerene^talk 17:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
    • We have a legal threat on the talk page now. I think a {{Pp-usertalk}} may be warranted, but as someone involved with the editor on content issues, it would be more appropriate for another sysop to look at this and make the call. -- Avi (talk) 18:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
      • I agree, using unblock requests to make legal threats and attack other editors is not on. No need to give this guy a forum; page protected. EyeSerene^talk 18:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Edit warring by User:Malcolm Schosha

This user Malcolm Schosha (talk · contribs) has been disruptively editing the Template:Antisemitism and continues to do so without even trying to engage in the discussion page. I pointed out on the discussion page that his changes were editorializing in the template which is uniquely inappropriate. Another user asked us to stop edit warring. I warned him on his talk page that he needed to discuss the changes on the talk page of the article. Malcolm's response was to move the discussion to the article space and to declare that he thinks his changes are "good." I asked him to explain his position and he simply made the false claim that he has not changed anything. I pointed out that he had made this edit (which you can see from the edit history of the template that he has continually made that same edit over the past several days). His response was to lie again, blaming his edit on another user, an administrator. I noted again that he was incorrect and suggested in good faith that it might have been an accidental edit on his part. Then he claimed that he saw no change in his edit, but when I offered to fix it for him he warned me not to revert. I then asked him to make up his mind, that he could not have it both ways - if he is going to be reverting he should explain his reverts, or he is just being disruptive. Now he is simply reverting, claiming in the edit summary that this is a "better version," but refusing to defend what is "better" about it in talk, and in fact claiming that he didn't make the edit at all. What to do with a user who is blatantly making false statements like this in talk and clearly not interested in dialogue? csloat (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

To the best of my understanding, the complaint is that I disagree with csloat's revert of a change that was made to the Antisemitism template by Jayjg. This is the change [167] made by Jayjg, and which csloat reverted many times, the latest being this [168]. To me it seems strange to try to resolve an edit dispute in this way....and it is just an edit dispute. I assume that eventually other editors will get involved, and that the additional involvement will resolve the dispute one way or the other.

The difficulty that arises frequently in edit disagreements with csloat, and the one I regret the most, is that user's resort to accusations of bad faith and his/her incivility. In this case, although we obviously disagree, why the accusations, made above, that I am "lying" and that I am "blatantly making false statements"? I am simply trying to do what I think is right, and I would appreciate it if csloat would stop resorting to these accusations of bad faith, and stop using incivility as an editing tactic. (I might add that csloat also included an accusation of "lying" in the notification on my talk page of this WP:AN/I [169] I would really appreciate it if csloat would stop such incivility.) Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As for the other accusations made against me by csloat, a reading of our discussion on the template talk page [170][171] will show that they are distortions. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 17:42, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I can't see how csloat expects to come out of this looking better than you. On the talk page, not far above the argument between you is a comment from Malik, albeit from last year, wondering how to shorten things.Jay was bold and then the edit war between th two of you started. I ten to support the shorter version as less space-consuming.--Peter cohen (talk) 17:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Peter cohen. I propose we ban both editors from making any further changes to that template until the current RfC about it has reached a consensus and if they violate the ban, we should enforce it. It is nice that you are willing to improve Wikipedia, but such edit warring and personal attacks are not helpful. SoWhy 18:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok with the ban, even though the "wrong version" is currently there, as long as it will force Malcolm to actually engage in the discussion. The problem is not about personal attacks -- the problem is Malcolm blatantly misrepresented what was going on when asked to defend his changes in talk. It is not a bad faith accusation -- I said why did you make a certain edit, and he said he did not make that edit. Then he said Jayjg made the edit when it was obvious that Malcolm had made the edit. Then I assumed good faith and said if it was a mistake let's correct it. Then he reverted without discussing his edit on the talk page. If you can point to an instance of incivility I will apologize but I have bent over backwards to assume good faith even in the face of overwhelming evidence that Malcolm was not demonstrating it. If he believes in a particular version of the page he should answer the arguments against it, but to pretend he didn't even make the edit in question is unconscionable. csloat (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm.... Do you mean, then, that there is no barnstar for edit warring? What a disappointment. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that csloat is playing with words above. I said that I had not made any change in the Antisemitism template, but that the change had been made by Jayjg. I never made the slightest change to the template. I did, of course revert csloat's edits that returned the template to its previous version. It is true that I have only a faint grasp of wiki-speak, but I think my point was pretty obvious. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:24, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

