Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive219

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Tag warring at Hippie[edit]

Three editors including myself have called attention to the dire need for improvement of the article Hippie at Talk:Hippie on account of its US-centrism in discussing what was and is a phenomenon in many other countries including Europe and Australasia. Unfortunately, all three of us have been "overruled" by a single proprietary editor who insists that because he can't see what the fuss is about, therefore it does not exist -- and for many days now he has been unilaterally removing the <<globalize>> tag as soon as any of us add it, or the <<NPOV>> tag. He or she does not seem to be aware of the policy for disputes, he thinks he alone is authorized to dismiss the other 3 editors' objections out of hand. A 5th editor, Apostle, has tried to find a compromise by agreeing with us that globalization is needed, but siding with the other editor on the need for a tag to that effect. However the purpose of the tag is not as the other editor says, to "push a pov", butactually only to invite more editors to fix the problem that he denies exists, at least in the meantime until the problem IS fixed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 00:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. This isn't a very rounded view of that discussion.
We have a classic Wikipedia dispute here: the article is slanted to US-centrism because that's the slant of the available sources. Codex and a couple others want to add more about hippies elsewhere in the world, but the sources for their claims aren't terribly good, and so Viriditas is removing the poorly cited material. Add in some accusations of "vandalism" on both sides, a little bit of edit warring, and some gratuitous bold text on the talk page, and you have a mess.
This seems like an excellent candidate for mediation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Old dispute, old problem. See this from six months ago. Seemed WP:OWNish to me back then, although I'd expect verifiable and reliable citations would have been forthcoming by now. Makes me wonder why a problem still simmers. DurovaCharge! 06:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Its a classic editorial dispute. The article was dreadfully US centric and the problem arose when one editor was uncomfortable with the globalize tag and would remove it, which being the globalize issue was clearly dfisputed was then then replaced with an NPOV tag which the same editor then removed. Its locked and there is discussion on the talk page that may lead to a resolution but the basic problem started because the article read like an American encyclopedia article, SqueakBox 23:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadowbot[edit]

The bot called "Shadowbot" seems to be doing the same thing as the bot called "Betacommand". It's going around blindly removing all references to imageshack and photbucket and a number of other innocuous external links. Is it supposed to be doing this?--172.167.245.115 00:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, it is. And Betacommand is not a bot. He's a user.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:29, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
30+ edits per minute...? Quack! --Edokter (Talk) 01:01, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
OK lets make a note here shadowbot just reverts users when they add a link. imageshack and photobucket probably should me listed at m:Spam. there is no need to ever link to those sites. Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand is notorious for excessive zeal in deleting external links; his opinions do not reflect Wikipedia consensus. Αργυριου (talk) 02:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Irrelevant here. Unnecessary disparaging remarks, I'm sorry to say. -- Nick t 02:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted the above IP user is a new user who edits under the username Ceoparis (talk · contribs) and who tried to display an externally hosted image on Lee Humphrey. When Shadowbot reverted, the user logged out and reverted Shadowbot before Shadowbot correctly reverted the edit once again. The image was later uploaded to Wikipedia, under Fair Use, but as it's a clear copyright violation claiming the source to be Imageshack, I've deleted it. -- Nick t 01:40, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:124.185.157.217[edit]

User:124.185.157.217 has been making unencyclopedic (but not quite vandalistic) edits to many Harry Potter pages. I can't keep up, and need to get to work. Matchups 13:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Seems to have stopped. I left him/her a note and reverted the edits. - Bobet 14:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Alphaquad[edit]

Alphaquad (talk · contribs) has joined us to promote his view of the uses of cannabis for a number of indications, as well as stating that commonly used drugs are poisons. It has been explained that his edits have suffered from WP:NPOV and WP:RS problems. The response has been a long diatribe against myself and User:Colin on his talkpage, containing numerous WP:CIVIL/WP:AGF/WP:NPA violations. I'd appreciate some input. JFW | T@lk 14:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I will certainly respect and listen to administrators. But JFW and Colin have only shown the invention of reason to discard my edits, (except for the first edit containing original thought, which I understand now) and a personal agenda due to preconceived notions. I will of course retract anything as directed by the administrators for the sake of the public and this great media.
I have directed the matter to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Clinical_medicine#what_be_the_opinion_of_this_forum Alphaquad 20:59, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

That is no reason to make personal attacks. JFW | T@lk 21:23, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Thug[edit]

Dr. Thug (talk · contribs) edits articles connected to Bosnian and Serbian topics, removing parts that he doesn't like and promoting his point of view. After reverts by other users, he still vandalizes those same pages. With no references or whatsoever he is pointing out that Bosniaks lived in medieval Bosnia, that Mehmed-paša Sokolović was not born Serb but "Orthodox Bosniak" etc., and he removes statements which have references but disagree with his POV. Please check out his contributions. --Djordje D. Bozovic 15:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dking personal attacks[edit]

In January, Dking was warned by two admins for this comment and this one (see User_talk:Dking#Comments_at_Talk:Lyndon_LaRouche.) Recently, his attacks have become more virulent diff [1]. Dking is pushing his POV, using the Poisoning the Well tactic on talk pages and in edit summaries. For the record, I am not a member of the LaRouche organization, nor am I paid by them. My ex-husband had a subscription to their magazine. Others have complained about Dking's violations of NPA, as well. --Tsunami Butler 17:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

While probably incivil, these edits aren't exactly personal attacks. This appears to be mainly grounded in a content dispute. WP:ANI isn't the right forum for this. Please refer to the dispute resolution procedure. Sandstein 17:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, I'd say calling an editor a 'spin doctor for human rights-abusing regimes' is rather incivil. Granted, this is not very serious, but Dking should be warned to be more civil - I'll leave him a note.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gordon James Klingenschmitt admins needed- people outing users[edit]

Please see this. we've got a series of VERY hostile editors trying to "out" anonymous editors feverishly. Can we have some people come in here from an administrative standpoint? Sort of outrageous behavior. - Denny 17:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Hi there. What's the problem? --Iamunknown 18:54, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
    • How about violations of Wikipedia policy which strictly prohibit posting personal information about others? If I'm not mistaken editors can be blocked without warning for violating this policy. Nardman1 19:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
      • I'm sorry, when did that happen? --Iamunknown 19:13, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Er, Iamunknown, it's all in the post. I'm not quite sure what you're getting at with your responses. As to the situation, I don't really see a problem in the context of the situation. Certainly nothing that requires administrative action. There is plenty of precedent for subjects editing their own articles, and what is/is not appropriate. This is the discussion that seems to be ongoing. Keep it on the talk page. Teke 19:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
          • I'm not "getting at" anything; I'm genuinely confused. Please, can someone just give me a direct answer, and I will immediately act on it: Where in my post did I reveal personal information? I will immediately redact it. I've read the post over a couple of times and I really don't understand how any part of it revealed personal information. --Iamunknown 19:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
            • In redacting parts of comments, you also redacted the signature, making it appear that you are the author of what remained. This sets you up to be blamed for those comments. Read the present text as if you didn't know who wrote what, and you might be shocked at what "you" wrote. -- BenTALK/HIST 20:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I think I understand now; it was an oversight on my part and it lead to confusion. I've restored their online handles. --Iamunknown 20:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Trolling on Talk:Asperger syndrome[edit]

I was told to ask here. An anon using IP addresses beginning 80.212.*.* has been persistently trolling on Talk:Asperger syndrome over the past few weeks [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. They don't discuss the article, but instead make personal comments about the other posters, or about people with AS (which includes many of the other posters), such as that they should all undergo chemical castration. I have been reverting these edits, but I would like to know whether the page can be semi-protected or something. It is a nuisance that they don't have a fixed IP address. The Wednesday Island 20:30, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Give it a shot at WP:RFP. I'm not sure if it qualifies because there doesn't appear to be much vandalism in the history in the past few days, and semi-protection is for that. But give it a shot. x42bn6 Talk 20:34, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think semiprotection is the way to go. The talk page is very busy, with lots of anon editors who would be caught up in the semiprotection. Reverting plus short term range blocks are perhaps a better way to deal with him. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

User Replay7 identifies himself as 10 years old.[edit]

According to Replay7's userpage, he is 10 years old. His edits seem to reflect that. What should be done about this? — Kieff | Talk 21:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Explain how "his edits seem to reflect" that he is 10 years old. —210physicq (c) 21:41, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Let's see... his areas of interest are consistent with someone who grew up in the late 1990s and early 2000s? ptkfgs 21:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Any issues with excessive personal info being given out on the userpage, which was a problem, have been sorted. Moreschi Request a recording? 21:45, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
So is he doing anything wrong? —210physicq (c) 21:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
...other than moving his user and user talk page out of his userspace... —210physicq (c) 21:51, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
He's violated WP:3RR, WP:PROFANITY, WP:OR, and WP:PA. mrholybrain's talk 21:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Was about to retract my comments after seeing his track record. I say we block him on next violation...but for how long? —210physicq (c) 21:55, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Diffs, please. --Chris Griswold () 21:56, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[8], [9], [10], [11], [12], to name a few. —210physicq (c) 22:00, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me try leaving him a note asking him to slow down, read up on policies, etc. Newyorkbrad 21:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
That didn't work, since he reverted all of your changes. So I reverted back and protected the userpage from editing. Will unlock once we get an assurance he will stop editing it to add personal information. If he continues, then block. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay, he immediately went to RFPP and requested unprotection. I'm suspecting I've been successfully trolled here. Newyorkbrad 22:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, let's just deal with this issue now. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I guess that means decline the unprotection with a paraphrase of WP:CHILD, and tell him to edit something. Note his response to my welcome message; it's also possible he's just in over his head. Newyorkbrad 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Well he stated he's leaving and getting a new account, so I'm don't think there's much else to do. Majorly (o rly?) 22:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Milk (restored as ongoing)[edit]

Repeated addition of the same, off-topic and, I believe, trolling question to Talk:Milk. Andy Mabbett 12:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, and will notify the user. Even if the question is real, it is off-topic. Wikipedia is not a help desk. AecisBrievenbus 12:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
On-going, wth fake replies [13]. Andy Mabbett
I had the same odd request some time ago: diff. Prodego took care of this sock according to the block log.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry it seems there were two talk page trolls at Talk:Milk...another story I guess.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 00:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

And I thought milk was so innocent and nutritious. :) Prodego talk 00:23, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

141.157.161.15[edit]

I request blocking for IP 141.157.161.15 because of vandalism at:

- my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117579941&oldid=117567031

- discussion page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117571121&oldid=117540483

- numerous wiki articles:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/141.157.161.15

+ attempted harrassment at the talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=117580745&oldid=117579718

--Sergey Romanov 19:41, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Do we have any copyrighted stuff in any of our articles? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my![edit]

Is there anyone who has dealt with any of

previously, and who can nail down what's going on here?

