Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive379

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Noticeboard archives


Peculiar fixation on Jake Gyllenhaal[edit]

An editor -- from the evidence, BatterBean (talk · contribs) -- has been constantly recreating a rather odd assortment pages (disguised as User pages), which are cut-and-pastes of Fergie album articles with her name swapped out for Jake Gyllenhaal's. So far, the ones I've come across over the last several months and which have been deleted are:

This is getting a bit tiresome. He's been left messages every time he tries this, but he immediately deletes the warnings without comment. Anyone want to have a stronger word with User:BatterBean?

See also:

--Calton | Talk 02:14, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget User:Glow69, User:LeaveItAlone69, User:Scream69, User:CrazyLove69, and User:Livedvd69. I deleted a bunch of these userpages in December, all Fergie/Jake Gyllenhall nonsense, and if BatterBean is the culprit, we should probably dispatch of him from the site.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Any sockpuppetry check? I'd try blocking the IP address and if someone is suddenly autoblocked, things would be interesting, to say the least. I'd fear some more bizarre meatpuppetry here, which is would be quite difficult to follow. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I checkusered these, starting with the first few, and all matched BatterBean. I doubt it's worth checking the entire list, as it seems pretty obvious already. Also, that's a lot of work I'd rather avoid. ;-) Dmcdevit·t 08:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Anyone blocked the IP address (if it's fixed)? He'll either respond or stop playing around. Passive-aggressive, but works for me. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I would think that it is a much better idea to discuss whether or not we should allow BatterBean to continue editing Wikipedia with all of these other accounts being used improperly, rather than discuss whether or not the IP should be blocked (or request a formal check).—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Checkuser against User:Creepy Crawler. He had a JG fetish as well. ThuranX (talk) 12:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Advice advice[edit]

A user has asked for my advice as an administrator on a matter involving potential vandalism. But I was previously a mediator in a content matter involving him and the alleged vandals. So I feel it would be inappropriate for me to judge their conduct, as I'm an involved party. Could an uninvolved admin review and act on if necessary? Below is a copy from my user talk page. Thank you. MBisanz talk 02:34, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

"I advice you for 2 vandaling edits in my user page by same user:this one and other one. Also vandalism is this edit against valid and correct editor. You are admin and you know rules. Regards,--PIO (talk) 15:59, 1 March 2008 (UTC)"

First and third edits look like clear cut vandalism. Was the question whether it was vandalism or not? Looks like edit 1 deserves a warning, and edit 3 a considerably harsher warning. Avruch T 02:37, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Well my question was, can someone else handle this (warnings, etc). I was rather emphatic at the MEDCAB that no user conduct sanctions would come from me as a result of mediation, and I don't want to be seen as going back on my word to either side. MBisanz talk 02:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I warned the first user with a level 3 (because they'd had earlier warnings) and the second with a level 2 (because they apparently had not). delldot talk 02:58, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Regarding my edit, for which I've now been warned, did any of you actually read what User:Cherso had written to inspire the comment I put on his user page? I very much doubt it. However, I take my warning to heart and humbly apologise if I may have broken any rules. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 09:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

My userpages[edit]

User:Metros is having a bad day and wants to delete my userpages. I'm not advertising anything nor am I trying to promote a political agenda. I am "running for president" to promote wikilove and wikicohesion among editors. Its not serious and I don't expect anybody to vote for me. I am sorry if I caused any problems with it but I am not doing this out of bad faith. I feel it improves civility and makes the encyclopedia work better. Jimbo has encouraged WikiLove in the past with his support for the "Autograph" books.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 04:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

What would you like an administrator to do about this? This board is for actions to be taken, so administrators will need to know what you're looking to be done here. Your page was nominated for being, as I believe, inappropriate. It is essentially a blog where you're sharing your personal beliefs on how to change the world. This is inappropriate under WP:USER guidelines. The other page I nominated is not "your userpage" and is actually a Wikipedia-space list. (Discussions are at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Uga Man/presidential campaign, 2008 and Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians who ran for president) Metros (talk) 05:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I want an administrator to talk to you about your actions. Why do you keep reverting my attempts to talk to you when I have no bad faith intended.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Because your explanations for why you think your page is appropriate belongs at the deletion discussion, not a user talk page. Metros (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Reverting comments on one's own talk page is okay, and what is there for someone to 'talk to him about'? He provided a decent reason for the deletion, has composed himself civilly, and is not acting in a disruptive manner. This is a non-issue. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I was explaining my reasoning to him. Using a rollback summary implying vandalism when it is not, is incivil. If somebody thinks something is divisive explain it to me on my talk page, there is no reason to bring it to AFD. I think it is a waste of an AFD since the editor Metros could have just left a friendly message on my talk page and the whole issue could have been adverted.--Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Seems like a waste of a MFD too, but it's there. Silly but just go along with process, Uga Man, and explain your reasoning there. You are not probably going to gain anything by talking to Metros. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Did not mean to imply anything by that; sorry if I did. Just meant that you should go to the centralized discussion. Talk with Metros wouldn't do much. At best, he could withdraw the nomination but it would be more effective to try to answer everyone questions, if they are any, at the MFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Notice of range block[edit]

I have blocked the range for 1 month due to only vandalism (as far as I can tell) coming from the range. I had previously blocked it about a week ago for 1 week due to extensive vandalism, and the vandalism restarted almost immediately upon that block expiring. The following IPs were all used for vandalizing the same set of articles:

They are all from some ISP in Indonesia. Whoever it is seemed to like adding various MGM-related info to totally unrelated articles. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:26, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Nihon. The following 5 blocks would cover the range and only block 15,872 IP's as opposed to the 65,536 that you have blocked.

  • 23
  • 22
  • 21
  • 20
  • 19

Perhaps you may want to minimize the block -- Avi (talk) 06:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's a thought, but this guy keeps switching IPs, and the range keeps getting bigger (there were fewer last time). However, they are all within the 118.137.x.x range. I also left the possibility open for a person to create an account if they really want to edit, so it's not a completely shut door. Just a guard asking for ID. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 06:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, thanks for the update. -- Avi (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

EnglishClassKazan (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: See below. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Short query: see the user page for the above user: is this an acceptable use of a Wikipedia user account? -- Roleplayer (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Userpage deleted and another page this user has created have been deleted as a role account userpage and under U2 respectively. ECK has been indef-blocked as {{usernameblock}}. Rudget. 13:59, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Attack only account?[edit]

Resolved: Indef blocked by MaximTravistalk 16:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:TenOfSpades has made three edits since his account was created on 22nd Feb purely to insult other users on a user's talk page. Could someone please sort him out? I don't know whether this would be classed as an attack-only account, another user hiding behind a sockpuppet, etc but he clearly has an attitude problem. Cheers, John Smith's (talk) 15:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the last edit, I've issued a final (only) warning; no reason to put up with someone who has done nothing but insult other users. He suggests at a history on Wikipedia, so pissed off sockpuppet is a good probability. I certainly wouldn't object if someone blocked him. Someguy1221 (talk) 15:43, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
There's no need to issue warnings for obvious sockpuppet trolls. Blocked as one accordingly. Maxim(talk) 15:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. John Smith's (talk) 15:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Edits to support eBay fraud[edit]

Resolved: blocked

Account Thomiswil and two -puppets (see RfCU/Thomiswil) have been engaged in edits designed to remove unfortunate facts and supporting references from “E. M. Washington”, and to replace these with fulsome praise and other dubious assertions:

edits by [1], [2], [3]
edits by [4], [5]
edits by Thomiswil: [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]

eBay account thomiswil is selling work by Washington:

  1. [14]
  2. [15]
  3. [16]

And at least one of these auctions (1950 M. C. Escher by E. M. Washington 'Gargoyls' (Rare)) resumes the Washington fraud, dating a wood-block or print to “1950-1969”. (Washington was born in 1962, and didn't make any wood-blocks until the '90s.) —SlamDiego←T 17:21, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It appears the editors last edit was more then 48 hours ago, as there are vandalism warnings on the talk page addressing the behavior and it has stopped, we can probably assume no further action is required at this time. Jeepday (talk) 17:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This is a single-purpose account with a transparent motivation to return to vandalizing, whose prior improper edits continued well after warnings were given. —SlamDiego←T 17:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
A checkuser case was filed regarding this matter. Now  Confirmed - Alison 17:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Blocked. RlevseTalk 18:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

blatant sockpuppet needs blocking[edit]

KayShawn24 (talk · contribs) is a blatant sockpuppet of Shawnkay1 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) vandalizing the Tammy Lynn Sytch article. Sock is editing in the same manner as the indefblocked editor and the username is just a variation of the original account. WP:DUCK -- Nobody of Consequence (talk) 18:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User:David Fuchs[edit]

I've spent the last 24 hours trying to decide if I should really blackbox it and leave the project. I wrote this to be a summarry, but maybe someone else would like to examine it.