One more thing. I never wanted to be involved in editing the Antisemitism template; and I think that, if csloat wants to argue with someone, the better choice would be with those editors who comment on the RfC. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I am not the one playing with words if you claim that you did not say "I have not chaged anything. You did change something; when you revert changes you are yourself making a change. I will again assume good faith and chalk it up to a lack of familiarity with "wiki-speak" (like the word "change", presumably). But can you explain why you reverted me over and over again, and consistently failed to explain your revert other than with the non-explanation (and false claim) that you had not changed anything. You admit above that you "of course" reverted my edits -- that is a change that you must defend rather than just blaming your change on another editor. csloat (talk) 19:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Then why were you edit warring on that template Malcolm? If you don't want to be involved in editing at all, it is very simple to not edit it. But if you do edit it you should have the courtesy to discuss your edits and defend them. csloat (talk) 19:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I did reply here [172]. Why do you keep saying that I did not explain my reverts? It is obvious that I did explain. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 19:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes but then when I challenged your explanation and showed why your explanation actually supported the version of the page that I was supporting, you stopped discussing and you began with the "I didn't change anything" nonsense. csloat (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I gave an explanation, and you disagreed. It is an editing dispute. But you decided to call it "disruptive" editing, and brought it here to the Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. I do not see much coming out of this, because this is not the place to resolve editing disputes. To repeat, I did not change the template. What I did was revert a few edits you made, but the change to the template was done by Jayjg. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 20:06, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagreeing is not disruptive. What is disruptive is continuing to edit war without engaging the discussion or following dispute resolution procedures. Even that could have been worked out had you honestly engaged the discussion but instead you chose to clam up and fall back on the claim that you hadn't changed anything, and blaming another editor for your own revert warring. Do not continue to blame other editors for your edits -- Jayg can explain his edits when necessary but in this case it is your edit that was questioned. Just because you are making the same edit as another editor does not mean you do not have to explain your edit; otherwise you are simply functioning as a virtual sockpuppet of Jayjg, which is yet another violation of Wikipedia rules. csloat (talk) 20:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet? This is the wrong place for that. Put your sock puppet accusation here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:51, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Please someone comment here - am I out of line in suggesting that Malcolm's actions here seem overtly disruptive? In the above comment he ignores my comments completely only to fixate on the word "sockpuppet" and tell me to put accusations elsewhere. He totally ignores the basis of my argument, which was not to accuse him of sockpuppetry per se (I do not doubt that he is a different person than jayjg), but to argue that he is responsible for his own edits, he should not take on the job of doing another editor's "dirty work" in order to circumvent the 3RR or whatever it is he is doing by this. csloat (talk) 21:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet more Disruption by Malcolm Schosha, now on AN/I

Malcolm moved one of my comments on this very page, which distorted the context of the discussion. I had originally placed my paragraph below the paragraph I was responding to; he moved it so it did not make sense in the context. I moved it back and asked him in my edit summary not to move my words. He has gone ahead and moved it again falsely claiming that he is moving it to its "proper location." I'm sorry, but the "proper" location for my comment is where I put it, not where he thinks it is less damaging to his claims. Am I wrong in thinking that it is disruptive to distort the discussion by moving your interlocutor's own words? csloat (talk) 20:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

csloat moved an edit out of chronological order for no justifiable reason, and has done that several times. I moved it again just now.Malcolm Schosha (talk) 21:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Malcolm I can't believe you are edit warring over this and completely distorting what happened. I responded to a paragraph of yours by placing my response immediately after the paragraph of yours. I did not "move" it; I placed it there to begin with. You have moved it, and you are now completely misrepresenting what you are doing. Why are you doing this? I explained above why I wanted that paragraph there, and you should know it is considered unacceptable by Wikipedia standards to edit another user's comments or to misrepresent them. Your moving of my comments does both. I am once again going to fix this problem; do not move my comment again. Thanks. csloat (talk) 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Your comments are perfectly understandable when in there proper place. Stop moving them to where they do not belong. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

We will probably both get blocked for violating 3RR editing on the Administrators notice board. If that happens, it would really be pretty funny. Malcolm Schosha (talk) 22:09, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you two gentlemen familiar with WP:POINT? I suggest that you both stop editing this thread while the rest of us try to figure out what is going on. --Kralizec! (talk) 22:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring on Italian Brazilian

Opinoso (talk · contribs) and Quissamã (talk · contribs) have been engaged in a fairly steady edit war on Italian Brazilian. Since WP:3RR may not have been technically breached today or yesterday, I decided not to file this report to WP:AN3. However, Opinoso has made seven ([173], [174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179]) reverts to this article since September 7 and Quissamã has reverted him back six of those seven times ([180], [181], [182], [183], [184], [185]) without any attempt by either editor to discuss the issue on the article talk page nor each other’s user talk pages. Please also note that most of those diffs contain edit summaries referring to the other editor in a derogatory manner.