There appear to be at least two editors who have some sort of dispute over which site is authentic or the legitimate copyright owner of the material that appears on both sites.

I've blocked 141.157 for fifteen minutes to get his attention and encourage him to join the discussion here. (He's been leaving a trail of inflammatory edit summaries and legal threats.) I will also notify Sergey, and User:Brian0918 (who seems to have encountered this issue before). TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to be in this fight? Why not delete all links to either site from wikipedia. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 19:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At least some of the links appear to be in footnote references for articles. I wouldn't want to blanket delete them without careful review. Of course, I don't know anything about the quality or accuracy of the site(s), or the history of how the links were added to Wikipedia in the first place. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 20:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see why the links in general should be deleted, they contain quite a lot of usefufl information.
As for 141.whatever, this is the same person who vandalized my user page previously. To quote from my user page:

Some hard wiki-evidence about the above case

If you look at my history:

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

you can see that there is some person (guess who) who tried to vandalize my user page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383

Notice the change in the URL. You can check out this person's URL, but beware - it is NOT safe for work!

Now click on his IP to see his contributions, and judge for yourself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.160.31.156

(Hint: also compare with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/ARC-deathcamps.org)

As you can see by the fake "blog" he created, he is a rather sick person. --Sergey Romanov 20:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) That's kind of personal attack right there. Make sure not to insult the anon when you are defending yourself. --Iamunknown 20:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. It's just things like that fake blog go far beyond simple "uncivility". But note taken.--Sergey Romanov 20:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Just remember to stay cool; I know, however, that sometimes it is really difficult. --Iamunknown 04:42, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I would support putting both on the blacklist. We apparantly don't know anything about editorial control on either site, where their information is coming from, and there seems to be some sort of external dispute that is creating a headache for editors here. Jkelly 20:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
It may be useful to know the difference between the two first — unless it's limited to personalities clash (of respective site owners). El_C 20:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The most significant difference is the absence of faked materials at death-camps.org and their presence at deathcamps.org (see my user page).--Sergey Romanov 20:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Can this be verified or do we have to take your word for it? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 20:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The account on your userpage is lenghty and complicated. Please be brief: "fake" how? El_C 20:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Briefly: the break-up was because of these fakes, supplied by the current owner of deathcamps.org
They're still there (Muenzberger "statement" and Rum "statement"):
  • deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html
  • deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.html
They're fake because there never was any provenance for them, and because the details contradict known evidence (e.g. the wrong number of gas chambers is mentioned). These materials are not to be found on death-camps.org --Sergey Romanov 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but I'm having difficulties parsing that. El_C 20:21, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What is not clear? I will explain.--Sergey Romanov 20:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
What is the difference; how is it appreciable? Please cite brief contrasting sentences as examples. El_C 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
If you mean the diff. between the sites:
1. death-camps.org simply lacks the page analogous deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html] (because the whole page is a forgery).
2. death-camps.org has removed refs to forged "Rum's statement" at death-camps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.html, otherwise it is analogous to deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/gas_chambers_trebcad.html (search for word "Rum" on both pages).
If you need more evidence as to why those are forgeries, it is explained (with sources) at [14] , but briefly - the information in the statements (which have no provenance) doesn't mesh with info from other established sources, such as Treblinka trial judgement and Yitzhak Arad's book.--Sergey Romanov 20:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I want specific instances of items being forged; the above example is not clear. I don't have the time to review the material to such an extent, so you'll have to do better than that. Aim at clarity & concision. El_C 20:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid proving forgeries briefly is not easy. OK, one specific example:
1. The Muenzberger "statement" (deathcamps.org/gas_chambers/trebmuenzberger.html) and the Rum "statement" (fully available at http://static.flickr.com/118/283883256_60f4582b6e_o.jpg - sorry for quality, but that's how it was distributed inside ARC) claim 10 GCs in Treblinka:
"In the corridor the Jews were driven into the chambers by some Ukrainians. There were five chambers on either side." (M.)
"On both sides of the corridor were 5 gas chambers" (Rum)
The verdict of the Duesseldorf Treblinka trial, however, stated:
"Darüber welche Masse wirklich zutreffen, hat die Beweisaufnahme ebensowenig eine eindeutige Klärung ergeben wie über die wirkliche Anzahl der neuen Kammern, die von den Angeklagten übereinstimmend und von Anfang an mit 6, von den jüdischen Zeugen jedoch durchweg mit 10 angegeben werden."
Which means, in English, that the German defendants testified about six gas chambers, not ten, and only Jewish witnesses testified about ten gas chambers. (The verdict is from JuNSV collection, and was available at http://www.idgr.de/texte/dokumente/justiz/treblinka-urteil.php until that site closed; this can be confirmed at http://www.shoa.de/content/view/581/203/ ; I can send the verdict if requested).--Sergey Romanov 21:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm unable to verify that claim at this time. Perhaps a lawsuit would be best. El_C 21:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Turok 18 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is also involved. -- No Guru 20:26, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
No, it's not. That's the Solar System vandal seeking attention. El_C 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC Team The Genuine www.deathcamps.org[edit]

Admins:

Rather than deal in the "ANECDOTAL" Statements and blog posting by Sergey Romanov lets deal in verifiable facts. Do we all agree that ICANN and WHOIS.net are valid authorities in web site registraion? Also the US & EU laws that govern websites and enclosed materials??

Ok good. Now please Check WHOIS.net for www.deathcamps.org then do the same for www.death-camps.org

Note the dates, 2002 for deathcamps.org and 2006 for the fake death-camps.org

Then go back and look at all the original links here on wiki, all the deathcamps.org links, go back to the very first versions, were they deathcamps.org or the counterfeit death-camps org??

Now, this is all facts validated by legitimate authorities and including wiki's own history.

Against these facts you have wacky blog accusations, hearsay, anecdotal statements, some downright lies, and a blatant smear campaign by Sergey Romanov.

Sergey Romanov can attempt to rebut this all he wishes.

But as admins of what is an ENCYCLOPEDIA should be excercising better judgement.

The Genuine ARC Team

Maybe you should settle this through legal channels and come back to our wiki once the outstanding issues have been resolved. At this point, we are inclined to remove both sites until you (site owners) sort this out. We are not a court. El_C 20:19, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The pseudo-"Genuine ARC Team" is trying to pull a fast one: once again, copyrights are not established by WHOIS. As for removing both sites, I don't see why the legitimate site should be removed along with the unreliable one. But that's probably "GAT"'s purpose. --Sergey Romanov 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No you are not a court but Wiki does have a charter and regulations. We are not asking Wiki to take our word for it. There is verifiable evidence on http://www.whois.net/whois_new.cgi?d=deathcamps&tld=org or ICANN.

This is as straightforward and as simple as it gets.

Copyrights are backed up by valid dates of registration. www.deathcamps.org and all the material contained within are legimately registred copyrights in both the US and the EU.

Sorry Sergey Romanov be we've legally registerd the site, all and all the material we've created there in both geographical regions. Any questions on that please contact the US Copyright office, and the EU registrar.

-The Genuine ARC Team

We are not obliged to feature either website in our entries nor to become involved in this dispute. Any efforts to that effect are strictly voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time. El_C 20:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

EL. Agreed, Wiki has that right. However if you look back to the very first Wiki links for www.deathcamps.org they predate the inception of the fake hyphenated version that appeared in October 2006. Some of them have been here for years without issue. This upstart comes in and begins changing all of our links and now the real website has to suffer for it?

Is there any justice in that??

As explained on my user page, most links have been changed back in the autumn of 2006, because the deathcamps.org site has been down. And, to repeat, deathcamps.org owner is _not_ a copyright holder. Some anonymous' remarks don't change this fact. --Sergey Romanov 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


I'm getting a bit tired of seeing these links flood the #wikipedia-en-spam IRC channel. Can we agree on which site to remove? Personally, I think they should both be removed, they don't seem to contribute that much useful information. Shadow1 (talk) 20:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At least one user who's trying to introduce www.deathcamps.org into the site is vandalizing the Michael Richards article as well. (Netscott) 20:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Remove both. neither looks "legit". (Netscott) 20:39, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
That's vandal is uninvolved and is trolling (my contributions, I presume). See above. El_C 20:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how death-camps.org doesn't "seem to contribute that much useful information".It is chockful of useful information on the Holocaust. And is obviously legit. Otherwise, what is your definition of "legit"? --Sergey Romanov 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Shadow1 I understand your concern. I would ask that the legitimate www.deathcamps.org links be allowed to remain as they have been here for years. These counterfiet links pointing to www.death-camps.org have only started in October of 2006. We are only seeking to retain our status quo as a legitimate website.