Having spent two months revamping the hulk article, and getting it up to Good Article status, to have another editor blank repeatedly what I and others had worked hard on, was frustrating. To be the third editor to revert his edits, and the first to invite him to use the talk page, I was shocked by his response, which attacked me for violating WP:OWN, and having failed the GA. The refusal of an admin to use the talk pages, and to continue to attack me is bad. That he's been dismissive of consensus is worse. When I offered a simple starting place for consensus, his reply was plain. I was no longer welcome on the article. As such, I delisted the article, and will be moving on. I am not sure where I went wrong, that after two others reverted him without comment, it was I who was attacked. I do care about the article, and given how much I put into it, I feel justified in watching over it. But it has been edited by others since (4K in added material), and I've been open to other improvements. I do feel that having hit GA, I was also justified in making sure newer edits added value, not just bytes and hype, to the article. To have all my work repudiated is bad enough, but to have it all come under a pile of attacks is enough for me to leave the project. When admins model that sort of behavior, it's not hard to understand why so many people leave.

Am I right that his actions were poor, if not outright wrong? ThuranX (talk) 23:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Um. Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing, at first glance. I need to look closer into this. Oh, and FWIW don't leave, we can't do without good editors like you. Black Kite 00:30, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
i agree. this other guy is acting like a rela prick but its important to assume good faith and continue to try to colelaborate with him. i have seen many instances of users who seem kind of unhelpful when they first join but grow to become incredible editors who later even become admins or even presidents. his behavior indicates that he is at least interested in editing the article Hulk so i would recomend that you back off him for a bit and wait here for an administrator to interveine. sometimes engaging someone can be helpful but toehr times disengaging and letting the soul struggle work itself out for the fate of your wikipedia editing careres to be a far more rsafer alternatronive. Smith Jones (talk) 00:38, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
David is an administrator, not a new user. Your comment "Acting like a rela prick" is a personal attack, and you should be warned that violating that policy on this page often leads to a block. Please - try to make your comments here constructive, and use "Preview" before you save in order to correct the other errors that have pointed out to you many, many times. Avruch T 00:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I should also point out Thuran that you didn't need to strip the article of GA status just because I voiced the concern it may not have met the requirements. That's what WP:GAR is for, and I'd rather improve the article rather than going through that process. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, I do hope you will stay with the project. Thank you for developing a great article. Staying calm and keeping your own behaviour top-notch will produce the best chance of getting calm, reasonable behaviour from other editors, in my opinion. --Coppertwig (talk) 14:41, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
"Staying calm and keeping my own behaviour top-notch" didn't get me anything but hostile responses and accusations of policy violations. I was polite, invited him to use talk instead of just reverting. Three editors say no to the changes he makes, one says 'come talk to us' and he yells at that one. I really wish I'd started a revert war. It would've been simpler.
As for David Fuchs, he was absolutely clear, not that he had "the concern it may not have met the requirements", he stated that it should never have passed. So I delisted it. When an article no longer meets the standard, it is stripped of the status ,and returned to a lower status. David Fuchs made it clear on the talk page that he does not need consensus to do anything on Wikipedia, and so I am simply enabling his no doubt incredible rewrite, making sure that everything is smooth for him. I am troubled though, that having promised a great rewrite, he dropped all efforts on the page once I left it.ThuranX (talk) 21:25, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Can some other respected editors please stop by the Talk page in question and weigh in on recent activities and actions? Things are getting quite...silly. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