While I’m not trying to excuse Quissamã’s behaviour, it should be noted that Opinoso does have a history of edit warring as well as incivility towards editors with opposing views. His talk page contains numerous warnings about edit warring and incivility/personal attacks and he has been blocked four times so far, twice for 3RR and twice for WP:NPA violations. Most of his reverts contain rvv (an implication that he is reverting vandalism as explained in Wikipedia:Edit summary legend#Revert to a previous edit) as an edit summary even when no vandalism has occurred as well as openly and blatantly calling people racist, vandals and trolls (recent examples: [186], [187], [188], [189], [190]). He was also recently involved in a blatant edit war on Ukrainians of Brazil with a different editor where they each made a minumum of 12 reverts on May 23. Both were let off with a warning but, based on his continuous behaviour in spite of all the warnings, I don’t think Opinoso is willing to learn from his mistakes or heed any warnings sent his way. I would appreciate input on how to treat this issue since I don’t think it qualifies for WP:AN3.

Peace! SWik78 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

If both users edit war and none of them even tries to discuss the matter on the article talk page, I'd say give them both a final warning. Edit warring is evil, no matter whether you actually break 3RR or not. If they do it again, we should just ban them or maybe even protect the article if they return as IPs or sockpuppets. The quote WP:3RR: The rule does not entitle editors to revert a page three times each day. Administrators may still block disruptive editors for edit warring who do not violate the rule. Applies here imho. SoWhy 18:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

---

I have been not always reverting, most of the times I recovered the old text to continue edition.

The same problem occurred in Portuguese Wikipedia with pt:Imigração Italiana no Brasil and pt:Nazismo no Brasil. Nowadays those articles are blocked due to our edit warring. In the discussion of pt:Imigração Italiana no Brasil and Italian Brazilian I have expressed my concerns about some historical ideas of immigration to Brazil. So, consider both discussion to be complimentary complEmentary in expressing my views.

I have an old issue with User:Opinoso that started in the articles pt:Nilo Peçanha and en:Nilo Peçanha and spread to pt:Afro-brasileiro, pt:Cultura Afro-brasileira, pt:Anexo:Lista de afro-brasileiros, en:Afro-Brazilian, en:Afro-Brazilian Culture, en:List of Brazilians of Black African descent, always with edit warring.

The case evolved in a mediation in pt:Wikipedia:Mediação informal/Casos/2008-08-18 Afro-brasileiro where he was not able to bring sources to support his ideas. Since then, he is stalking me. He made some derogatory comments about my contributions in the discussion pt:Discussão:Imigração_japonesa_no_Brasil#Artigo mal-escrito trying to provoke an overreaction but just made me laugh. He also made the same in the discussion en:Talk:Afro-Brazilian, but I believe some administrator astonished with the words removed the comment. Or take a look at User_talk:Quissamã#Stop bothering me and User_talk:Quissamã#Bad English.

Due to my editing in article Italian Brazilian (where I have put tags of ) he replied revengeful making the same in the article pt:Afro-brasileiro, the other where I was most editing. I accepted the tags and now he is threating to erase information that I not provided in this article.

My compromise is I WILL NOT CHANGE ANYTHING IN THIS ARTICLE FOR 3 MONTHS SINCE HE User:Opinoso KEPT IT AS IT IS NOW AND ALSO DO NOT CHANGE IT FOR 3 MONTHS

I WILL ACCEPT ALL THE EDITIONS MADE By OTHER USERS BUT User:Opinoso.

Other editors can continue the work and correct the mistakes, but note that User:Opinoso is also prone to revert the contributions of any editors in this article and other articles that he considers his own estate.

I am sorry, but I can not avoid to be sarcastic with him.

--Quissamã (talk) 19:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked Opinoso (as a repeat offender) for 72 hours for abusive editwarring, labeling content dispute reverts "rvv". I have not (yet) blocked Quissamã because he seems to have attempted to take a more constructive approach with incremental edits instead of reverts, but I will watchlist the article and block either of the two who resumes editwarring.  Sandstein  21:31, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Posting a phone number

Resolved

 – Already oversighted before I could even get to the diff to remove. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 18:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
We act fast in these cases, especially if there may be a minor involved. -- Avi (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if this is a real phone number but shold it be erased from the history. Brilliant trees (talk) 18:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:OVERSIGHT. I'll make the email. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v Call me Mr. Bonaparte!)} 18:56, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it may have been erased already. Has the editor been warned in regards with this? SWik78 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the history, e-mailed RFO, and warned the user. -- Avi (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

For completeness sake, I have just received word that the edits were oversighted. Well done, everyone! -- Avi (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Cicero Motors