The Genuine ARC team

My concern is that the links aren't entirely relevant to the articles, in my opinion. Wikipedia's external links and reliable sources guidelines seem to agree, if I'm reading them right. Shadow1 (talk) 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
And since we do not know who owns the true version of the website, we should try to be fair and remove both links instead of featuring one over the other. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
One who owns the true site doesn't need to make false statements, like current deathcamps.org owner does (I've given examples on my user page). Also, someone representing the true pages doesn't need to make fake blogs like the one here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3ASergey_Romanov&diff=105571739&oldid=89670383 (you can see that this is the same person who writes here as "Genuine ARC Team" by observing the changes he made to wiki articles).--Sergey Romanov 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Netscott no one from the ARC team had anything to do with Michael Richards page... We are only interested in keeping our links point to our site that we started in 2002 and have had links here on Wiki for many years. We have been under constant vandal attacks and link reversion since Oct 2006... why are we being made to suffer with the vandals?


Shadow1 any link that isn't relevant to the article should be removed on any page where it isn't relevant. When we at the www.deathcamps.org began posting and contributing to articles over the years we posted links in good faith.

We only seek to have the promotion of this counterfeit website stopped.

There's no "accrediation" for either site. Deathcamps.org is registered to someone with a yahoo.co.uk e-mail address? That doesn't sound legit to me. (Netscott) 20:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, what is happening here is a simple case of WP:SPAM, just covered up in legal issues. All these users are doing is changing one site for the other, and I simply don't see the benefit to wikipedia in fighting over what? A link!!!. Leave things the way they were, and engage in discussion before doing any drastic action. (changing one link for the other). Put simply this is getting silly, from all the link swapping I'm seeing on IRC. Talk first, then take action, once there is a consensus on what to do. I will ask, where is the evidence that the other site is not legal? Please discuss rather then remove and swap out links. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

70.153.120.187[edit]

I request the ban of this IP. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/70.153.120.187 --Sergey Romanov 20:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) Sergey Romanov you are the one promoting the counterfeit Links, we request the ban of Sergey Romanov

We do not ban users without the consensus of the community. However, you both may be looking at temporary blocks for disruption, unless you can contribute civilly and without any name-calling. Shadow1 (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Talk first, then take action. Both of you may get blocked for spamming if you don't quit this sillyness.. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Have we ever even banned an IP? I mean, we block many IPs per day, but ban? --Iamunknown 21:40, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC just wants to exist in peace[edit]

Shadow we apologize for any statements made out of frustation. ARC it's website www.deathcamps.org would simply like to exist free of link vandalism, our links have been here for years, pointing to our website www.deathcamps.org (check wiki history) they have been suffering edit attacks since October 2006 we are asking why we have to suffer these attacks?

Due to (deathcamps.org/Archived.html) professional differences they both should be removed. (Netscott) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The likely reason that they existed in articles for so long is because no one paid any attention to them until this happened. Shadow1 (talk) 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC Legality[edit]

Eagle

ARC was created in 2002. We registered our website in September of 2002. We have maintained our website since that time. We have also registered for formal copyrights in the USA and EU both back in October when the counterfeit website www.death-camps.org first appeared. Both registrations are in process, but the registration process can be verified with the US copy right office and EU registrar.

The fake website is an identical copy of www.deathcamps.org their site was registered in October 2006 the ICANN and WHOIS validate this.

www.death-camps.org is counterfeit and in violation of the geniune ARC www.deathcamps.org copyright.

-The Genuine ARC team

Resolve the legal issues off of wikipedia. Any more link swapping will result in blocks for spamming. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Would someone kindly block both of the parties here...? Thanks. (Netscott) 21:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punitive. Shadow1 (talk) 21:04, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, prevent this ongoing nonsense. (Netscott) 21:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

EAGLE, that's fine with us, all links should remain what they were www.deathcamps.org any swapping from that to www.death-camps.org would be in violation correct?

JFYI, you're not talking to an ARC member. This person, who hides behind anonymity, has left the group at least two years ago. IOW, he cannot represent a (now non-existent) group.--Sergey Romanov 21:06, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Eagle, what you have stated is in agreement with the ARC team. The links will remain what they FIRST were. Any swapping away from that would be considered spamming? Am I understanding that correctly?

And the opposite. What I'm saying goes both ways. This linkswapping is solely to promote a website, and it needs to stop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Eagle, how about a deletion of the links to an unreliable resource? Will this be according to wiki policy?--Sergey Romanov 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
You can do that, just in this situation please trend lightly till this dies down. Make sure before removing any of these links that they can't be used as a source. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Eagle, that works for us. So the orignal date the Link was first posted will be the valid link? That works for us. We will not post any new links nor make any attempt to promote www.deathcamps.org

We simply ask that all of our links be allowed to remain unvandalised.

Many thanks Eagle.


-The Genuine ARC Team

  • Just as a kinda related comment, any copyright registration for the title either has already been rejected or will be. Two words are unquestionably not copyrightable. -Amarkov moo! 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Let me clarify, whatever they are now, leave them be, you need to discuss this on an article by article basis, if you have legal issues with the other website, it needs to be dealt with off wiki. Put simply no more linkswapping either way. Now I'm not saying that we can't possibly remove the links, or disscuss links on a case by case basis, but this mass linkswapping needs to stop. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


Amarkov The Website domain is copyrighted. The material contained therein is also copyrighted.

Eagle. We have a lot of links pointing to Deathcamps.org are you saying they can be swapped by this Sergey Romanov to point to a counterfeit website?

Enough Enough Enough. Shut up and go away! I'm going to delete all links to either site. Problem solved. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn21:20, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, I told him that if any could be removed he can do so, but needs to be done on a case by case basis. any linkswapping that I see between these two sites I'm going to treat as spam, and deal with accordingly, unless there has been discussion on the article's talk page or elsewhere to another effect. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I completely disagree. We need to remove them all, and now. (I am in the process of doing so. Please help if you can)Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
P.S. I'm going to be away for the next 40 minutes or so, but there are others watching the IRC feeds on links added. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:23, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Good call Theresa Knott, and perhaps add them to spam blacklist for the time being as well. (Netscott) 21:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
The spam blacklist will not be used, unless there is evidence of spamming past this moment. I don't know if I agree with the link removals, and I think this needs to be done with care, rather then blanket removal. —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Nescott and Theresa. We are all dialoguing here in a professional manner, Eagle has been handling this situation well. Why all the negative comment. The ARC team are not spammers. Nor are we posting negative links to blogs etc. We are simply trying to prevent our website from being vandalized. How or why you find that to be in bad taste is not clear to us? The Genuine ARC Team

please SIGN your posts. --Fredrick day 21:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Until this legal nonsense is sorted off-wiki both sites need removing. It is disruptive that "professional differences" are being expressed here on Wikipedia. This is why I support Theresa Knotts' removal of both. (Netscott) 21:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Just wanted to remind everybody that currently there is no such thing as "ARC Team". --Sergey Romanov 21:31, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
We don't care. All links to both sites should be removed; Wikipedia is not a battleground. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Not dealing with Legal Issues, dealing with Link Vandalizing of www.deathcamps.org[edit]

Ok Nescott how about we ignore the legal issue of www.death-camps.org being a counterfeit. Lets just deal with the Wiki History of the links.

If they were www.deathcamps.org and someone vandalized them to www.death-camps.org that's a Wiki matter correct? The Genuine ARC Team ARC www.deathcamps.org

You should be blocked right now for starting section after section alone. Stop that now. Sort your legal differences and come back to Wikipedia afterwords. (Netscott) 21:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No it's not vandalism because as far as anyone knows they are acting in good faith adding those links, all we care about about is WP:ATT - your ownership problems are ENTIRELY non-wiki. and signing is NOT writting your name, you use ~~~~ to do it. --Fredrick day 21:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

We www.deathcamps.org are the ones who added the links they pointed to our website, we are not the ones changing them to www.death-camps.org. We are only changing the vandalized links back.

If someone changes our links to another URL how is that acting in good faith?

We apologise for the multiple sections. The Genuine ARC Team

Your URL has zero related content. The other one has more than zero related content. It is very possible that someone will, in good faith, change to the site with related content. -Amarkov moo! 21:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
At this point, the question is not whether they should be changed, but rather why they're included in articles and why we're making such a big fuss over them. Shadow1 (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

ARC is willing to abide by EAGLE101's ruling. He seems to be the most "leveled headed person in this debate"

The Genuine ARC Team

of course you are. That's because you think he is saying that the link you want must stay on the article. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 21:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
As I stated before, and I will state again, leave the links the way they are, any more mass swapping of links will result in blocks, unless the swap was discussed on the article's talk page. As for removing them, I have no opinion on that. —— Eagle101 Need help? 22:10, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Eagle 101. That's probably the best way to solve the edit wars... --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 22:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know whether or not I agree, but I certainly removed quite a few links from articles. I thought, like Theresa Knott, that it might calm the ensuing havoc. You can revert me if you like, all my edit summaries said "remove link to disputed site, please do not add back in." --Iamunknown 22:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a feeling that will cause more "havoc", but that's only my opinion. Just keep it your way, and hopefully, the thing will sort itself out . --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 22:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I hope not. --Iamunknown 22:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
So do I. The thing is - we don't need the links. Hasving then certainly causes trouble. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 22:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

User pages[edit]

Has anyone noticed, or is it just me. Both user pages for User:ARC-deathcamps.org and User:Sergey Romanov seem to violate WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND, WP:NOT#WEBSPACE and WP:USER. Would anyone support wholesale deletion of both party's userspaces unless each party changes his or hers page? --Iamunknown 21:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC) ... (clarification:) That is, would anyone support an mfd for said user spaces? --Iamunknown 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The userpage of User:ARC-deathcamp.org is removed. And I see no violation on the current userpage for Sergey Romanov. --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, now it's okay...it certainly was not earlier. --Iamunknown 22:11, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Links all removed[edit]

I've removed all the links from both sites from every article. That doesn't include images or talk pages or Wikipedia-space pages, and they may be put back in, but all the current links are removed. Hopefully that will bring calm. --Iamunknown 22:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Well done Iamunknown. I caught one or two that you missed. (Netscott) 22:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Good job. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:44, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Well done. I am still left with an overwhelming "WTF?" about this, though. Guy (Help!) 23:24, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Guy, thats becuase you feel the in-justice involved in how this matter was handled. A black mark on Wikipedia for this one.. ARC
Yep, and I found just the right black mark: Symbol thumbs up.svg. —bbatsell ¿? 00:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
As a side note to this, I've blocked the IP complainant for being disruptive.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:17, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a further issue that hasn't been raised: "ARC" has placed at least one (and likely many) hidden messages in various article, user, and associated talk pages. See below. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I just noticed one of these links was removed from the Porajmos article, and after reading this whole discussion I now understand why the removal happened, and agree with the action. I was wondering, however, if the decision could be summarized somewhere so others like me who edit the many pages linking to these websites can easily understand what has happened. The websites were pretty good sources of information, so it's no small blow to have them removed (though, again, I understand why it was done, and agree with the removal). Thanks. - TheMightyQuill 02:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I wish I had thought of that and added the link to my edit summaries. Perhaps, when this discussion is archived (in the next few days), I can make another run and also go back to all of the talk pages and post a brief note directing editors to this discussion and asking that they not post links to either domain. It's unfortunate but the situation is too tricky and should not be dealt with on-wiki. --Iamunknown 03:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It’s not just links, unfortunately[edit]

Well, it looks like I’m being drug into this mess by the anon styling himself as The Genuine ARC team, and I have three particular complaints: 1) editing a post not by him on my talk page, 2) adding hidden-text spam to same, and 3) making not-so-veiled threats should I not cease and desist – from behavior I have not participated in!