And now ThuranX has begun editing the article to remove his earlier contributions, an obvious violation of WP:POINT and WP:OWN. Please, someone else try talking with this valued editor before he completely ruins his reputation and the article(s) he has edited. I have personally run out of patience with him or her and I am now withdrawing myself from this issue. --ElKevbo (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
An admin gamed 3RR, ignored CONSENSUS, and was incivil the whole while. He stated that consensus is not applicable if he thinks an article needs fixing, thus using Administrative Fiat to establish, by his word alone, a new CONSENSUS. I brought it to AN/I, where no one found his actions to be any problem. Now I'm in trouble for working with the new consensus. I can't win either way. If I argue with him, I'm making a bad article worse, if I undo all my mistakes, I'm a vandal and a disruptor. I'm totally confused, because WIkipedia LIKES how David Fuchs edits, and now I'm doing what he does. he said the article failed its' Good Article Review, so I reset the rating to Fail, and B rating article, removed it fr omteh GA listings, and closed an unneeded GAR. How can this be wrong? David Fuchs says it's right. And consensus here at AN/I is that David Fuchs does no wrong, per Avruch, who points out that as an admin, not new user, David FUchs kenw what he was doing. Note that Avruch finds no fault in the actions, and no one has countered Avruch, thus establishing that consensus is for all of David Fuchs actions. ThuranX (talk) 20:09, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
You're being childish, Thuran, and disruptive. I never stated that since I was an admin it failed GA; I said it probably would fail if it was taken to WP:GAR. No you are acting petulant and being as incivil as I evidently was. I am not trying to create any sort of fiat; I shouldn't have reverted repeatedly, but your accusations of a cabal are lunacy. I am attempting to cut down the long character history masquerading as publication and characterization, and you complain I'm adding more in. I will not respond to this any more, since you've gone off the deep end. I've said I'm sorry, I offered to be more cooperative, and you've spat at me and everyone who has told you to calm down. If you're so upset, leave. But this tirade has gone on long enough. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A bald faced lie. YOu've never once apologized, you've never offered to cooperate with me. YOu jsut keep saying you know what's best for Wikipedia, and that I wrote a shitty article alone and have OWN problems. I worked with many others. I asked for input throughout, then ran it through three reviews by regular editors of the Hulk page, while it was on my sandbox. After I posted it, I watched it but was careful to avoid OWN, and it grew by 4K. I've thought about ways to continue to improve the article, and had intended to begin examining ways to incorporate the Powers article, and incorporate the work of Grest & Weinberg regarding Hulk's powers. Instead, all you have done is insult anyone who worked on it. I worked to cite all I could in the publication and Characterization sections, ensuring that the rampant In-Universe style of Plot narration was dropped, because it's simple not encyclopedic. I added sources left right and center. Your first edit was to blank all of that. No explanations except "i'll come back and fix this shitty article when I want to".
Three editors demonstrated there was consensus against you, and you ran right up to 3RR on it, rather than talk. When I reverted you the third time, and invited you to talk, you insulted me. I ignored that and tried patiently to explain WHY things were the way they were and WHY consensus was FOR the state of the page. You insulted me again, and again, and again. Every time I tried, your actions got worse. You instituted a new consensus that the article sucks alone, refuting all existing consensus. but luckily for you, Avruch supports you, and NetKiinetic showed up out of the blue to champion you. I've never asserted there's a cabal going on, but you did have two editors defend you without clearly looking at the situation. That's not a cabal, it's just Wikipedia.
As for the fail, you stated that the article "really doesn't pass GA standards." That's a FAIL. there's no two ways to interpret that. You said it does not meet the standards. THus, it should never have been given a pass. I have worked hard to rectify this obvious bureaucratic blunder.
In short, you have shown quite clearly that Administrators do not need to hew to the same rules as editors. I'm simply falling in line behind the new power structure. Really, what's the problem? ThuranX (talk) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I've had very good experiences with ThuranX in the past, and I'm sorry to see this issue causing him such upset. ElKevbo, I suggest that when someone is clearly upset and frustrated because their article work hasn't been appreciated, calling it silly won't help calm the situation. I don't know what to do to help, I wish I did, but I'm sorry to see this happening. I hope others will stay calm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Labeling this as silly is being quite generous and nice. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 21:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I thought my only comment in this thread was directed at Smith Jones, but apparently I'm mistaken... Avruch T 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Since my opinion is being bandied about anyway, here it is: this and the adjacent edit from ThuranX are completely inappropriate and could justify a block, certainly a warning. David's conduct was not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins, but it does appear from the above comments that he recognizes this. On the other hand, bad behavior doesn't excuse bad behavior. I suggest, ThuranX, that you take a step back from this article and get some perspective. Work on something else, take a quick Wikibreak, and come back hopefully willing and able to move beyond this episode. Avruch T 23:46, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Since I was asked to read this, I can see that per this, and Emperor's comments at the Hulk page, it's all MY fault. I"m beyond frustrated with this, I'm just sick. All these people who talk about how good an editor I am, and my 'reputation' are clearly mistaken. My editing fails a GA it passed, because David Fuchs said so, and was so bad he overrode consensus to do it his way. He IGNORED CONSENSUS. No one's said anythign about that. He's STILL ignoring consensus, making edits to the page. SO my editing can't be good at all.
As for my reputation, I don't know who any of these people claiming to know my reputation are; and cannot recall working with any on any article or talk page, so I can only conclude that either they're thinking about someone else, or my name comes up in off wiki places without my knowledge. As far as I've ever seen, my reputation is that I'm one of the pro-vandalism cabal who hate MONGO and who never edit, just lay in wait to pounce on him, and I got away with it once. That's the rep I know I have here. So... to those discussing me elsewhere, either link me so I can see what's being said behind my back, or stop talking and figure out who you're really thinking of.
I can't be clear enough in my frustrations. David Fuchs broke three major rules, and at best it's been said "not the type of editing style I expect to see from admins" and "Not a particularly impressive example of collaborative editing". No one has seen anything wrong with his actions. No one has said 'David Fuchs broke rules in ways that get most editors warned or blocked. That he's an admin and knows better makes this worse in my eyes; Admins are supposed to model the best behavior. When three different people revert you, use the talk. When you're invited to use the talk, be civil. He wasn't civil. I ignored it and he was incivil again. And again. I'm tired of writing up the summary, because the events are clear. Only when it was clear that post facto he had 'consensus by absence of objection' did I change and fall in line. I acted in the best spirit of Wikipedia to clean up the things he said were wrong, like a false rating. And I got in MORE trouble for that, with people accusing me of point violations and disruption. And I still don't get it. If people get away with doing wrong, what other choice do I have? Keep fighting him? He was given a pass on his actions here. If I had kept fighting him, I would've been blocked. Instead, I'm in trouble for accepting that I lost and doing the right thing by making the new consensus an actual consensus. And still editors say 'go use the talk page and build a consensus'. But HOW???? David Fuchs said on the talk page that trying to build consensus gets in the way of him fixing the article. How much clearer can it be that the ONLY choice is to accept and abide, because fighting him hurts Wikipedia. No one has addressed this. I've heard lots of 'Cool off' comments, but not one 'David Fuchs fucked up' comment. Why is that? I really am thoroughly confused at this point, and I'm also insulted by the lies that I ignored his apologies. He never apologized. Never. Instead, he went from 'get out of my way' to 'I already said sorry, so get out of my way!', without the intermediate 'sorry'. Then he characterizes me in all sorts of bad ways, after I did what he said, I got on his side to fix the article. There seems to be no pleasing him. I don't even want to try anymore. If you all knew some of the things I've gone through because of Wikipedia... Ask User:Newyorkbrad. He knows I've gone through the kind of Wikipedia stuff that permanently chases off editors, and I fought and stuck around through it. But this imbalance between David Fuchs' actions and mine, and the reception of both has broken my desire to be a part of Wikipedia anymore. To see an editor come in, ignore consensus, build his own false consensus and act on it till by repetition it seems to become real, and then blame those who stood up for the real, existing consensus as ruining articles? It's too much to see that go unchallenged by anyone but me. I'm sorry, but I really just don't want to do this anymore, because the unfairness there is too much to carry and keep looking at pages here. I look at any page on my watchlist, and wonder... how long till I do some amazing digging, and someone completely ignores my work and the work of the others who help, and just BOLDLY upends the article? David Fuchs never even bothered to look at the article's history, to see why the Characterization replaced a long fannishly written and mostly uncited Character History. He blanked out the sources I tracked down. I did everything 'by the book'. Look at my Sandbox and its' talk page for just SOME of what I did with others to make this article good., I may have done the typing and research, but I made sure to get input from many others over and over. David Fuchs didn't bother to ask, or look into ANY of this. If any editor really intends to rewrite an article from scratch, as He has stated is his intent, they should learn to check what's gone before. As an admin, he should already know this. But instead, he acted in the worst possible manner as far as cooperation goes, but no one seems to care. It's too much for me to respect this process anymore, because after all this, someone who doesn't respect the process can just undo it. had he come to the talk after being invited and put a list of things he's like to change, I'd have worked with him. Hulk as FA before the movie comes out would be great. But on the very first thing I offered up for consensus, his response was a POINT violating edit and summary.
Did I go to far in my recent edits? Perhaps. But when you see the rules broken over and over, and see an admin getting a pass, what else can happen? I shouldn't have called him a fucking idiot. Fucking jerk, maybe, but not fucking idiot. At least that would've been more specific about his actions and attitudes instead of his intellect. But I'm not apologizing for my fixing of the article status, because the rules say whenever someone disagrees with a GA rating, it loses the GA by nothing more than saying 'this article isn't GA'. Because David Fuchs said it never met the standard, that's him effectively failing it at the time of the nomination. I fixed the rating to meet that. And as to my supposed childishness, well, no. What I did was make it crystal clear that I was trying to accept his supposed Consensus. He didn't have it, still doesn't, but he's gotten away with it, none the less. That leaves me feeling hollow defeat, and I don't like feeling that whenever I look at wikipedia. I really don't think that anything but leaving is right for me now. Anyways, I tried to write one "calm" version of my feelings, since no one thinks my other statements were me being serious. It's not fair, and that's that. ThuranX (talk) 04:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, I'm sorry if I confused things by trying to help out. It took me all day to track down a very old post, and to realize that I had mixed you up with TheronJ. My apologies for the confusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:33, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
ThuranX, I am unsure how you construed my comments to mean I am saying it is your fault. What I'm aiming at is a "no blame" approach on the talk page so we can actually work towards improving the article and getting it back on track for GA.
There are problems on both sides but the talk page there is not the best arena for people to air their grievances in such a manner (as it is derailing the whole effort). If you have problems with another editor (whether they are an admin or not) is to get more input (from, for example the Comic Project and/or other editors) and here as a last resort. There is nothing that isn't fixable but you need to stay civil and not take this so personally so we can sort this out. (Emperor (talk) 19:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC))
There's no way to talk it out. I tried. I tried that first, and I tried it again and again, and so far, not one person has said David Fuchs did anything wrong. Not one. Fuchs hasn't apologized. He went from saying he didn't have to, to saying he already did. No one cares about that. Just that I keep demanding some action, and all I get is 'go take a wikibreak, ThuranX'. Well, hell no. If you all thought a wikibreak was so badly needed, I'd have been blocked. But instead, you're all hoping I'll shut up and go away, and NOT get David Fuchs a clear rebuke. Why? I think it's cause he's short list for ArbCom replacements, and there's a sense of duty to protect him. Well it does no good for the project to get someone like him, who acts without consensus and without apology when wrong, on Arbcom. He doesn't read things through or do research, he steps in, makes a determination, and attacks others. That's not who we want for Arbcom. Not one person here or on the article talk has said one thing about his behavior beyond 'maybe we should think about if he did something wrong', but everyone here is absolutely sure that I'm to blame for all of this. On the talk page, Emperor called for ME to leave it but not David Fuchs, saying all the regular active editors should walk away. IN other words, get out of David Fuchs' way, he can save the article. That's how you blamed me for all of it, Emperor. IF that's how it goes, that community consensus is that regular editors should jsut get out of the way when some new editor runs ramshod all over their work, without discussion of finding consensus, then fine. Community ban me and be done with it. But David Fuchs will just do it again and again until someone makes him accept that he did something WRONG. How many editors are you willing to lose before you make him accountable for his actions? ThuranX (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I have to totally agree with you. There are quite a few admins who are railroding regular dedicated editors without investigating the whole issue. I do not know if there is a hidden agenda behind this. Are they trying to score points to be advanced? It may sure seem like so. We are losing one edito after another. Even good dedicated admins are living. The Undertoe left, Michael is on protes strike. What is going on here? Have we become so vindictive and venomous that we are blind and not thinking about the project as a whole but as advancment of our own interest? I see this as WP:COI. If an admin wants to be an admin just to have power over other users that admin may need to be desysosped for the interest of Wikipedia project. Igor Berger (talk) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You are again misrepresenting what I said - I didn't say for you to stop - I said ALL active editors had to take a step back. There was an edit war over that page just staying this side of WP:3RR and it needed to stop. I also think you either need to be civil or take a break as could very easily get yourself blocked and I for one want to try and get this resolved without that. None of this is saying he is right and you are wrong - it is rarely that simple. It is about getting the right result for the article. (Emperor (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC))
No, I'm sorry. It's about David Fuchs' behavior being examined carefully. I waited for Black Kite to look into this more (he didn't) I had hoped Avruch would look more closely at what he'd said, and what he was supporting (Not sure if he did or not, so far he seems fine with all David Fuchs' behaviors). I waited on the talk page, but got more insulted. So I gave up. I did what David Fuchs wanted. It cost the article its GA status, one which took two months of hard work to earn. This, surprisingly, was where people noticed. And what did they notice? Not that David Fuchs had revoked status, not that he'd gamed, ignored, and broken rules, but that I was following consensus in a way they didn't like. Not one said hey, there's consensus that this article is good, no... Not one person spoke up to complain about David Fuchs. Just about me. It's hypocritical, and i hate it. Why is he immune from examination? Why is it suddenly only about MY behavior, and the good of the article, and not about his persistent behaviors that got the ball rolling here? ThuranX (talk) 05:38, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, I haven't called for a Desysoping, just a formal rebuke and an apology. I'm not getting either though. ThuranX (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I feel that ThuranX has been acting incivil in this matter. It's twice that he's calling editors interferring or comment unneeded.[17][18]
Moreover, he unilaterally blanked the GAR page for Hulk [19] after PeterSymonds requested for review. Now to be fair, I believe that David Fuchs does not need to "bold delist" this article. David should have given an "on hold for 7 days before delist" approach. This approach would have prevented such drama. The so-called "bold delist" is only for those that fails obviously (e.g. completely no reference or the article is only 10 sentence long) but misunderstood by most in the community. So after some consideration, the April issue of GA newsletter will cover the aspect of "bold delist". OhanaUnitedTalk page 05:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
To be clear, I did the delisting, not David Fuchs. David Fuchs instead failed the article after it had passed GA. He gave no specifics, and had already gamed 3RR, been incivil and so on. I can't help but note that every bit of this entire situation has been David Fuchs doing wrong, then the entire thing twisting back at me being the only one in the wrong. Why isn't his gaming of 3RR, his refusal thrice over to initiate talk proceedings (One, before his massive blanking first edit, two and three before each revert), and his incivility when I very nicely asked him to the talk, and his further incivility when I replied to him more than once. Only after all that, after I brought it here where it was largely ignored (Black Kite never got back to it, Avruch effectively negated Smith Jones' comment and subtly supported David Fuchs), did I concede and initiate the pursuit of David Fuchs new consensus, one instituted by nothing more than his adamant refusal to follow policies. Only once I went in that direction did anyoen take notice of the situation, and then, only to complain about my actions. I followed every step Wikipedia has, only to have the entire system of polciy and recourse fail. Amazing that it works so well now that it's not an admin on the hot seat, eh? ThuranX (talk) 05:33, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎[edit]