Resolved

Some interesting and sneaky vandalism. Has created a bunch of hoax articles (see Cicero (automobile) for one example) and has been vandalizing others by inserting this fictional "Cicero" business. I think this may need more than the usual vandalism intervention, perhaps? --Sable232 (talk) 18:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, looks like a hoax-only account. I'm going to indefblock it and deal with its contributions. If it requests unblock with a very good explanation, I'm amenable to giving it a second chance.  Sandstein  19:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Would someone please snowball-close the Afds - they are all clearly hoaxes and not worth any more bandwidth. Thank you. – ukexpat (talk) 20:23, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Done. Black Kite 20:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User:G2bambino

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

Resolved

 – What part of "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department" was unclear, please? dispute resolution is second on your left down the hall. Mind how you go. Guy (Help!) 22:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, it's that time again. He's been around here before. I tried posting at WQA, but he provided his usual wikilawyering, and ignored his incivility.

He has been warned about rude edit summaries before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

He has been warned about uncivil behaviour before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

He has been warned about violating WP:AGF before. And continues to ignore the warnings.

To be more specific, when he is blocked, he always claims he'll be a good boy now, promise. And continues with the exact same behaviour as before.

Insults directed at other editors here, and in edit summaries here, here, here, here, and here.

This user is on some sort of crusade to make articles 'pretty' by removing whitespace. A long discussion here has failed to make him understand that 'removing whitespace' is a formatting issue that can only work on his computer. Despite him quoting the very same thing at me, he doesn't quite get it. He is being rude, condescending, and insulting. Another attack here, and (yes, I understand this is technically allowed, but it's part of a pattern) removal of the personal attack warning and notification of WQA here, more incivility and accusations, and yet another attack here, accusing me of being 'disingenuous' when removing images, when the actual issue was his failure to look at the page. He later made a smarmy 'apology'. Further attacking on his talk page, accusing me of warping the rules (which, given his extensive wikilawyering on a wide variety of things, is a bit of a laugh), and implies that any sort of community sanction against his behaviour is irrelevant to him. Indeed, right here, he states unambiguously that debating WP:Civil with him is pointless. Given his long history of incivility, that's hardly surprising. More incivility, and in the comment actually lying about what I am doing. Another [191] lie; claims I no longer wished discussion of the 'images' issue at my talk page; my actual statement was: "Do not reply on my talk page again; I do not wish to see any further personal attacks" (here), and "I wish to make this clear: STOP. POSTING. HERE. Your abuse is not welcome, your dishonesty is not welcome, you are not welcome," here.

uncivil edit summaries seem to be a trademark, as does blithely ignoring what other have to say, and that's just from the past couple of weeks. This indicates to me that this editor is less concerned with the health of the encyclopedia as much as he is concerned with getting his own way. I would also point out his general wikilawyering of policies, while conveniently ignoring several that apply to his own behaviour. I'm beginning to think that this belongs at RfC/U, as he is continuing his standard "I'm going to ignore everything you say until I get my way" thing at this talk page; unfortunately it would seem that from the times he has been invited to participate in arbitration he does not do so.

His ongoing editwarring at Monarchy of Canada is likewise ridiculous; citing "policy doesn't say I can't do this, so too bad for you" is wikilawyering at its worst. Especially since the editing in question (image moves) shows that, again, he not only does not understand formatting, but also completely ignores his own statements.

Indeed, on the talk page he acknowledged he had said that pages display differently on different computers, and that computers had not changed how they work in the intervening 60-odd days, without providing any sort of justification as to why he may make cosmetic edits that appear perfect only on his computer, while other users (me, and he's accused me of being on some sort of vengeance thing, but I learned from my mistake on July 4 at the Order of Canada article) are reverted as soon as they do so.

A bit of history.

G2bambino's incivility, propensity for nitpicking and wikilawyering, and generally adversarial and antagonistic behaviour is evident from the very beginning of his time here. He's been brought to ANI before, and for some reason was not censured at that time.

He has been blocked ten times since June 2007, one of those times for selectively editing another user's report of his behaviour at WP:AN3, which rather clearly shows that he doesn't care about the truth, just getting his way. Indeed, on his most recent block, his request for being unblocked included attacks and incivility against another user.

I will not deny that he has made useful edits to the encyclopedia. However, his long history of disruptive commenting, abuse, rude edit summaries, multiple violations of 3RR, lying, and antagonistic behaviour towards other editors is not excusable, nor is his utter refusal to amend any portion of his behaviour. Or to simplify: his complete refusal to understand and abide by WP:Civil is not defensible, and does not belong here.

Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 20:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps my opinions here will be seen as tainted considering I have had some contact with G2- all totally civil and been involved in a dispute with PrinceofCanada. However, this report seems to me to be totally biased, PoC recognizes no responsibility for this dispute and seems to treat his perception as absolute. I am fairly certain this is a calculated attack on G2 by PoC because of their dispute over EIIR and Whitespace, if you look at the talk page you can see PoC is the one who first abandons WP:CIVIL with his choice of provocative language. Also, does Wikipedia not have some form of Double Jeopardy system? Gavin (talk) 20:58, 9 September 2008 (UTC) I have done further investigation into PoC's actions, please have a look at how he delivered the message to G2 that he was intending to take action against him. User_talk:G2bambino#Your_choice. Gavin (talk) 21:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

What double jeopardy? G2 ignored the WQA, did nothing to modify his behaviour. Calling this a 'calculated attack' is itself a violation of WP:Civil and [{WP:AGF]]. Tsk. That the dispute began with the whitespace issue on the EIIR page I do not contest. However, it is part and parcel of the same issue: his utter inability to understand how formatting works, and his assertion here, he says that something 'looking awful' is merely POV, and yet here using it as justification for his own edits. (Not to mention acknowledging that such changes are only from his viewpoint here, again ignoring his words on the subject on July 4). Indeed, the lack of civility began when he started using words like 'hideous' to describe my functional edits. Furthermore, my dispute with you boils down to "when a situation is already bad, adding snarky comments does nothing to make it better." And if you're going to talk about how I delivered my notice, you should also note (if indeed you are attempting to be unbiased) his response: that it is 'irrelevant', clearly showing that he does not care about community standards and sanctions. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, when you make statements like "utter inability" do you not feel you are maybe being, even just a little, provocative? Also, I read his response, I took it to mean that his opinion on what you chose to do was irrelevant, it was an improper way to deliver such a notification anyway. (Also, my opinion that this reads as an attack does not contravene WP:Civil and as I recall you can only assume good faith up to a point.) Accusing someone of wikilawyering implies they are being sneaky and manipulative don't you think? Gavin (talk) 21:41, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I am describing the situation accurately. I explained to him in extremely plain English how the fixbunching template works, for example. Four or five times, I think. And yet he kept claiming that I was doing other things with it. That is either inability to understand, or pretending not to understand. Further plain-English explanations of how code is rendered, how it renders differently on different computers, and how (using his own words!) making cosmetic changes to fit one computer doesn't work, were all likewise met with either incomprehension or unwillingness to understand. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

As for 'wikilawyering', he's well known for it. Date changes in the article on Autumn Kelly (Talk:Autumn Phillips) would be one excellent example. The more pertinent example here I showed above: claiming that something looks bad on his computer is justification for editing, but my claim that something looks bad on some computers is, apparently, to be met with a narrow reading of style guidelines and a response that if it doesn't violate the guidelines it is therefore okay. He applies policies when they suit him, and ignores them when they don't. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 21:53, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His behaviour on Autumn Phillips's article hs been disgraceful. He argued and argued about date format, despite me refer to MoS. I then got 3rd parties involved via MoS talk (he has very reluctant to involve others), was quickly told he had been wrong & should not have changed format. But he still ignored it and changed it back. He will never listen to others or comprimise, and personally I have felt bullied by him.--UpDown (talk) 21:57, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

His inconsistencies is not case for an ANI action, the fact is I see a dispute which has gotten heated and escalated. You were part of that and contributed to the escalation- do you think that is untrue? As I read over what other users have to say about the ANI action I suspect they too think that maybe there is equal blame on both sides. I am going to go back to my first piece of advice on this situation, allow yourself to cool off- then go back to it. I think that you are clearly upset, as demonstrated by your decision to leave the project. Are you sure that you are in the right emotional state to make such a complaint right now? Gavin (talk) 22:02, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

When his inconsistencies are part and parcel of the accusations, namely incivility, violation of AGF, and wikilawyering? Yes, they do belong here. I do think it is untrue that I contributed to the escalation. G2bambino refused to listen, refused to acknowledge direct questions posed to him, refused to acknowledge that he was doing what he had told me not to do, refused to even entertain a compromise (though kept claiming he was trying to be cooperative!), and so on. Further, I would welcome you not commenting on my emotional state, as it is a) irrelevant, b) none of your business, and c) unless you live with me (which I doubt) or interact with me in person, you do not know what my emotional state is. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:08, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