My participation in this is very indirect. I responded to a post by another user on jpgordon’s talk page back in January. That user, Rrburke had noted serial changes of links to the dash site to the non-dash to the article Einsatzgruppen and several others. Since I am knowledgeable about the subject of the death camps, I took it upon myself to do what jpgordon had stated he hadn’t the time to do – examine what the difference between the two sites were and to try to figure out what was going on. What I learned and confirmed to Rrburke was that it was indeed as he surmised, inside baseball.

I’d forgotten about it until the ARC guy (as 71.243.84.163) apparently went trolling on 17 March for dash links, found one on my talk page ([[User talk:Askari Mark#deathcamps.org vs. death-camps.org in Einsatzgruppen) – the last exchange Rrburke and I had on the subject, and deleted the dash in the latter link name (making it nonsensical). I reverted it, rebuked the anon, and let Rrburke know this in case he was still following the issue. He had forgotten about it too, and asked me to remind him what it was about.

At this point ARC (now as 141.157.161.15) began chiming, accusing me of promoting fraudulent websites, and also returned to the January posting (the one he’d originally vandalized) and added the following hidden text: [15] which vandalism I also reverted. Ignoring my point-by-point rebuttal of his accusations in the March 17 post, he started a new thread, Promotion of Counterfeit ARC website, which has descended into threats (which Theresa Knott rebuked him on today).

To date I’ve not edited dashes in or out of links to either of these websites in any article. As best I can tell, this anon’s edits are only to redirect links to his website and push his monomania on any editor he comes across to accuse them (in Wikipedia’s name) of promoting copyright violations. I haven’t gone through all his sockpuppets’ contributions, but it looks to me like he has made no other constructive edits. Inasmuch as he seems intent on stirring up more controversy than he’s worth, I wouldn’t mind seeing him banned just so he doesn’t continue to inflict himself on other editors; however, considering how monomaniacal this anon is about his personal issue, I do expect him to continue vandalizing under other IPs as they become available to him (fortunately, his MO is easy to discern). I would also recommend that some admins explore his other edits to remove the hidden text he placed on my talk page, which I suspect he has placed elsewhere. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me as if they haven't added any hidden text. The edit you referred to above is in plain view. It's just in the middle of the page rather than at the bottom. Or am I being daft? Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 10:09, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
It did not appear at all in the text where it was located. I only discovered it when I diffed each of the anon's two separate entries in my history. I went back to that place after finding it, surprised that I hadn't seen it (kind of hard to miss), and it still did not show up. Only a blank line appeared where the text had been place. Between the two successive paragraphs there were two blank row lines, with the second being where the text had been inserted. It's only apparent "presence" was as if the hidden text had been a <br/>. Askari Mark (Talk) 04:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations ElinorD & similar Wiki pseudonyms! Since today our German provider has blocked our real ARC website (new version / with hyphen). I wish you and your English speaking companions all the best for your future work on your H.E.A.R.T. website. You were finally successful in constantly changing back and deleting my Wiki links to our ARC website (new version, still running - see John Poulsen's "KZ Gates Mottos" / "Arbeit macht frei" / "Jedem das Seine") instead of just adding your links! Not a legal behaviour but obviously acceptable by Wikipedia EN and then of course Wikipedia DE. You (although not authorized to do any links exchange re our ARC group because we released you in 2004 because of your behaviour) tried your best to wipe out our work (2002-2006) by deleting and back-changing links. English language obviously rules the world! And, I remember your email message, you once wrote to me: "Americans always win!". Re this statement, I agree with you re the US engagement in Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraque etc. Not mentioning your US$... THANKS! The Holocaust victims' sons and daughters will be most delighted having the only choice between your new H.E.A.R.T website (partially even corrected by us... see Adolph instead of Adolf Hitler) and the "frozen" ARC website of your UK secretary. No more combined ARC efforts, no more Auschwitz udates, no more translations (Polish, Italian, Spanish, Danish, Swedish...), and no more ghetto maps and pages from me. Btw: Yad Vashem asked me for my ghetto maps, and they will use them for their new project.

Mike Peters former webmaster of your overtaken URL

webmaster of the real URL with hyphen... which is no more online since today...

Mike Peters, so you are the guy who vandalized the real ARC website back in October? Is that the reason they kicked you out and you tried to get revenge by launching a bogus copy of the ARC "now with hyphen" LOL I've been reading this situation on a number of blogs and it would be sad actually if the culpible parties involved weren't total loonies! Crackius

G2bambino wikistalking[edit]

Before going to the meat of the wikistalking accusation, let's put his behavior into context.

  • Long diatribe from an IP that has made zero edits which are not posting said diatribe. Does anyone care to actually read through this to verify that it's stupid? -Amarkov moo! 21:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
For an admin hopeful (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Wikipedia_administrator_hopefuls), you're very rude and flip.
    • He did research it well though....for someone who isn't involved in this, according to contribs, though that is highly doubtful. --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 21:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • It was indeed researched well. Too bad that the research doesn't show much, including such things as a polite request made two years ago. -Amarkov moo! 21:53, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Okay, so, to be fair, most of the evidence isn't like that. However, there is no evidence of Wikistalking. Following people's contributions, if just intended to keep bad ones out of Wikipedia, is allowed, even if it shouldn't be. -Amarkov moo! 21:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • FOR THE RECORD: I do not want my discussions with G2bambino used in any way to support this claim.K. Scott Bailey 21:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
  • This IP is currently on a mission to discredit G2bambino in any way possible. This is most likely due to the following sock puppet report Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Jonawiki and is very likely the user being reported. If anyone can spare a little time and help, feel free to head on over to that report, lay your thoughts in, and see how the user in question is going about this in a pretty uncivil way. Roguegeek (talk) 22:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Hardly any admin patrols WP:SSP though...--KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 22:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm coaching some editors who might give this a look. DurovaCharge! 06:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
While you're coaching, have your editors examine the rude behavior from Physicq210 who's on a powertrip. He gives admins such a bad name with his flip antagonistic comments and silences.
  • Durova, I've had a look through Gbambino, Gbambino6, G2bambino's edits. He's changed usernames a couple times, but seems to have documented these events, and doesn't seem to be hiding anything. The editor seems to be a typical wikignome, generally helpful and productive. He can be mildly snarky at times, [16] [17] [18]. However, the IP accusations at the top of this section don't ring true to me. At most, G2bambino should be reminded about the importance of civility. On the other hand, it seems much more likely to me that the editor who goes by User:Jonawiki may be wikistalking G2bambino. I see Jonawiki has suddenly appeared at Talk:Monarchy in Canada, one of G2bambino's favorite articles. Jonawiki has been making disruptive and pedantic comments that are annoying other editors besides G2bambino.[19] Jonawiki seems like a troublemaker and may need to be warned or possibly blocked for a short time. Jehochman (Talk/Contrib) 17:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
  • After reviewing the presented evidence and and reading 1000s of characters on either side of the linked passages, I seem to be reminded of the argument between the wise man and the idiot--sometimes, you can't tell which is which. G(x)b does show a long and impressive list of helpful activities and much civility, albeit of strong opinion. At other times, it seems obvious that his response to given stimuli is more than he can deal with, resulting in reactions rather than planned actions. Both sides of the "war" seem to using the same evidence to prove their points. I believe that none of the particpants is really of pure heart and ethically clear in this incident, but I can see no strong evidence that "wikistalking" is taking place. Unfortunately, the current controls allow many folks to have multiple personas, making it nearly impossible to find the truth. Is there such a thing as a "restraining" order?!? "User:Stalker, you must stay 5 edits away from User:Stalkee..."--Lmcelhiney 02:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fredia Gibbs= Martial Arts Expert, ISKA Kickboxing Champion & 2 x Mauy Thai Champion[edit]

email = Cheetasden@msn.com

There is no deleted history for Fredia Gibbs, Freida Gibbs, or Fredia gibbs. Under what title did you create the article you want us to re-evaluate? Jkelly 01:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I think this edit is the one in question. One Night In Hackney303 01:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Flojo2008 (talk+ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · checkuser (log))[edit]

Made a fairly egregious personal attack/vandalism to a user's page, and have a history of vandalism, so I've given them a 48 hour block. That sound about right? Here's] the attack, and there's a string of warnings on their user page. They don't seem to have been blocked before, and have some good edits, so I didn't want to go any further than 48 hours. Sound about right? Adam Cuerden talk 02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Sardonicone[edit]