User:Galassi has created Notable victims of the Babi Yar massacres, containing largely the same information as the deleted Known victims of the Babi Yar massacres‎. I tagged it for speedy deletion as a memorial, and Galassi is getting pretty upset about it, making threatening comments and now canvassing other users for assistance. See also the Talk:Babi Yar page for relevant discussion. This appears to be a contentious issue in general, so some input from other admins would be helpful. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not surprised the author is getting upset. "Memorial" is not a valid speedy reason per WP:CSD, and it should go to PROD or AfD instead. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I made a comment on his talk page about his incivility. I'll wait to see how he responds and if nothing else, it should go through a full AFD. I suspect it'll be a "voting" nightmare but this will give everyone a chance to discuss it. The article could be done {Category:Lists of victims), but it's style is just wrong. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

If someone else could list it that would be great -- someone's head might explode otherwise. Exploding Boy (talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I tagged the article for Prod under the condition that it is a replica of a previously deleted article. However, if the user removes the tag and you feel strongly about it, bring it to AfD and make your case. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I removed the prod. Again, the previous deletion was a violation of WP:NOT which is not a speedy reason. At noted on the talk page, there are other lists of victims out there, so there is a possible precedent. If it were an AFD, I might reconsider, but the article's still very new. Whew, this is moving fast! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:37, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I was surprised it was speedy deleted under WP:NOT/memorial. The nominator and the deleting admin obviously worked too hastily. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, around and around we go! On to the AFD! -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:07, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Well, "memorial" is not a CSD reason - but "recreation of deleted material" is. Was the new article sufficiently different? If not it have been best to keep the speedy and let people try DRV; it could have been explained there. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:40, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is not. Only recreation of susbtantially the same article after an AfD that does not address the reason for deletion. Logically, if the original speedy was correct and the new article doesn't address the reason, then it's speedyable under the same reason as the first, no need to introduce the question of procedure. If the original speedy was wrongly done, or the new article overcomes the objection, then it's a completely new ballgame and the original speedy doesn't establish any precedent. Wikidemo (talk) 01:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry I missed this yesterday. The article is a POV fork of Babi Yar, an attempt to get a named list of Ukrainian nationalists killed at Babi Yar into an article. (The 60,000 Jews massacred there are, for the most part, forever anonymous). There is barely an attempt at answering questions of notability, eg "Numerous other less prominent writers, such as..." followed by a list of nine names. Currently listed at WP:Articles for deletion/List of victims of the Babi Yar massacre. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jd2718 (talkcontribs) 02:43, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible sockpuppetry/abuse on Council on American-Islamic Relations 2[edit]

RE: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive377#Possible_sockpuppetry.2Fabuse_on_Council_on_American-Islamic_Relations I did not get a response. Why was this archived away? M1rth (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

A bot archives things immediately. See "If no comment, or no further comment, has been made after a 48-hour period, your post and any responses will be automatically archived." -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yet some of the archived threads have posts dated today. I suggest Misza be asked about his bot but meanwhile M1rth, suggest you copy the thread back here. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying below: M1rth (talk) 19:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

When I click "first entry in the "Open cases" section at WP:SPP, I don't have that, but I'm curious why no one has even bother to post a comment on the user talk pages. Why not at least give them the basic warning templates, point them to the talk page, something? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:02, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to add a short semi-protection on the article and see if that helps. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:06, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, the protection's over and it seems calm. Actually the wording they were fighting about seems to have gone their way. Another example of why incivility can be counter-productive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange behaviour at an article[edit]

A bunch of accounts suddenly started messing with the John Brooke-Little article. What should be done with those accounts? Gimmetrow 06:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

First protect then warn. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Strange that they're so close together; looks coordinated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:08, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 6 accounts in 7 minutes, and two sets of two names are connected. All but one account looks like a single-edit throwaway. Should these be considered socks, if so of who, and should they be blocked for a single edit? Gimmetrow 06:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that it's plausible it is a coordinated attack, but we should wait before going for a block. bibliomaniac15 I see no changes 06:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Very weird. My hunch is that there are two friends working together to do this; it seems unlikely that one person would be able to log in, open an article, edit it, log out, and repeat this process over and over, that many times, in so few minutes. But I suppose it's possible. The "Hiderek" name suggests to me that the editor is probably not named Derek and that if there are indeed two vandals, Derek is his/her partner in Wikicrime. Jonneroo (talk) 06:20, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Anybody sticking goatse on articles should be indef. blocked until they explain and promise not to do it again. Corvus cornixtalk 06:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I'd suggest protection but I'd rather these guys come out and get themselves blocked. If it goes too fast, lock it down. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

User creation log. Gimmetrow 14:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Puppets all indefinitely blocked. I left the puppeter unblocked for now, but anyone else in the mood can go ahead. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Please go ahead and block the puppeter now; he/she is vandalizing again and was given a final warning yesterday. Jonneroo (talk) 04:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Gimmetrow just did; thank you. Jonneroo (talk) 04:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks. He came by my talk page to remind me himself. If the article starts up again, I'd recommend a checkuser to flush the whole mess out. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:29, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Of the known accounts involved, only hiderek is not blocked. I'll keep an eye on it. Gimmetrow 06:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

removing other editors comments from AFD[edit]