See, I think you are partly responsible, as someone who has had a dispute with you before, you do tend to belittle other users, insult them and impose superiority over them- at least that is how I feel about it. Also, I think your dead set on your views here with no room to change them, I will wait to see what an admin has to say about this dispute, I suspect he will agree that it takes two to tango. (also I reserve the right to pass comment on anything, per my human rights) Gavin (talk) 22:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, you think I'm responsible. That's your prerogative. You're also wrong, but that's also your prerogative. And yes, I am (strangely) set in my views: multiple abuses of WP:Civil aren't okay, attacking other users is not okay, belittling a user for using the same justification you yourself used is not okay, ignoring your own statements on the matter is not okay... shall I go on? And while you may reserve your right to pass comment on anything, one would suggest you look up the word 'tact'. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:22, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

User talk:JzG has resolved this issue, it is in the wrong place. I agree with his judgment, it is an attempt to resolve a dispute on a talk page by discrediting the opposition. I suppose, this issue is over. Also, the "tact" comment is an example of an insult. Gavin (talk) 22:25, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it's not. Commenting on someone else's emotional state when you actually have no idea what that state is, is rude. Not tactful. Thus, suggesting you look up the definition of the word. Additionally, I dispute Jzg's 'resolution' of the matter. You'll note that I am no longer participating in any dispute on any talk page with G2. You will further note that I am no longer editing any mainspace articles. You will further note that G2 has done an excellent job of discrediting himself, as has been laid out quite conveniently above. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:36, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Right, OK...(oh and btw if I acted in a non-tactful manner that does not mean that I am unaware of the definition.) Anyway, perhaps to dispute this you have to open up ANOTHER complaint on the Dispute Resolution page so that you can then come back and dispute the G2 situation here...(wouldn't that be wonderful red tape.) Gavin (talk) 22:40, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

In that case, please refrain from further personal comments for which you have no basis. I have notifed Jzg that I disagree with his (her?) resolution. Prince of Canada ^{t | c} 22:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I refrained the first time you asked me too...Gavin (talk) 22:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Guy who declared this issue gave the following advice: "My recommendation is that you avoid G2, but if you can't leave the articles he edits alone and vice-versa then you need to use the dispute resolution process." Hopefully both parties involved will take it and get back to editing constructively. :) Gavin (talk) 23:42, 9 September 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.

Strange (legal?) threats

Resolved

Vancedecker (talk · contribs) (who a month ago made some very trollish comments towards Jimbo [192]) has left these bizarre threats on Talk:Intelius. I don't know what to do with him, letting you all know. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked for the SEC comments, which would be taken as a legal threat. Gwen Gale (talk) 23:17, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Good call. I really hope we don't get bunches of "shorts" (and their counterparts) on talk pages for companies here. The boards and newsgroups were enough of a cesspool in the late 1990's. Protonk (talk) 02:33, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, another Sarah Palin thing

Could I respectfully request a neutral admin to look at the contribution~s of Booksnmore4you (talk · contribs), specifically at Political positions of Sarah Palin? Personally I think this is POV-pushing, especially on such a high-profile topic, but I really don't want to do the edit-warring thing. Kelly ^hi! 19:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I've only had a very quick look, but the edits look pretty well-sourced at first glance. Who defines what is NPOV in situations like this? Brilliantine (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Was blocked 20 hours and counseled by User:Tznkai, an admin apparently recently back from 30 months off. GRBerry 02:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Books was blocked for 3RR violation after specific (on his talk page) and general warnings (On the article talk page) as well as truthful, if snippy comments in edits on that page by other editors.--Tznkai (talk) 12:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the talk page there, there was a peculiar claim concerning this editor. I don't know how convincing the claim is, but wanted to highlight it. Baccyak4H (Yak!) 04:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

And it appears that the editor has essentially confirmed that he has indeed been soliciting assistance off-wiki [193], while simultaneously trying to paint the entirety of the claim as outrageous and false. I have no idea if the identification of the current account with the account inactive since June is accurate or not - but if that identification is not accurate then there is at least one more current editor that has been soliciting such assistance for these articles. With the alleged older account inactive for 19 days before the current account began editing, and no topical overlap, I can't see a reason to go the WP:SSP route at the moment. Tznkai has cautioned the editor about such soliciting on the article's talk page. GRBerry 04:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Time for User:Ricky81682 to go?