After this user remooved the {{sprotected}} tag from Candy (s/he is not an admin), several users politely told him/her about it. Said discussion seemed to go nowhere, so I left him/her a warning to be on the safe side. Now, s/he is removing warnings from his/her own talk page. Is that allowed? Anthony Rupert 02:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Removing warnings is generally allowed. One can assume that the user has thus seen the warning. Natalie 02:43, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

repeated unwarranted warnings being left on my talk page[edit]

Resolved: --Jersey Devil 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Please could someone have a word with the user who keeps adding warnings to my talk page. recent example here. She insists on accusing me of removing content, despite my having explained to her repeatedly that this is not the case. I have already raised this on the ettiquette page for comments from other editors, and asked her to stop editing my talk page and explained why the warnings are not warranted but she seems to be ignoring me. Many thanks, --Rebroad 16:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks to me like she's right. You're converting stubs to redirects, repeatedly. And her thinking on the need for stubs is also strong. I suggest that instead of jsut making redirects, you start to expand the stub. A scientific discipline is far more notable than the 771st pokemon or some such. If you think the article needs attention because it hasn't been edited in a long time, add to it. ThuranX 16:17, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I did a quick google, and found a site which I placed on the talk, and which led me to find a couple more articles here at WP to add tothe stub. it's still a stub, but we can probably get some progress by a little effort. ThuranX 16:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
See WP:NOT#PAPER for why we can have plenty of stubs. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 16:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I have tried so hard to assume good faith. I've tried to assume good faith when I've gone out of my way to on edits other users thought were simple vandalism only to receive a comment in return telling me my edits looked "fraudulent". I've continued to assume good faith while Rebroad brought my edits to ANI and while Rebroad argued over factual items that I cited, and when not having something to argue about would go onto something else. But now, every time I leave the computer for a minute, there's an additional attack, and enough is enough.
After Rebroad's bizarre renaming of Person, I looked through his edits. This is generally what I do when I come across vandalism or other odd editing. Looking at someone's edit history helps me figure out what's going on, and while the edits were very troubling, they all appeared to be in good faith. So I left Rebroad a long and detailed warning where I explained the various problems with his recent moves. I felt that a template warning wouldn't have helped him, and that hopefully this would.
At first Rebroad responded well to my comments (or at least not hostilly)--he left a comment on my talk page, and responded point by point to the comments I had left him.
However the Nephology article has for some reason been a sticking point with Rebroad. Rebroad set up an elaborate moving plan which didn't work, and needed an administrator User:Arthur Rubin to undo the leftovers. After this, Rebroad continued to push for Nephology to be a redirect--after I had listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion and so I left him this warning which addressed the specific problems with his edits.
At this point, Rebroad turned hostile, leaving me a warning on my talk page that I was "impersonating someone of authority," and calling me "a Jimbo Wales sockpuppet" etc.
After I replied, Rebroad said that he hadn't read my comment, but that he was giving me a "second warning for stating your opinions as fact. Further continuation of this may result in you getting blocked from editing wikipedia" (somehow without having read my comments, he knew).
He has since left two unsigned template warnings on my talk page for vandalism and not assuming good faith.
He has also edited my comments on his talk page, because he thought they were factually inaccurate, and removed two template warnings I left him: uw3-delete and uw4-delete.
References
I would very much appreciate some intervention at this point. I don't know how much help I can provide an editor who needs to see Wiki policy to prove that disambig page descriptions are based on articles and that articles are not based on disambig page discriptions, or how I can possibly communicate with someone who was/ie under the impression (I didn't even get this until the end) that every statement I made that was not preceded by an "I believe" or an "I think", was my trying to say that that was wiki policy. The communication gulf here was large to begin with, larger than I knew, and now that this user has turned hostile and abusive, there's little I think I can do. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:09, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
Miss Mondegreen, you have exercised extraordinary restraint and have stretched the limits of AGF beyond all reason. WP:AGF is not a suicide pact. Your patience is remarkable. I think you deserve a Purple Star Award [21] for enduring this abuse, and I'm going to give you one now! -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. In response to User:Night Gyr, I was going by the Wikipedia:Article_size#A_rule_of_thumb policy, which said that if the article is <1K for more than a few months then to merge it into a related article, which is what I was doing. I think the problem here may be that wikipedia is starting to get too many policies which conflict with each other - a bit like statue law in many ways! Which is the overriding policy? --Rebroad 17:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the guideline says,

If an article or list has remained this size for over a couple of months, consider combining it with a related page. Alternatively, why not fix it by adding more info? See Wikipedia:Stub. If it's an important article that's just too short, put it under Article Creation and Improvement Drive, a project to improve stubs or nonexistent articles.

Now, this isn't a candidate for Article Creation and improvement, but you could have listed it at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion or worked on it, especially as no information was added to the Cloud article. You didn't go to WikiProject Meteorology either.
And you didn't cite this or just "consider" merging it--you rammed it down people's thoats. When the whole moving shabang was undone and this article was listed at Wikipedia:Requests for expansion, you commented there saying that it wasn't appropriate to be expanded and then went and redirected it again (never properly I might add). The steps were being taken to expand the article at this point and you were actively preventing them. WP:Article Size doesn't say anything about that. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   17:43, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what else to say. Miss Montegreen's comments above seems to prove my point earlier regarding assumpion of bad faith as she now accuses me of being hostile and abusive, which is totally untrue. She is also misquoting me in several places above, which you will all be able to determine for yourselves if you have the time to check my recent contributions regarding these recent events. There does seem to be a communications problem here also, and Miss Montegreen's comments often seem to be those of someone in charge and dictating policy but upon further exploration it appears that they are just her opinions, but for some reason she is reluctant to distinguish between her opinion and policy, so this further compounds the communication problem. I have stated my grounds for my actions above and on the various talk pages that discussion has taken place. If there are any further questions, please feel free to ask and I will do my best to answer them when I am next on-line. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

It's Miss Mondegreen, not Montegreen. And secondly, when you come to my talk page and tell me I have a superiority complex, or excuse me, that that's one possible scenario that could explain my edits--I don't need to assume anything. Those are bad faith edits on your part. You're edits can be called hostile, vandalism, talk page abuse--whatever you want, but I'm talking about the same thing. If it's an issue with the adjective's I'm using, that's fine, choose another, but those edits are still problematic.
In re my reluctance to distinguish between opinion and policy--I have never been relectant. I already write enough--I'm not going to preface each statment with an explanation or disclaimer. When it's policy it's policy. When it isn't, it isn't. When I say that something won't happen with the cloud article--that is a statement based on my beliefs, not policy. I have no idea how you cloud have thought that that statement was policy, but I can't colour code my writing for you. I wiki link policy in most places anyway so that should be a tipoff. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:03, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I would also add that I will try to avoid responding to Miss Mondegreen directory from now on, as each time I do I end up with several pages of text to read each time, which rarely appear to address the underlying issue. If someone else other than Miss Montegreen could provide some feedback instead, this would be much appreciated. Many thanks, --Rebroad 17:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

(ECx3)The 'rule of thumb' is a guideline, not a policy. WP:NOT#PAPER is a specific philosophy. Given that the redirect met with opposition, making it 'controversial', Not Paper trumps RoT. leave it there. I've already added a little content, and talk apge'd a springboard for further research. The article CAN be expanded. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
(ECx3)Archiving relevant linked coments on your talk page in the middle of an AN/I you started is a bad practice. Please leave the info in place until the issue is settled in the future. Thank you. ThuranX 17:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi. Regarding the specific issue of having unwanted discourse added to user talk pages by this user, here is also another comment by a user also asking Miss Mondegreen to please cease and disist, and also referring to her actions as "borderline trolling", which I had also felt was an appropriate analysis, but refrained from saying it thus far. I do think that this user is going out of their to the point of stalking people, despite the justifications she has so far given. --Rebroad 18:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of Miss Mondegreen's behavior, your behavior in this has not been above reproach. It's generally understood that you can be bold, on Wikipedia, until someone complains - but if someone complains, then talk. You seem, frankly, to have trouble dealing with criticism or disagreement with your actions.
Renaming is a frequently contentious thing to be doing on Wikipedia, as you should have been aware. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 18:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm fairly sure the various unpleasant things you said to me on my talk page were unwanted. As were the unsigned (did you think I wouldn't know? that they would be more credible) and bizarre warnings.
At the very least, you could stop now. I understand that you didn't like being warned or criticized, but you had and have always had and could still now stop. You could stop assuming bad faith since that always escalates things, you could stop making the kind of comments you've been leaving on my talk page. You've taken this issue here and continued to escalate--I defend myself on one score and suddenly I'm being attacked for something else. This is a lot like trying to discuss wiki policy with you--I respond in terms of one issue and you move on to something else.
And, now that you can see comments other users have left for me, don't you appreciate the fact that I didn't delete comments that reflected badly on me--whether or not the person was right? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   18:47, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has put up on his User Page that he's taking a wikibreak. I suggest that the time he's gone be used to expand the article, and leave this section to scroll out. It can be referenced fron the archives if we need it in a few days to deal with further conflicts. IN the meantime, make the article better, and no one can complain. I notice that I'm the only one who has tried to expand it, whiel you two have kept back and forth'ing. ThuranX 19:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually ThuranX--I haven't been doing much editing/writing at all. Between this and other Wiki things that required immediate attention, I've been spending my limited time here on those. In fact, it's very hard to be productive when every time I log on I find the work I've just done, undone, and that I have to go around to a half-dozen pages and leave a warning or ask an admin to revert a move or whatnot. Rebroad's probably gotten me to log more wiki hours since I came back from no internet access :). Miss Mondegreen | Talk   20:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
i have had problems in the past with this and think only a high level admin. should be allowed to place any form of warning or warning template against any user. This will prevent users using templates in personal attacks and stop user adding them to user simply because they don't like what the user is saying.--Lucy-marie 20:30, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not the first time we've had problems with Rebroad. Miss Mondegreen has previously made a number of good comments spread throughout the discussion here:

They highlight the problematic nature of User:Rebroad's unilateral name changing of articles. User:Rebroad has been on my radar in the past because of very obtrusive and stubborn failure to listen to other editor's reasoning. He tried to revive an old and obsolete article and deleted a redirect, which was a serious action and created a lot of wasted time for many editors:

Rebroad is a particularly uncollaborative and disruptive type of editor, since the types of changes he often makes have far reaching consequences and are an exercise of bad faith disrespectful of the hard work of many other editors who have used the consensus process to bring articles to the point at which Rebroad brashes onto the scene and destroys things. IMO Rebroad needs to be reigned in. Maybe a block on any and all types of editing other than correcting overlinking?....;-) -- Fyslee (collaborate) 23:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Its impossible to block certain types of editing from a user. When blocked, a user can only edit on his/her own talk page. --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 05:22, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I disagree that Rebroad's edits are in bad faith; I think that he or she firmly thinks that his or her contributions are improving the encyclopedia and, in some instances, I agree. Furthermore, since I interpret the information presented here and in Rebroad's contributions as such, I would not support a block outside of normal channels (i.e. 3RR violations, personal attacks, absolutely egregious conduct despite warnings, etc.) and would not support an escalated block for anything other than repeated violations. I have no opinion on a community ban, particularly since I am unaware if dispute resolution have been attempted. --Iamunknown 05:28, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think Rebroad's actions are in bad faith, but that Miss Mondegreen has exercised extraordinary patience in this situation. Good faith edits can still be performed in very disruptive ways, and this isn't the first time Rebroad has plagued us. Rebroad needs to learn to slow down and listen to other editors. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:38, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I have now reworded my comment above to avoid confusion. -- Fyslee (collaborate) 05:44, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
(argh, edit conflict) Has any dispute resolution been attempted? I do agree that Miss Mondegreen has a saintly amount of patience, and, to Miss Mondegreen, I commend you. --Iamunknown 05:53, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, to all of you. The overall problem isn't so much dispute resolution, though since Rebroad clearly thinks that I am attacking him, it would most likely be best if other users dealt with future issues. If I see something, I can go to another editor, and Rebroad can then still accuse me of something, but if Rebroad is warned, hopefully he'll see that it's not due to my having a personal vendetta or enough free time to stalk wiki-users.
The problem seems to be that Rebroad's views in terms of editing are a gulf apart from the majority of Wikipedians, and when such things are pointed out to him, he won't accept this unless the exact issue is word by word dealt with in a Wiki policy or guideline, and then he often finds another Wiki reason to make his edit wiki justifiable. He's highly defensive, and so I think he may have seen the logic when I pointed out that disambiguation page descriptions were based on the articles they were describing and that the articles were not based on the descriptions on the disambiguation pages, but his back was to a wall and he decided that this idea made no logical sense and was "blinkered", [22] and then I had to find wiki-policy to prove the obvious--that descriptions are based on the thing and not the thing based on the description. If someone describes me as being 6'5", I don't grow, I correct the description.
Rebroad comes to articles with a definitive view, and doesn't often stay long. He doesn't do the necessary research, either on or off Wikipedia to back his edits (specifically moves), he doesn't talk with other editors, and he doesn't see why it's necessary because he knows why it's right. He reads be bold and sees it as saying be bold until a conflict arises. [23]
I do believe that his edits are in good faith, but he's been repeatedly told things and ignored them. What Rebroad needs to understand is that sometimes the Wiki community will say, you are "wrong"--and it doesn't matter if they are wrong--if you cannot convince them then the article or the policy or the whatever will stay "wrong". Everyone thinks that they are right, and you can bring in other editors to try and ask for outside opinions and cite sources and policy, but in the end, your version of right or better may not win. If Rebroad can't deal with that, and decides not to get opinions and cite sources and read talk pages and be a responsible editor, then no matter how much his edits are in good faith--his unwillingness to change his behavoir is not.
Rebroad is taking a break, and we can should hope that he comes back with a renewed willingness to work with others--a lot of his edits needed communication simply because when other people don't know what's going on they do assume the worst. If he comes back and his behavoir doesn't change, then we'll template warn, and he'll either take notice or incur blocks. The only thing we'll have to be vigilant about is that he does have a habit of deleting warnings and editing others' talk page comments. There's no reason to block him now--he didn't break 3RR, and he stopped short of getting a block on removing article content, and he's taking a break anyway. When he comes back, if he continues this behavoir, we'll know that he's been thoroughly warned and that he's aware of proper protocol, and if he needs to be warned again, he should start being warned at bad faith level templates for these types of edits. Hopefully, Rebroad will have a fresh approach to editing when he comes back, and if not--then at least this ANI and whole shebang should keep him from flying under the radar anymore.
Actually, thought here: could someone post a link to this discussion once it's archived on his talk page, as talk pages are for communication with the user and about the user? Would that be appropriate, especially given his deletion of warnings? If he caused problems in the future it would let people know not to warn him with a level 1, and if he didn't, no big. Any thoughts? Miss Mondegreen | Talk   08:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Hopefully this will be my last words on this matter. I am quite surprised that people have considered Miss Mondegreen's patience to be saintly. Just from this page alone, I feel I have been victimised a number of times:-

  1. Referring to my edits as "bizarre" or "odd".
  2. Misquoting me, and being selective in her examples of my edits, such as trying to suggest my interpretation of "be bold" is incorrect, but failing to refer to the wikipedia guidelines I have quoted to back this up (such as Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle).
  3. Issuing warnings to me on the asumpion of bad faith, and not allowing for different interpretations of wikipedia policy and guidelines. I believe Miss Mondegreen is interpreting some of the wikipedia policies in ways I had never even thought of. She also fails to see how they can be interpreted any other way, and therefore accuses me of not following them or misquoting them. (Miss Mondegreen seems to go to extremes in her interpretation of policies. When she sees the sentence "consider merging", she interprets that as "think about it, but certainly don't do it", whereas to me it seems pretty obvious that merging is being presented as a valid option.)
  4. Accusing me of "elaborate plans" (more bad faith) - I suspect this is more an indication of how Miss Mondegreen thinks, whereas with me, what you see is what you get - no elaborate plans, just a genuine intention to improve wikipedia.
  5. Accusing me of being hostile, accusing me of calling her a "Jimbo sockpuppet" (which I only offered her as a joke hypothesis for her recent actions) - I stand by my analysis that she is impersonating someone in authority given that she has so far failed to show why her opinions should be considered more important than mine. This is not being hostile, this is stating fact, IMHO.
  6. Accusing me of bad faith due to use of the word "fraudulent". My comment about fraudulent stands as when I renamed Person I genuinely believed it to be uncontroversial, however, Miss Mondegreen went onto labelling it uncontroversial when asking for it to be moved back while at the same time argueing to me that it was controversial!
  7. Accusing me of saying she has a superiority complex. I did not say this, I provided it as one of many options for possible explanations of her behaviour, the last option including an apology from me for not manging to understand the reasons for her behaviour.
  8. Accusing me of editing her comments on my talk page. This is distortion of the truth, IMHO. I changed only the title of the section to remove word warning as I did not consider it valid (given it was based on her intrepretation of policy wording alone). I did not change any of her comments.
  9. Repeatedly accusing me of encouraging users to not expand Nephology. This may be a symantic issue here. I encourage users to expand the subject, but that it should be done within the cloud article until it goes over 1Kb at which point it would deserve an article of its own. (This is based on wikipedia guidelines I stated previously). I think it is bizarre to insist on keeping a one sentence article that has not been touched since 2004.
  10. Stalking me. Dispite her rationalisaions, the sole reason Miss Mondegreen is even involved in the Nephology debate is because she targetted it after having seen my involvement with it.
  11. Using violent language and attributing it to my actions, such as "rammed it down people's throats". She also says I didn't "consider merging" - claiming to be able to read my mind it seems. This sort of comment also does not help to garner my patience with her.

To respond to some of Miss Mondegreen's points:-

  • Regarding the unsigned warnings on her talk page - since these templates are fairly new to me, I hadn't realised they needed to be manually signed, or whether they should be.
  • I would not generally have given warnings in those instances, and as I said in the comments on her talk page, they are partly there to demonstrate a point - i.e. anyone can dish out warnings based on their own (possibly distorted) interpretation of the guidelines. Whether this should be done - I would argue that it should not. The guidelines leave much to presonal interpretation, such as saying "do this only if this is important", and the user is left to decide what is meant by "important". Miss Mondegreen and I seem to differ in our opinions on these points. Unless the policies or guidelines can be clarified, then there would appear to be no right or wrong at first glance, and that this would have to be something determined by concensus.
  • Speaking of consensus, I would like to point out that it was I who made the effort to get other parties involved. Miss Mondegreen seemed quite happy to continue plastering my talk page with warnings without getting anyone else's opinion on the matter.
  • She continues to state disambigaution pages should be based on the articles they refer to rather than the other way around. She states this as fact, and even claims to have found a policy which states this, but has not cited it. (I believe that her continued alternations between stating wikipedia policy in one instance, and then stating her opinions as fact in another are not helping people to understand the issue.) IMHO, disambig pages and their corresponding articles are a symbiosis. They support each other. I agree that in the majority of cases a disambig page is created based on the articles that are related to, but in some instances the disambiguation page can help bring clarity and direction for the articles to which they refer. This seems to have been the case (and others have agreed with me) with the Person article.
  • The "communication gulf" to which Miss Mondegreen refers, I believe is primarily a result of her reluctance to distinguish between what she is stating her opinion and when she is stating policy. It makes it appear she is dictating her opinion as policy, which doesn't help to build rapport (certainly not with me anyway). I believe this is why I have seen so many other users infuriated by her comments and requesting ceasation of communcation with her.
  • Apologies by the way of mis-spelling Miss Mondegreen. This was not intentional, and you will see that I was already going back and changing the mis-spelling where I noticed it even before she commented on it.
  • I didn't respond to Miss Mondegreen's analogy regarding her being described as 6'5" as I felt it was not a fair analogy at all expected most people would agree. So, yes, in this example, I admit that I have ignored some things I've been told, but I am not aware that I have ignored anything I should not have.
  • I also dispute that I come to articles with a definitive view, and that I always try to keep an open mind. The only views I tend to be definitive about is that articles should be reported in a NPOV.
  • I'm not sure to what Miss Mondegreen is referring when she says she defends herself on one score only to have me attack her on another.
  • Regarding "his unwillingness to change his behaviour" - to which behaviour is she referring? Repeatedly told which things? These statements seem to say a lot, but they actually say nothing without the necessary specifics.
  • Regarding my being aware of "proper protocol", I do not believe I was ever unaware. Following this discussion, I am not aware that any protocols have been changed, and unless someone can provide the specifics as mentioned in my previous comment, I can't see how my behaviour needs to change.