Resolved: AfD close, editor warned about policy

I'd like to report well... me. I removed this comment from the AFD (which is going to get closed as SNOW) of Norman Bettison (head of West Yorkshire Police). As many of you will be aware, media sources in the UK have covered the fact that he is unhappy with the article (see here and here),and some of his staff have been in touch with us to try and work something out and deal with his concerns. I have therefore removed the comment (but left the !vote!) on the basis that a) it's a basis breach of BLP and b) it's very counter-productive when we have the media watching the article and related activity. Am I wrong in my actions in this matter (I'm asking for admin input because removal of comments at afd can get quite heated) --Fredrick day (talk) 10:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Very rarely are comments allowed to be refactored. Either they may be struck out or in this case, a note should be inserted that a BLP violation was removed and the original vote can be viewed in the history. Also it may be a good idea to leave a short note on the user's talk page as well that AFD comments are to be made free of personal attacks/BLP violations before reporting it on places like ANI. As far as your last concern, no you were not wrong however, I would strongly recommend leaving a note on that user's vote due to refactoring the user's comment. Hope that answers your questions.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 11:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
I did leave the !vote in but will follow your suggestion, I left a comment about the removal on the user's page. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. You were correct, Fredrick day; and it's not uncommon for inappropriate comments to be deleted (even in AfDs). It would be tactful to note your removal by adding <attack removed> and a relevant diff. --PeaceNT (talk) 11:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Will do. --Fredrick day (talk) 11:24, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
editor has returned and has reverted back in his personal attack which is in breach of our BLP policies - please see here. While I'd rather not get into an edit war, I also rather that the press coverage of this matter does not extend to how we let people take such pot-shots at living figures. --Fredrick day (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
  • AFD has now been closed anyway, so this should not recur, but I have reminded this editor of the importance of core policy. I will be keeping an eye on his edits. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Need a range block done[edit]

Resolved: See below. — E talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi all. I've been reverting this user all day and they just seem to keep changing their IP. Because I'm not familiar with range blocking, can I get someone to block the range of these IPs.

So its from 64.228.*.*. Thank you in advance, — E talk 13:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that we're dealing with a lot less than 64.228.*.*. I think that should be enough. And a range block over 2 IP addresses is a bit excessive. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Correct CIDR range is — Werdna talk 13:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Since others might also wonder, here's some info to help. You may wish to block the IP range, or semi-protect the pages. Since I assume you know how to do the latter, here's some quick tips on the former:
If you visit and enter the first IP, you'll find that's part of an ISP range covering - In fact this covers both IPs in question. [if the ISP wasn't in that part of the world, it would mention RIPE or APNIC or such - links are on the bottom, again you paste the IP into their website to see what they say]. You can then check quickly what CIDR range this would be, at this calculator for example. Enter the lower IP and choose a number of bits in the drop-down box. See what range that covers. By trial and error, you'll find that 22 bits covers it, and the CIDR box on the right will then show as covering - This would be the range you block. You'd remember not to block IPs too long, since every user on that range would be affected.
Hope that helps! FT2 (Talk | email) 14:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
This works better for me: — pick the most specific range, and look under 'CIDR'. — Werdna talk 14:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes, you may wish to minimize the collateral damage, and then you may need to chain together a few blocks. For example, the suggestion at WP:ANI#Notice of range block. In that case, however, the original blocking admin had good reason to block the entire 65,536 range. -- Avi (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

 Done. I've blocked the range for 8 days. — E talk 14:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You all should make some notes at for future reference. Jeepday (talk) 15:05, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
All you lazy slow-pokes like me can use rangeblock-calculator. It even tells you what ranges are safe to block without major collateral damage. Maxim(talk) 15:47, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow. The rangeblock calculator is magic. Natalie (talk) 17:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Shweet. Then again, it will put those of us who used the old-fashioned method out of business and make us look really dumb :) -- Avi (talk) 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Old talk page comments and notices[edit]

So I came across Talk:Jr. Food Mart and Talk:Jitney Jungle - both of which are Mississippi-founded companies.

  1. Jr. Food Mart had 2 Fair Use Image notices for 2 different images, both images of which have been deleted. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those Fair Use Image notices. User:Tkynerd has reverted me each time, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag.
  2. Jitney Jungle has 2 comments from July 2006, both by the same user, Tkynerd and 2 comments from 2007, one by Tkynerd in July and one by an IP in September. So in the process of placing the WikiProject Mississippi tag on the page, I removed those old comments. Tkynerd reverted me twice, including removing the WikiProject Mississippi tag. To satisfy him by not deleting the old comments again, I created an archive and moved them there. He has taken them back out of the archive and put them back on the talk page.

Would someone handle this matter and let me know what the policy is on old comments and deleted image notices for images that have been deleted. I called myself doing the right thing but since Tkynerd wants to edit war over it, I'd like to get some admin takes on this. If I'm wrong, say so. If he's wrong, please tell him to leave it alone. - ALLSTAR echo 16:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Why remove comments? It's bound to antagonize users. Apologise, restore them and the tag with it. Write a brief line of apology on their user pages, and they may accept your tag. The thing is, the discussion about the images or other issues may seem resolved at the moment, but having the discussion on the talk page may stop a user new to the page from restoring them. See what I mean? Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Not just comments, notices too, as you see a difference. There's no need to remove talk page comments, unless they're abusive. You could archive I suppose, but you may as well keep them there to stop other users recreating and/or using the pics. Special Random (Merkinsmum) 20:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Disclosing personal information as punishment, sockpuppeting, POV pushing, edit warring, single purpose harassment accounts[edit]

Resolved: Dealing with this at WP:SSP. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Note:This was recently archived without resolution or comment. If there is some problem with it, please let me know. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 16:28, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Requesting a block on Willdakunta (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and suspected sockpuppets for habitual edit warring and per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Protection "disclosing personal information" (see also Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Willdakunta).

This user was previously blocked 1 in the Nhguardian incarnation for edit warring with Jrclark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and for related 3RR process disruption; in fact, this user's entire purpose here on Wikipedia seems aimed at disrupting the edits of that user. See edit histories of socks for details. Commonality of edit history and talk page rhetoric is blatantly apparent. This has been ongoing for many months now with small periods of inactivity between.

User engages in exposing of personal information of other users as punishment for disagreeing with him, here most recently on my talk page as Willdakunta 2, here as Isp 3 here as Nhguardian, 4, and here as Isp 5.

Suspected sockpuppets

NHguardian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Freeskier328 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

(Note: User has been simultaneously reported on Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets) for sockpuppetry.

Thanks. --Pgagnon999 (talk) 20:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I asked him to stop, and discuss what he was doing.[edit]

Resolved: Routine content dispute, no need for admin action

I asked another wikipedian who had made several dozen large excisions I considered controversial, and poorly explained to stop, and discuss the issues with me.

They did leave a couple of comments. But, within 25 minutes, they continued with the same kind of edits. As of right now they made six further similar excisions.

Is this OK? Isn't this a breach of WP:NOT#wikipedia is not a battleground?

Now maybe his or her point is completely correct? Maybe if we had a real discussion, at the end I would say openly acknowledge I was convinced that their position was correct, and I had been wrong. But a reasonable request to pause for discussion shouldn't just be blown off, should it? Geo Swan (talk) 18:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Please be specific. Exactly who did exactly what on exactly which article? Raymond Arritt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Multiple articles about Guantanamo Bay detention camp detainees contain boilerplate relating to the legal background of Combatant Status Review Tribunals and Administrative Review Boards. These two administrative procedures of Guantanamo also have their own articles. In many cases the boilerplate appears to be padding introduced to bulk out the article. The boilerplate doesn't relate specifically to the article subject in such cases, as the subject is the detainee name per the article title, not the detention procedures. I am replacing the boilerplated text with links to the articles that discuss the procedures. I see this as a cleanup issue. I have attempted to explain my viewpoint to User: Geo Swan, and await any justification he might offer for keeping such misplaced boilerplate in several tens if not hundreds of articles. DMcMPO11AAUK/Talk/Contribs 19:06, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
User:DMcMPO11AAUK writes that he or she "...await[s] any justification he might offer...". That is the point of my query. User:DMcMPO11AAUK is not waiting. He or she plunged right back into these excisions, without providing the time for a reply. Geo Swan (talk) 19:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
No need for adminstrator action here. Please discuss on the relevant talk pages, or pursue dispute resolution. Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Legal claim[edit]