No further action required. See content below. --VS ^talk 07:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I just happened to have found this place and I'm greatly concerned about Wikipedia's future viability if we allow people like Ricky81682 to run amock destroying the hard work of people like Kirker (and smearing people like AlasdairGreen27) just out of a personal vendetta. We need to immediately stop him and I would suggest a long hard block to make sure he doesn't edit here again. Look at the destruction he caused above at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Urgent_block_review_please. We cannot allow conduct like to go unnoticed and I think someone should go to Jimbo and stop it right now. 76.171.201.224 (talk) 07:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

For someone who has just found this place, you sure do know the ins and outs of it already.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

[EC] I agree Ryūlóng and I just happened to find this notice (and I admit have been editing for a long time). Indeed I couldn't add another word to your synopsis of this complaint.--VS ^talk 07:26, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

This IP has one other edit back in august 5 and guess who else is involved?[194] Ricky. Looks like sock puppetry to me. Considering a Checkuser request.--Tznkai (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

User:kirker has a recent history of conflict with Ricky and Rjecina, and a distinct lack of civility in much of it, writing tone seems suspicious. Anyone else want to weigh in before I submit a checkuser request on 76, Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 for block evasion?--Tznkai (talk) 07:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Let it go. There has been a mass of checkuser and sock allegations going back forever. Let's not add to it. It's probably meat puppetry anyways. Just offer an opinion at the other section and close this nonsense down as resolved. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the IP address looks closer to a series of crazies I annoyed late last year with another article. I wouldn't be surprised if it's not even related to these guys this time. I've been here long enough to annoy plenty of groups, some of whom I guess have nothing better to do than complain when they see me. My personal favorite was this chaos, including threats to complain to an Indian government minister. Seriously, people take things WAY too seriously. Can someone else just mark this as resolved and leave everyone on their way? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Tznkai certainly has an ingenious style in smearing. I followed his link to an earlier contribution from the anonymous editor IP 76.171.201.224 - the one about which Tznkai said "guess who else is involved?" In fact Ricky81682 was mentioned that earlier time along with others, and unless I misunderstood, there was absolutely no conflict between the Ricky81632 and the anonymous editor. Rather the reverse, I'd say.

I wonder what Tznkai means by my "suspicious" writing style? Perhaps we will be enlightened in the course of his sockpuppet investigations....

Rick81682's advice to "let it go" is a cop-out. Tznkai has set a hare running and should have the guts to follow through with a sockpuppet referral. For that reason I am removing the "resolved" tag (it plainly isn't resolved) and putting this item back on the noticeboard. Is that a legitimate procedure?

(Oh, like some others, I have only now found my way to this item. I was looking for a sockpuppet allegation against me that was allegedly entered somewhere here by Rjecina. All the links seem to be dead, and I haven't really fathomed the archive process yet.) Kirker (talk) 15:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I've left a note on this matter over at User talk:Tznkai#Sock thing at ANI and mentioned AlasdairGreen27 and Rjecina there. Those who are wondering about any new sockpuppet complaints that might concern them could look at WP:Requests for checkuser/Case/Brzica milos etc, filed on 8 September by Rjecina. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Because of administrator Tznkai my "pathetic" "small-minded mentality" [195] will not start another "idiotic" [196] try to block Kirker. In my thinking he must recieve reward, but we are having new warning...

Can somebody show me place where I can start meatpuppets actions because of edits Kirker and AlasdairGreen27 on this page, in articles Magnum Crimen and Miroslav Filipović--Rjecina (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Rjecina, cut that out right now. You are not helping at all. Stop with the allegations completely. A lot of them have been proven false, so quit repeating them to try to gain the upper hand. Otherwise, this thread was already archived not just once but twice. Can someone please manually archive this section, and split out the subsection below with a link? I really really don't like my name being dragged into this many threads. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:14, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ricky81682: an acceptable level of adjudication?

Ricky81682 blocked me for 31 hours, citing that I had refused to respond to complaints about me. He took that decision ten minutes after putting a notice on my talk page that I was the subject of a complaint. Was I really in error for failing to respond within ten minutes? I have put that point to him and no answer was his reply. He says that I refused to respond to a complaint against me a few weeks ago, but the record shows that I did respond. The only other complaint against me was in November 2007. I never knew about it, no action was taken against me and the complainant himself was banned. I have put all this to him too. No answer.

Why was it Ricky81682 who leapt in to deal with the present matter? Another editor put to him that he had a clear COI (conflict of interest?) - a point he seemed to concede. And someone else suggested that a block of 24 hours instead of 31 would be appropriate - a point which Ricky81682 ignored as far as I know. I asked him if there was a procedure whereby I could register a complaint against him, but again no reply.

I was blocked in response to a complaint from Rjecina, who is a disruptive and negative presence on Wikipedia as would be quickly realised by anyone skimming his contributions. One charming example, and this on a TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:World_War_II_persecution_of_Serbs&diff=prev&oldid=233977689

Rjecina also pushes a POV agenda but I concede that he might not be detached enough from the issues to realise that he is doing it. In answering some of his assertions, I said I was doing so only in the hope that others might see what an idiot he was. This was a flippant remark in the course of a substantial and reasoned response, as Ricky81832 knew well. As Ricky81682 also knew when blocking me, Rjecina had asserted among other things that my parents were born in Yugoslavia. (This was a desperate attempt to undermine my credentials as a disinterested editor.) Moreover when challenged, Rjecina went on to say that if I claimed otherwise, he would not trust my answer. (It's all there on my talk page.) And this is a guy about whom I am asked to assume good faith, LOL.