To be perfectly honest, I haven't responded to many of the points above so far as I felt that by doing so I would be allowing myself to become obsessed with the discussion. As other users have said, they don't have the time to respond to such "ranting", and therefore this will hopefully be my last words on this matter - I have far more important things to get on with (including, sometimes, improving wikipedia). I hope that my comments above in someway help to show that views in terms of editing are not a "gulf apart from the majority of Wikipedians", but it's just that I can't afford to spend all my time explaining myself like this.

To respond to other users comments:-

  • Morven, thanks for your comments and for saying I seem to have trouble dealing with criticism. I'd like to think I always welcome criticism, although it does frustrate me when people jump to incorrect conclusions - I don't think I mind so much when they jump to correct ones, although this seems to happen rarely!
  • ThuranX, thanks for expanding the article and for being so level headed (this does not imply that everyone else is not - as my friend just pointed out to me!)
  • Lucy-marie - I think you have a good point, and hope that admins are careful in analysing all warnings before making a decision to impose a block on anyone.
  • Fyslee, I still think there was enough information in the Slipped disc article to warrant its own article, but I was outvoted regarding being against the merge. I accepted the outcome and haven't revisited the article since, so I'm not sure why you are mentioning this. This is an example where I think a merge should not have happened, unlike nephology where I am for a merge. I don't see the justifcation for saying I am uncollaborative and disruptive. As per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I was bold in my initial edit, and then it went to a vote to seek consensus. End of story - I do accept when I am in the minority.
  • Iamunknown. Thanks for your comments. I'm glad you can see that I edit in good faith.

Thanks for listening, --Rebroad 13:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


DISAMBIGUATION PAGES AND ARTICLES
Rebroad--you and I have been communicating on multiple pages. If I go to the trouble of tracking down policy and citing it for you in one place, I'm going to assume that you bothered to read my answer, and am not going to keep a list of things Rebroad wants to know/needs proof of. I didn't think it was necessary that I also link every other word I wrote here. I linked you to the disambiguation page policy on your talk page, btw, and policy aside, since I am hoping this is still a misunderstanding at least on this count, let me explain what I mean:

Disambiguation pages are based on articles by their very merit. If there is only one article with the name XYZ--then there is no disambiguation page needed. If there is XYZ, XYZ (album), XYZ (movie), XYZ (the worst song you every heard), then and only then is a disambiguation page created. Articles come first, then disambiguation page. The disambiguation page lists the articles, and then, based on the articles, writes a description of what it is. Often, it's not hard. XYZ, a brand of toilet paper made by WGBY XYZ, an album by the BBB XYZ, a movie starring ____ and ____ released in _____

Now, is what is notable about the movie changes, the article will. Maybe, at the time of release, the stars of the movie were notable, but twenty years later, no one knows who the stars are and the director is famous. The article will most likely be changed to reflect that--the draw at the time was X, but it's a cult-classic now because of director ____. As such, the disambiguation page should change to reflect that as well--generally, it is people who edit the articles who edit the articles entires on disambig pages.

XYZ, a brand of toilet paper made by WGBY XYZ, an album by the BBB XYZ, a cult classic from 2023 by director _______

Now with the Person article, the Person article doesn't change to reflect the world, it changes because we're having writing issues. The Person article currently deals with philosophical and legal personhood, and so issues of splits and renaming and etc have to be sorted out.

The disambig page that said it was a philosophical article was wrong, and renaming the article based on that was wrong. An article name reflects the article, and that name didn't reflect the article, or rather reflected in inaccurately. You may not have liked my 6' analogy, but it's a fairly good one I think. Disambiguation pages are lists--nothing more. They are lists of articles with one line descriptions of the articles. As articles change, the descriptions should too.

I don't understand how an article could be based on a one-line description, or how they could "work together in symbiosis".

I also don't know what you are talking about in re Person. Could you provide a link?


Editing comments -- I provided a link. They could see that the edit was minor, but you don't edit a comment or the title of a comment at all. You changed what I wrote on your talk page, and that's a violation of policy, that I linked you to in edit summary.

Nephology -- expanding within Cloud has already been explained to you

Stalking you -- I looked at your edits to see if you were a vandal or a good faith editor. If you would have preferred, I could have reported after the Person move a list of your very problematic moves here instead.

WP:BOLD First, in re the page you linked to--it's an essay not a policy or guideline, and you completely ignored the whole "DO NOT Revert back!" Btw, I was referring to WP:BOLD which I believe I've linked you to before and is an actual guideline.

unsigned warnings I signed the warnings I left on your talk page, and you didn't leave the warnings in the same edit, so you should have seen that the previous one was left unsigned. You also added them haphazardly to various sections. Also, just because you can do something, doesn't mean you do. If you go around warning editors for things that they haven't done, the editor should report you and you'll get blocked most likely. Same way you can't just add things you make up just because you can. Just because you can do something doesn't mean you should. Wikipedia is self-correcting and you know that well. You had a problem with me, and took it here, but the problem is is that the things you cite in your defense don't support you. You cite an essay as something official and you did exactly what the essay said not to do anyway. You were told before you commented again here that "The WIkipolicies nad guidelines regarding splitting in no way requires all articles start as sections of others." and yet you bring it up yet again, still unable to listen to others when being told that you are incorrect about something.

proper protocol

You should have been aware before, and now you certainly are, that almost any move you would like to make should be brought up for discussion and should be listed at WP:requests for expansion. In terms of the various very problematic moves you've been making--you've been addressed, at length, by multiple editors and you should know how to go about making these kinds of moves in the future.

consensus I listed the article at Request for expansion, had discussed the issue in re Nephology with two other editors, one an adim, and if you continued, would most certainly have listed you for a 3rr block, or a removal of content block or brought you here. I don't believe that we needed or need mediation--if you don't want to listen to anything that I say, that's fine. I hope that you will avoid this type of behavoir in the future, and if not, and I am the one to catch the behavoir, I will try and get another editor to be the one to talk will you since I know that you think that I am stalking you or some other conspiracy based thing. Also in re consensus, when you specifically violate it and make it impossible for a regular editor to fix that, its not controversial to bring the page back to the last agreed upon version. We had last had consensus on the page being named Person (who knows when we will again), and we don't need to get together a vote or need consensus to undo vandalism or one editor striking out. That's the antithesis of consensus, and since the admins at WP:RM agreed with me, I don't know why you're still bringing this up. Lots of moves listed as non-controversial are moved, because the admins there think that they are controversial. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT/continued harrasment in re Rebroad[edit]

Resolved: --Jersey Devil 04:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Rebroad has now admitted that the warnings he placed on my talk page were a to "demonstrate a point - i.e. anyone can dish out warnings based on their own (possibly distorted) interpretation of the guidelines." This is a clear violation of WP:POINT, in addition Rebroad has listed an accusation list and I'm beginning to feel like I can't edit or say anything without adding another point to his list. This is what I meant earlier about defending myself on one score only to be attacked on another, a lot of the things on the list are things I accused him of, where he says I misquoted him or didn't understand that it really was funny when the only possible explanation for my actions was my being a Jimbo sockpuppet or having a superiority complex (or he's all wrong, in which case he apologises). Rebraod had said that he was taking a break, which I don't know whether or not he still is, but if the continued accusations etc., don't stop, because at this point I do consider this to be harrassment I'd appreciate if some sort of action was taken. I'm not entirely sure what Rebroad was/is aiming for with his continued comments here, but it's time for him to cease and desist--this is really getting out of hand. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked the user for 24 hours. Quite frankly action should have been taken much sooner. If the behavior continues after this block is over, please contact me. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 04:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This is beginning to feel like stalking--re Rebroad and Geo.plrd[edit]

Rebroad was apparantly searching through ANI archives or something, and yesterday posted this [24] on Geo.plrd's talk page. I'm a little concerned that Rebroad seems to be actively searching out information on me and things to use against me and for a way to "impose sanctions" on me for the warnings I left on his talk page.

I'm also a little concerned and confused by Geo.plrd's reply on Rebroad's talk page (how I found out about all this btw.) During my late involvement in the Runed Chozo issue in February, I apparantly rubbed Geo.plrd the wrong way. (I left, btw a grand total of four comments--I didn't participate in the first two discussions or I think I see a sockpuppet--I left one comment at How RunedChozo was and should be handled & commented three times in the discussion I linked to above.) Two days after [25], he proposed a six month community ban of me, citing that I was trolling, engaging in personal attacks, delusional, and that the community just didn't have time to deal with my ranting. I didn't know about the community ban proposal until Rebroad dug it up.

I clearly rubbed Geo.plrd the wrong way, though I'm not sure how since I've had no interaction with this user, ever AFAIK, but I'm bothered both by the proposal, his reply to Rebroad, Rebroad's behavoir which is coming close to stalking, and his new comments on his talk page, where he accused me of bad faith when I asked to have the block for his suspected sockpuppet SHORTENED. This is getting more and more frustrating even as I try to be more and more careful--if I can't even request the shortening of a block for a potentially innocent party without being accused of bad faith and biting new users, I'm not sure what I can do. Every edit I make seems to inflame the situation, when they should be irrelevant or in the case of the shortening block, cool the situation down. Miss Mondegreen | Talk   12:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Tag-team tag deletion problem[edit]

Resolved

I'm experiencing a problem with a number of editors repeatedly removing a {{Notability}} tag from an article. Several editors, including myself, have some serious concerns about the notability of the article Pallywood (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views); these are summarised at Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions. However, only one person has provided a substantive reply and he also thinks the article's subject isn't notable. Other editors have argued that the subject is notable, but they have mostly declined to explain why, other than appealing to the number of Google hits (e.g. [26]).