A new user claims ownership of a nickname on the Eli Manning pass to David Tyree page, his claim is here [20]. Redrocket (talk) 20:48, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Ignore him. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Borders on WP:LEGAL. If it continues issue a warning and point him/her/them in the direction of the link. Legal concerns should be further resolved before such comments are made. Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Done but he is definately trolling see his deleted edits. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, that sort of phrase wouldn't be automatically trademarkable, nothing is showing on the US trademark office as being a trademark anything along those lines, and there's no such lawyer cropping up on Google searches. All in all, probably a load of old tosh. GBT/C 22:02, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm now I don't mind a little sillyness but revert warring isn't on. I've indefblocked the sock, reverted all edits and protected Eli Manning pass to David Tyree for a bit to put a stop to it. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 22:10, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Even if a generic phrase like that could be trademarked, which is doubtful, there is no reason wikipedia couldn't freely refer to it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:11, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
And in case you didn't guess, Google reveals no connection whatsoever between that phrase and anyone named "Leone". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Trademark just prevents companies from selling a product under the trademarked name - it certainly doesn't prevent people from writing about and referring to something by its trademarked name. Otherwise, we couldn't have an article called Coca-Cola. Natalie (talk) 22:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Yup, my searching returns nothing - seems like prime evidence that this is an elaborate hoax, and certainly sanctionable. Wisdom89 (T / C) 00:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
That attorney's name sounds awfully familiar... maybe another threat in the past has used that "lawyer" as a front? UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The attorney does not show up in Martindale-Hubbel, but there are 60 trademark applications filed in her name, the last in 2005 I think. Some other info re. attorneys at the address given in the message but out of BLP concerns I won't go into detail, because there's no sense dragging them into this if they aren't involved. Wikidemo (talk) 01:31, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Banned user back again with sock puppet[edit]

Resolved: Blocked

Cody Finke is Back! Codyfinke10000 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

Other aliases:

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerem43 (talkcontribs) 22:18, 2 March 2008

Fred Hollows[edit]

Please semi-protect Fred Hollows --David Broadfoot (talk) 00:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The correct place to make these request is requests for page protection; I'm not going to protect it because there's minimal edit warring or vandalism. --Haemo (talk) 00:53, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

"See you in court soon enough gentlemen as this now has become personal attacks, slander, harassment." - sounds like a legal threat to me![edit]

Resolved: Comrade blocked indef; IP blocked 1 week -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

[21] purportedly from Comraderedoctober --Orange Mike | Talk 01:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

definitely a violation of WP:LEGAL. i think that thea admins will be by here to take this guy down. usually we get a lot of these things but the people who mkake them never actually bother to do anything because they dont know that they know that they ahve no legal defenses imaginabile for what they do here. Smith Jones (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
(EC2)) Blocking -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
No, do not block. The threat was made by an IP a few weeks ago, and there is no explicit connection between the IP and the account. At least, I haven't seen one yet. —Kurykh 01:13, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
The IP's talk page (User talk: has a tag that states that it is indeed Comraderedoctober. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Is the IP static or dynamic? In any case, we can't block IPs indef. —Kurykh 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC) Oh wait, you were blocking the account. Never mind. —Kurykh 01:18, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have not yet touched the IP. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:20, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked the IP for a week. -Jéské (v^_^v :L10 Lucario Cleric of Mew) 01:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Smith-Jones, with "legal threats" it's never a matter of "[they] never actually bother to [sue us]", but rather "they were blatantly trolling from the get-go". — CharlotteWebb 02:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Banning a persistent vandal/harasser[edit]

Could I ask an admin to add Mr. 72.76 to Wikipedia:List of banned users, so that I won't feel quite so controversial when I revert his contributions on sight? He's still up to his antics, and, according to this ANI thread, the vote to ban him by the community seems unanimous. A range block, apparently, is far more tricky, but at least let's ban the user, if not the IP range.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back (talk) 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree with the above. This situation needs more admin attention. R. Baley (talk) 01:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Wow, apparently he's used a lot of different IPs. Useight (talk) 01:15, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for the record a list (comprehensive? I doubt it) can be found at this link. R. Baley (talk) 01:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion log[edit]

I speedily deleted Eric crespo using twinkle, but there's nothing in the deletion log. Is this some kind of software glitch? Spellcast (talk) 03:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I noticed deleted edits on Klenow today but that also lacks/ed a deletion log. ViridaeTalk 03:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
However I am assuming that is something to do with the deleted edits being from 2004. ViridaeTalk 03:55, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Hm, I wonder if there's any successful blocks lacking a block log. Maybe WP:VPT is more appropriate for this. Spellcast (talk) 04:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


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

On the Superman music page, a red-link editor has taken a fair amount of time to add track listings for an 8-volume CD collection of soundtracks from the Christopher Reeve films. I have several issues with this, and I would like for someone who understands the rules better than I do to comment on it:

  • The editor is the producer of the CD as well as the author of the information he posted, as he made the point of saying and which started some frustrating dialoge: [22]
  • Despite his denial of shameless self-promotion, he has made a point of it being a limited edition, so we had better order it before they run out. [23]
  • It's not actually available yet, although it will be "imminently" and they are taking orders.
  • It's not going to be in real stores at all.

So I'm seeing self-promotion as well as original research. What say y'all to this? Is this all proper, or should it be reverted? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

He added a great deal of valuable information, cleaning up the entire article. Any consideration of WP:COI problems, if found, should be careful to only pare dow nthat which is a true conflict ,and not the entire series of edits. ThuranX (talk) 03:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
To clear up a few issues with the above: 1) COI issues are for the sake of keeping it /neutral/, not keeping it off. 2) So, it's limited, so what? Countless items go in and out of print all the time. 3) It's available, and in fact has started shipping 4) What's a 'real' store? Again, countless items can't be bought offline. WHY does that matter? 5) It's NOT original research, it's research. Yes, the person who added it happened to do the 'original' research, but once it's been published, it's perfectly valid for use on WP (at least according to all rules I've read). It shouldn't make a difference who adds the info. Yes, any 'shameless self promotion' should be deleted, but if there's any, it's maybe a few unnessesary mentions of the set itself, and certainly not all the factual info. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Every word that red-link has written, in both the articles and the talk pages, has been for the express purpose of drumming up sales. The external links he added amount to testimonials for his product. The page is now essentially a protracted advertisement for his product. All of that supposed to be against wikipedia policy. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 09:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If you are refering to Film Score Monthly could it be that they hold an exclusive license to the Superman score? Sorry I do not know enough about the industry, but if you look on Ford article you will find links to different Ford model cars. Igor Berger (talk) 10:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
They probably do. I can get a Ford without buying it over the internet, sight unseen, and having to depend on testimonials that the one writing the article has cited. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This is all part of the game and the marketing machine. I am sure if you go to Star Trek, Marvel comics, etc. you will find the same patern. Igor Berger (talk) 10:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Obviously. I can see exactly what they're up to. I wasn't born yesterday, I can see a sales pitch a mile away. And they are welcome to do it on pages where it's OK. It's not supposed to be OK on wikipedia. I'm just trying to get an admin to comment on it, yea or nay, as opposed to unilaterally doing a complete rollback of that red-link's self-serving entries. I've asked several admins already, but apparently they have larger issues, since they won't answer the question. That's why I posted here, hoping someone would think this might have some importance. Wikipedia is not supposed to be Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(undent) This diff shows all the efforts by the editor in question. Among them, I see the questionable track listing, which can be argued as promotional, since it details a product morethan the actual subject, but I also see extensive editing to expand on the topic, including the addition of years, names, musical techniques and rhythms used, detailed explanations of the various musical themes and so on. I note the linked inclusion of the record company name, but I checked, and this editor apparently hasn't touched that article, at least not in the past 50 edits, which go back a few months. This seems to be a case of the expert coming here and pouring out a great deal of knowledge which otherwise would only be available to 3000 folks(or less), and doing so freely with his time. That a portion of his edits seem to have a level of COI (and not an outright totality) can be discussed, but Baseball Bugs needs to AGF here. He keeps levelling accusations, but the editor in question uses the talk page and seems to want to fix the problems. This needs a careful looking at, not broad accusations of malfeasance. ThuranX (talk) 12:39, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