Set against the general pattern of Rjecina's behaviour towards me, my incivility was a trivial matter. I would never waste my time entering formal complaints about Rjecina's pathetic conduct, and I assumed that in return he could take robust responses on the chin. Obviously not.

In presenting his version of my history on this page, to justify his actions, Ricky81682 chose to put into my mouth a paraphrase of what I actually wrote, in order to suit his own agenda.

Ricky81682 stated that I cannot work with others. Anyone who looks at my editing history in the Ante Pavelić article for instance, or Stepinac, will see that he displays only his own ignorance with such a statement. And anyone looking at the Miroslav Filipović article will see that I am primarily concerned with bringing some of the crap on Wikipedia's Balkan pages up to the standard achieved in many other areas of the encyclopaedia. Sometimes I do this in the face of pathetic whining from editors like Rjecina, obsessed with pushing their small-minded agendas. Rjecina hates the Filipović аrticle as I have rewritten it of course (see its talk page), but there's nothing he can do about it despite his best efforts, since it is self-evidently non-POV and is comprehensively sourced throughout. I suspect it is his frustration over this matter that drives some of the wilder allegations of sockpuppetry etc that he makes against me.

In responding to an earlier complaint against him on this page, Ricky81682 proudly drew attention to a previous commotion in which he involved himself. A surprising response in view of his professed concern to spread sweetness and light. He has also said he will apologise if his blocking of me was unreasonably hasty. Where will he put such an apology, if it comes to that?

All in all, I would say that at the very least he needs to take a little more care over the matters in which he chooses to involve himself, or step aside so that progress can be made in a subject-area of Wikipedia that falls woefully short of an acceptable standard. Kirker (talk) 17:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, nor is it a place to be uncivil to other editors by calling them pathetic. Consider this a block warning for personal attacks.--Tznkai (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

On the off chance this isn't clear enough, no more personal attacks, or I'll issue a block. Subject to another administrator's review of course. For the next 24 hours, no further warnings will be issued on this matter.--Tznkai (talk) 18:01, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I was making no personal attacks - just putting cogent complaints about what seemed like unreasonable behaviour. That much, at least, Wikipedia should be able to live with. Moreover I described no-one as pathetic but described Rjecina's conduct as pathetic. But let people form their own views about that by looking at the record. For instance the Magnum crimen talk page (say from here onwards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnum_Crimen#J._A._Comment.27s_revision_.28September_2008.29) Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally Tznkai showed how little he knows about my recent squabbles when he gratuitously floated a fatuous rumour that I'm a sockpuppet.Kirker (talk) 18:27, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, calling someone's actions or them pathetic is a personal attack and will not be tolerated. An apology is encouraged, but not required.--Tznkai (talk) 18:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kirker, I'll put a way an admin once told me. It's hard to people to determine who is doing good edits and who is doing bad edits. Incivility, on the other hand, is clear. Acting uncivil makes it harder for people to take you seriously, no matter what you do. You can either take that as constructive criticism or ignore it completely under the guise of "I do good work, so I can act however I want." Regardless of everyone you work with, Rjecina seems to be a problem. Again, as I've asked, if Rjecina is doing something wrong, please explain with specific diffs. Pointing to a talk page and saying "they are disruptive" isn't helpful. I saw you mentioned the sockpuppetry allegations, which I've warned about (here albeit too late for your tastes, I guess). I agree that this checkuser request may be a bit much, and again, you should simply warn Rjecina and report on that conduct. Long diatribes again and again aren't helping. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Ok, Ricky81682, some of that I understand. My spat with Rjecina comes down to this: if he fabricates gratuitous assertions, for instance about my parents, and follows that by saying he is not going to believe any denial I may make, he forfeits any entitlement to an assumption of good faith and I will happily make facetious references to his own parentage as I did on your page. If he dishes it out, he should be able to take it, without running off to the admins at the slightest pretext. But he knows that when he does complain, he will always win, simply because I could never be bothered to complain about him. Kirker (talk) 11:15, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

"He did it first!" does not work as a excuse here. Wikipedia is not a playground. Have you not worked out yet that retaliating in kind provokes escalation? DGG (talk) 20:55, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

DGG, lighten up! This might not be a playground, but as I don't get paid for editing here, I'm entitled to a bit of fun. (f I get banned, big deal. Kirker (talk) 08:52, 10 September 2008 (UTC)