One point to remember is that track listings are pretty much the standard on WP. I certainly see no reason not to have them in this case -- as you can see, they were there before on the page for other releses. And again, I'll point out, that just because something happens to have a KNOWN (and I stress known) limited run doesn't mean we can discount it. I guarantee that many book sources used in WP have sold well under 3000 copies before they went OOP. And in this may not even be that limited. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not about track listings being accurate or not. That's a diversionary argument. Every word that red-link user entered in both the article and in his comments on the subject have to do with selling his product. In fact, I was "assuming good faith" until he went onto the talk page and laid down the sales pitch. He is also the author of the book he's quoting. Does that book have verifiable citations in it? As far as "giving freely of his time", well, he's the producer, so it's in his best interest to promote the product and bring money in. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Since I can't get a straight answer from anyone, I have decided to invoke the "be bold" rule and have reverted to February 23, the day before the red-link began laying the groundwork for using wikipedia to sell his product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
As expected, there is now an edit war initiated on that page. WILL SOMEONE PLEASE ANSWER MY QUESTIONS??? Is it valid to use one's own book as a source? Is it valid to use wikipedia as an agent for selling one's own products, including the book that's being used as the source? Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 17:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The obvious answer to your question is "No, it is not alright to use Wikipedia to sell one's own book." You have been asked to remove the content that appears to be promoting the book. You have also been shown that some of the user's edits have absolutely nothing to do with his book. The phrase that comes to mind has something to do with baby and bathwater. DCEdwards1966 (talk) 19:51, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
My test is whether or not I can tell what they're trying to sell by reading the page. I can't. Add reliably sourced material to an article, which happens to be sourced to a book you wrote is a very mild conflict of interest, and the promotional aspect is very minor. I can't see any promotional tone in the article as it stands. A good litmus test would be "Would an unrelated editor, with the same resource, add similar material in a similar tone." The answer here is yes. --Haemo (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
By adding the track listings of his own CD's to the article, he is trying to pique interest. He coveniently adds external links with testimonials. Then you look into buying it and find that this "major release" is limited to 3,000 sets of CD's. Then you go, "Oh, I better get one before they run out!" That's what's going on here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 20:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
What's actually going on here, and what you're ignoring now, is that unrelated editors (as Haemo pointed out above) have evaluated the listings and added them on their own - regardless of the claim you made on the article talk page that anyone disagreeing with you was trying to sell products along with the original editor you disagreed with, this information was going to get added to the article eventually. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:03, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I fully intended to go back and re-add legimitate edits NOT made by that one red-link who's trying to sell his CD's here. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:19, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus is against you. No one else finds the sum of his edits to be wholly bad; many find nothing wrong, and a few find some parts questionable. However, it has been pointed out (either here or o nteh article talk) that CD track listings are commonly found throughout wikipedia. A track listing for a holistic collection of Superman music is better off at an article which examines, in depth, the music, than at a separate page, which would certainly be SPAM or COI or both. However, the editor, to my eyes added one section of potential COI, the track listings for a collection he helped produce. given that there's precedence, and that he added a wealth of good fact to flesh out the meat of the article, I cannot support any injunction against the editor, nor any removals on the page. He made an article that if I'd found it before, I'd have thought "this is a thin article with lots of spec and maybeish based writing", into an article that makes me think about the production of the scores and music for the various media themselves. I only considered the marketing because I read it with an eye towards that. While he did add the name of the company releasing the compilation a few times, that company has an article he didn't work on. This is a non-issue to me, and your continued intractability on the matter makes this become a waste of time, too.. ThuranX (talk) 21:33, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
And your blindness to what that guy is up to is extraordinarily frustrating. It's supposed to be against the rules to use wikipedia to sell stuff. If "consensus" overrides that rule, then it's hopeless. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You keep acting like he added a great big section that screams "BUY MY CD NOW!!!" - but that's not what happened. He added factual listings of a released product that would have been added anyway by other editors as it directly relates to the page question - he also fleshed out other sections, without editorializing or specifically pimping the CD he contributed to. I think you need to step back here, as your insults and snipes at anyone who disagrees with you (and you do appear to be alone in this) is getting tiresome. TheRealFennShysa (talk) 21:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
You know what? You're right. I'm blind to what's going on on Wikipedia. I can't see that when editors work hard, its' meant to be ripped to shreds and insulted at length. Now that I know that such attacks and hostility are the new normal, I can see it all clearly. Anyways, this was the last thing I was involved in before retiring anyways, given how my own dissatisfaction with the project and unilateralism has grown. This is just another thread of the same 'only I can see what's going on and save the article' attitude that's driven me to leave, only this one's grounded in paranoia and hubris, not just hubris. ThuranX (talk) 22:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The guy produces a CD and a book about the CD's; he posts information from his own products in the article; he posts links that amount to testimonials for his products; he makes a point on the talk page of saying that he produced the CD and that it's a limited quantity so you better get 'em while they're available. Original research, spam, huckstering. And that whole scenario is perfectly OK with everyone. I am very impressed. NOT. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 23:20, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Any discussion, even on the talk page, about how it's in limited quantity should be removed immediately. I agree with Bugs that this is ridiculous to allow, but consensus seems to be against you, sorry. Frankly, the whole article needs serious sources. There's way too much OR about what the music includes, means, and is generally about. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Consensus overrides the rules? That is not at all encouraging. But you've given one glimmer of hope, which is to remove anything that smacks of "selling it". Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I see you're already working on it. I modified the external links to remove the obvious self-promotion there. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 14:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

(Undent). Baseball bugs has now begun engaging in edit wars to remove all the material, first by hitting the 3RR cap on wholesale reversion, and now, in tandem with Ricky81632, by cutting it back one edit at a time. The blanking vandalism goes so far as to remove two sources erroneously put under External Links, including a press release and an interview with the producers. This level of contentious behavior in contravention of Consensus and policy is clearly the new vogue on Wikipedia, and I understand that administrative fiat permits the institution of new consensus by simply being an admin and saying so, but under wikipedia's old rules, he should be blocked for WP:POINT and BLANKING violations, and probably a 3RR skirting. ThuranX (talk) 15:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Those press releases were intended specifically to hype the product. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 00:40, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Look. can you not see that consensus is against you? that many people find the musical information he added valuable? That many find that since many articles about Music have track listings, that at most, this particular set's listings should be dropped, but that a wholesale revert is flat out wrong? He added immense amounts of genuine fact to the article, and not all of it needs to be reverted to 'fix' the COI you perceive? You propose a 100% reversion, but that's flat out stupid. Reverting the addition of dates, titles, and names which were previously speculative or less specific would be a value loss, not a value add. As the community doesn't see a COI here like you do, I suggest you either accept and move on, or consider it a Content Dispute and head to RfC or Arbcom. I also note your don't deny any of the policy troubles I noted above. Consider those before committing more. ThuranX (talk) 04:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Have you even looked at the article lately? Another editor already reverted everything I had reverted, and he along with yet another editor are trying to weed the hype out of the article. Since you won the revert war, those two have now done more work on that weeding effort than I have. Go talk to them. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:13, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
FYI, the user you're complaining about acting "in tandem", who I never heard of until yesterday, Ricky81682, is an admin, and I expect admins to know the rules. So I appreciate his looking into this situation. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 19:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Being an admin doesn't mean anything. Admins don't have rules. And whether it's coordinated or just observation and a mutual thinking ,working to undo all the work added is NOT the way to go. He added real facts. Not all of it's self-promotion. You assert that 100% is promotion, which can only mean that you think that the very act of contributing is a means of him seditiously attempting to gain our good will to get us to buy his stuff. That's absurd. He confirmed or added dates that were previously questioned. He added names of people who helped make the music. He added musical structure information. Everything he's added has been systematically removed or Fact tagged. It is a horrible violation of AGF, an overly broad interpretation of COI and OWN, it's incivil, and it's BITEy. I think it is wrong, but you DO have an admin on your side, and I can attest from personal experience, admins don't follow rules, and get away with that regularly.
You need to clearly address how provide names of those who worked on the production of the music for hte films, and dates of events, and musical structure information constittue an attempt to sell the material. I really think your attitude is 'he worked on that, thus anythign he dos has to be a sell' even if he were ONLY on the talk page and doing grammatical edits. You really seem to say 'anythign he does which improves the page may have a net result of earning him profit eventually, even indirectly, and thus it's all bad. Had he not done anything but grammatical changes, but put the CD set on the net, and people came here first to learn more abotu the production of various superman themes and music, and reading the article, bought the product, you give off that you'd feel you'd be justified in asserting he, even in that circumstance, had a COI and should be blanket reverted. You really are just pushing him off the project, not helping anyone. ThuranX (talk) 21:56, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You need to take the blinders off and realize that the red-link user's purpose was entirely self-promotional. And stop already with the "assume good faith" lecture. His own words confirm it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
For one thing, as far as "driving him off the project", the only articles he has modified are those directly connected with promoting his product. The only "project" he's on is to sell his 3,000 CD's. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:22, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
You have never provided a link which shows his express intent to be to hype his product. You have, however, made glue for days. There are at least three editors who aren't you OR mxscore who feel he HAS contributed valuable information. There are editors who feel he is NOT thoroughly self-serving. EVEN if self-serving were a part of his motivation, does that mean the project should throw it all out on some ridiculous principled stand that we would rather go blind than wear glasses? We can remove, after discussion and consensus, anything which gets too close to, or crosses, the line. If editor-based consensus and policy are not acceptable, then call in an administrator. They can make any rules they want. ThuranX (talk) 22:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Your change of "written" to "wrtten" is another rule you care nothing about. You are not allowed to change others' comments. I say again, every word he has posted in that article has to do with selling his product. Period. Frequent mentions of who produced it and stuff on the talk pages about how it's a limited edition. That's called a "sales pitch". "Consensus" does not allow violation of the rules. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 22:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, that was a typo. I bumped the pageup key, and must've tapped the delete as well. I didn't notice that I'd accidentally taken out one letter two screens up. Why don't you go ask for a fucking block against me for it? Go on. It'll hide the fact that I've hit the nail on the head: You're throwing the baby out with the bathwater, and you know it, and you LIKE it. You're here ONLY because you refuse to back down from your position, and you're too embarrassed to reverse course now. Just shut the hell up, let this thread go into archive ,and move on. You have yet to provide any rationale for your opinion other than that anyone who has any interest in anything is suffering COI. Many, or most, if not all editors here write about what interests them. Many work in the fields they write about. Expert writiing is a contentious area, but it gets handled case by case. You're not thinking about it like that. You just want a community ban on the guy and a wholesale revert, and you REALLY have NOT explained why you're acting this way at all. You just keep saying 'he's selling stuff, so I can and msut wholesale 100% revert'. YOu can't defend against the examples given above, and haven't tried. Below, a fourth (or is it more now?) editor adds his thoughts opposing your wholesale reverts and finding value added by the edits of MXScore. Please catch on. You are trying to not just IAR but B(reak)AR, when BRD is in play, and CONSENSUS is against you. Since you don't care about that, though, I'd be glad to recommend to you some admins who have community support for the power to ignore consensus and substitute their own consensus. They'd be glad to help you out. ThuranX (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
I've taken a look (as a non-involved non-admin) at what User:Baseball Bugs reverted, and frankly while most of the text might be unreferenced, and possibly original research, it was not blatantly promotional or in need of such a wholesale reversion. Sure, you can't just come on to Wikipedia and add "Buy my CD!" to an article. But if you improve an article, and in doing so make people want to buy the product related to it, then what's the problem? By the same token, if an Apple employee were to go and add some decent content to Criticism of Microsoft, it's still decent content. I'd advise Bugs to take a deep breath, talk with the other user to work towards providing some sources for the article (presumably, being associated with the subject he'd know where to look for them), and preferably stop referring to him as a "redlink" or "redlinked user", because the way the term's being used looks to me to be perjorative, ad hominem, and bordering on incivility and/or personal attack. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 23:04, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Enough of this. You've had enough of a venue here, and no one sees a problem that's actionable by admins. If you want a more extensive discussion, dispute resolution is down the hall. --Haemo (talk) 00:39, 3 March 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.

The user worked on this one topic for a few days, not heard from before or since. His sole purpose in wikipedia was to promote his CD's. The typical red-link user has a single purpose on wikipedia. Often it's vandalism. Sometimes it's to focus on a specific article for a specific purpose, as with this case. Some red-link users are that way just because they don't choose to create a user page. There are even some admins with red-link user pages. That's the exceptional case. Generally, a red-link is here for a narrow purpose. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

New user User:Tom.mevlie[edit]


User:Tom.mevlie caught out using a sock puppet to "prove" his point and blocked.--VS talk 05:54, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

This is totally unacceptable. And this was the user's first post. I have left a message on the user's talk page - however, I feel this behaviour is so strong that it is unlikely that the user would enjoy being a Wiki editor, and it might be in the best interests of all if this user was encouraged to disengage from the project at the earliest opportunity. SilkTork *What's YOUR point? 12:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Although I may be somewhat biased in my favour, a better way than straight out banning me, would possibly put me on a probationary period, or look at some of my other posts, all of which, were, in my view, productive and helpful to each of the causes in which i donated my opinions to. But the descision rests with the administrators, not with me. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 12:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
This editor has made some good contributions, including creating the Woodstock Nation (novel) article. I would counsel some consideration of WP:BITE, even in light of the above incidents.скоморохъ 12:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
The user has apologised to the people he attacked, which we can take at face value. A block now would be punitive, so it would be best if he got on with editing, with a stern note warning that deviation from "productive and helpful" in this manner again will lead to a block to prevent disruption in future. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
If necessary, I'll oversight his contributions and pull him aside if this happens again. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 12:43, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Also, his above comment implies he knows the difference between a block and ban. That's peculiar for a new editor. AgnosticPreachersKid (talk) 12:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh yes, I thought it was very clear that he's just here to troll. But the evidence is circumstantial, so we can only give him the usual miles and miles of rope before we escort him of the premises. ➔ REDVEЯS knows how Joan of Arc felt 12:54, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Quite true. :) I'd support the warning, pending further disruptive editing or more substantive evidence of puppetry. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • The remarks I left on the Depiction of Muhammad discussion were purely to prove a point, and to gesticulate the fact that we shouldn't depict muhammad, lest someone get offended. Although, i am not the first person to talk to about offending people. Moonriddengirl is correct. I have never met her before, nor had any prior contact, i wrote on her page to see what i could get away with, but also to show that, although wikipedia states that there should be no line drawn between admin and non admin users, it still is rampant amongst the community, i am not trying to shift the blame from me to her, i am merely stating my rationale for saying what i said, and again, i am sorry to anyone who i offended. --Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
With respect, I think there may have been better ways to learn about the community than by posting the comment you made to Moonriddengirl. It may be difficult for some to assume good faith in your edits when you admit to having ulterior motives in making them. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Of course you are correct, but may i say, that i have apologised for my actions, and i have tried to make up for it by posting well in all of my recent posts, i think what people should do, is instead of looking at the mistakes of people, you should look at where they did okay.--Tom.mevlie (talk) 13:23, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • I believe that you are mistaken if you think that a message like that would have been acceptable on the page of any user, administrator or not. While the first line of defense against incivility is to ignore it or to provide better counter-examples, there is a distinction between petty incivility and gross incivility. Please note that WP:NPA indicates "Attacks that are particularly offensive or disruptive (such as physical or legal threats) should not be ignored". As for considering your recent posts, I suspect that posts made four hours ago still technically fit within the definition of "recent". :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:32, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Good idea. Tom.mevlie, I suggest that to restore the karmic balance, that you and I each go out and find 3 users we've never interacted with before, and give them purely positive praise for something good they've done, without any ifs, ands, buts, or negative comments around the same time. Is it a deal? --Coppertwig (talk) 12:03, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I am sorry I do not get it. You are abusive, insulting, and vulgar to a person who you never dealt with before? Just out of a blue you picked her to experiment? What are we lab rats? What is going to be your next experiment? By your own admission, it is not like you got angry at someone for doing something you did not like and in anger say crap to them. Man I would not want you around! Why are you here? Igor Berger (talk) 12:39, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
    I have only been here six weeks, so I am hardly an expert, but his case smacks of vandalism, trolling, and/or sockpuppetry. I would allow him some rope if that is what Wikipedia policy implies should be done, but I would shorten his leash. My two cents' worth (before adjusting for inflation). Jonneroo (talk) 20:55, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Abysmal behaviour - and I do not believe this user is "new". I submit in agreement with my colleagues above that at the very least a final warning posted to his page with detail in the edit summary - for tracking purposes if it is deleted. I will be happy to post that warning myself should that be the outcome of this discussion - and quite frankly I think that it should have commenced with such a warning (or if an admin has spotted it first with an immediate short block) rather than to belabour the point here.--VS talk 22:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
  • As an obviously interested party, I'm inclined to agree. There are two possibilities here. If this individual is to be taken at his word, he launched a vicious, sexist attack against a stranger to prove a point. Note that his apology for this assault is rather tepidly phrased towards the language use, when according to his own statement above, the entire personal attack was unwarranted. Given his pattern of editing, he is far more likely a sock puppet. In either case, the likelihood of future misbehavior seems high, and a clear warning seems best for the sake of the community. (Note that there is absolutely no requirement for us to assume good faith here now that he has admitted to intentionally disrupting the encyclopedia to prove a point. (See