Unfortunately, several editors acting in a tag-team have now taken to repeatedly deleting the {{Notability}} tag as a means of shutting down a debate which they apparently don't want to have ([27], [28], [29]). I'd appreciate it if someone could intervene to prevent this tag-removing-tag-team-edit-warring and have a word with the editors involved (Leifern (talk · contribs · count), PinchasC (talk · contribs · count) and Jaakobou (talk · contribs · count)). (Disclaimer: I'm an admin myself, but rather than going through back channels I prefer to deal with this on the record.) -- ChrisO 23:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I've waddled into the debate and told them not to remove the tag until discussion is complete, and not during or after because it is in good faith. I don't think it needs any more attention other than a few more comments - which can be done via a request for comment. x42bn6 Talk 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, an RfC is the next step given the lack of responsiveness. As for the tag, I can't restore it due to 3RR - could you sort it out? -- ChrisO 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I have restored the tag and shall block any users who attempt to tag-team remove it for edit waring (until talkpage discussion is complete). Betacommand (talkcontribsBot) 01:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. It's regrettable, but unfortunately not the first time this sort of thing has happened. I've flagged this as resolved (hopefully). -- ChrisO 01:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it seems like (Catchpole (talk · contribs · count) and (ChrisO (talk · contribs · count) are tag teaming by repeatedly adding the notability tag. This has recently gone thru AFD and that is enough to keep the tag off the page. Adding the tag seems to be a violation of WP:POINT. Furthermore, the reverting by Betacommand to ChrisO's version and then threatening to block anyone that disagrees with him does not seem too neutral. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually the notability questions were a followup to the AfD. The very first two sentences of Talk:Pallywood#Notability questions make this clear: "I'd like to return to an issue that came up during the recent AfD discussion: the question of notability. Several of the contributors to the discussion asserted that the subject of the article was notable, but without explaining why." The questions are significant, substantiated and asked in good faith; as x42bn6 says on the talk page, "This is a legitimate concern with a legitimate policy." An AfD does not end debate on a question like this, particularly when the AfD results in no consensus. I'm trying to find a consensus on the notability issue, following the inconclusive AfD. Personally I think it's very significant that those asserting notability have avoided answering the questions, as that goes right to the heart of whether we should have the article in the first place. -- ChrisO 11:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
First of all, ChrisO, if you're going to lodge a complaint against me on the Administrators' noticeboard, I think it would be courteous to notify me of this action on my Talk page. Secondly, the tagging is, as I pointed out on the article's Talk page, without merit. It hinges entirely on the premise that the article is about a term. This premise has been thoroughly rejected - the article is about the phenomenon the term describes. In fact, ChrisO and other editors have made several efforts to delete or gut this article, all of which have failed, and this is but the most recent, namely which is to reduce the scope of the article to the point that it's meaningless and then question its notability. I'm not going to run afoul with the admin noticeboard by removing the tag, but I want to put on record a strong objection against this sort of behavior. --Leifern 12:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:BLP violations on Heather Wilson[edit]

DailyKos.com dug up a 14-year-old child molesting allegation against Jay Hone, the husband of Rep. Heather Wilson (R-NM), three weeks before an election. As secretary of the state's Department of Children, Youth and Families, Wilson moved the investigative file from one location to another within the department. Political enemies have been trying to get mileage out of it ever since, and DailyKos.org dug it up three weeks before the election.

Despite these smear tactics, Wilson won re-election and now a Wikipedia editor wants to reward their efforts by permanently enshrining them in Wilson's Wikipedia article. Hone was never arrested or charged with any crime and the county prosecutor, a Democrat, admitted in a 1996 interview that Wilson broke no law by moving the file.

My efforts to enforce WP:BLP have been met with accusations of vandalism. Please help. Kzq9599 23:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

My comments on the article talk page. Some of the Wilson material is problematic (though comments about a current, unrelated investigation seem to be more reasonable). My view is that the reports of the allegations against Mr. Hone, who is not asserted to be a public figure, raise very serious BLP issues and should not stay in the article. Newyorkbrad 00:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
DailyKos is a reputable blog. Further, since there was an interview, the allegation is verifiable. SWATJester On Belay! 00:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A reputable blog? I do enjoy blogs, but none are universally acknowledged as "reputable;" Daily Kos, a font of overtly partisan agitation, is far from an exception.Proabivouac 00:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Blogs are not reliable sources. As Atrios would say, a simple answer to a simple question. ;-) -- ChrisO 00:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect according to WP:RS: "When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications." Considering the field on Daily Kos is politics, and its contributors include John Kerry, Barack Obama, Barbara Boxer, John Conyers, Jimmy Carter, John Edwards, and about a hundred more senators, congressmen, major presidential candidates, etc....I'd say that burden is met. SWATJester On Belay! 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Did Barack Obama author the allegations against Heather Wilson, or was it one of hundreds of unsourced anonymous people writing for Daily Kos whose credibility is indeterminate? -- TedFrank 00:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Nobody has said anything about who authored them. SWATJester On Belay! 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A reputable allegation on Daily Kos will be repeated in a reliable source. A smear from an anonymous poster that can't be confirmed will not. This isn't like Josh Marshall posted this on Talking Points Memo and vouched for his reporting. If there isn't a name to place to the source, then it might as well be lonelygirl16, and equally unreliable. -- TedFrank 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Just a side comment, that really cracked me up; I got one of those lonelygirl spams about 5 minutes ago. Made the example rather vivid. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] 09:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
See below. There are multiple sources. SWATJester On Belay! 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
CNN is not universally acknowledged to be "reputable" either. As for notability, Daily Kos has an article entry, which states "Daily Kos has an average weekday traffic of about 600,000 visits,[1] and has between 14 million and 24 million visits per month". The list of contributors on the page is equally impressive. SWATJester On Belay! 00:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The difference between CNN and Daily Kos is well described at Wikipedia:Reliable sources - basically it boils down to the fact that the mainstream media operate with editorial oversight by professional journalists. It doesn't mean that the output will be to everybody's liking, but the fact is that bloggers aren't generally regarded as authoritative in anything like the same way that the media is. -- ChrisO 01:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say they were the same. I said that the argument that it's not "reputable" is conjecture. SWATJester On Belay! 01:05, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
The pertinent argument is that it's not reliable, rather than not reputable. Reputability is in the eye of the beholder. Reliability is something we have an entire policy on. And that policy is quite clear that Daily Kos (and Red State and all the other political blogs) are not reliable sources. -- ChrisO 01:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Except as I noted above, when it's published by a notable expert in the field. SWATJester On Belay! 01:13, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for us, we don't have to worry about settling that debate here; the reliable sources in question are the Albuquerque Tribune, Albuquerque Journal, KOAT TV, and other established news organizations that picked up the story from places like Daily Kos and did their own verification. Is anyone questioning those organizations' status as reliable sources? -Pete 01:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I certainly wouldn't. If the established newsies are reporting it, go right ahead. -- ChrisO 01:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The established newsies are also saying that District Attorney Bob Schwartz, a Democrat, says no laws were broken; that the DailyKos "resurfacing" of these allegations three weeks before the election resulted in some astroturfing phone calls to the Albuquerque Tribune; and that the police report about Jay Hone has been a public record at the Albuquerque Police Department for 14 years. The mainstream media have reacted responsibly to DailyKos political chicanery. Kzq9599 02:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Which is why current editors of the page in question, including you and me, are basing the current revision more closely on what's reported in the mainstream media, and why citations of DailyKos have been removed. The process you set in place is working; let's let this request for admin intervention go, and focus on the content. -Pete 03:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that 15 year old allegations, which were never proven, or even brought to trial, and were only resurfaced for purposes of politically attacking the spouse of a non-public figure, have no place on Wikipedia. I suggest that editors review Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Vivaldi and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Rachel Marsden. Thatcher131 11:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How to go about a userpage violation[edit]

Willren (talk · contribs) has done naught else than leave personal messages on their talkpage. I've already warned them, and they went ahead and did it again. Judging by the history, I suspect it is an account shared by a couple. I don't think they realize that their dialogue is public. So....what does one do now? Another warning? An MFD? Or should it just be speedied? The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 03:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy it under nonsense or something. And report the user to WP:AIV. --KZ Talk Vandal Contrib 03:40, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • It is inappropriate, but it doesn't fit the nonsense bill or the definition of vandalism. Either MFD or speedy deletion for violation of the userpage policy. - Mgm|(talk) 09:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed sockpuppet case, request for block[edit]

As per [30], it has been confirmed that User:Artaxerex and User:Faranbazu have resorted to sockpuppetry and have violated 3RR in this manner. As the violation is now confirmed I'd like to ask an administrator to please block these accounts if that is deemed appropriate. Shervink 08:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)shervink

Artaxerex blocked for 48 hours. Faranbazu blocked indefinitely as an abusive sockpuppet. Heimstern Läufer 08:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Parrotman[edit]

I found this user's talkpage as a result of a user category which the user created, to notify its speedy deletion due to G10. The user's page and talk page is filled with civility warnings, and looking through the user's contributions list, I see more of the same in edit summaries. I've not been in direct discussion with this user as of yet, so I thought I'd bring it before you all. After myriad warnings, perhaps a block is in order? Or at least a clearly worded warning making it clear that blocking or banning may be around the corner? - jc37 09:12, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. IrishGuy talk 09:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
To clarify, beyond the users vandalism, I deleted his user page because it was filled with userboxes with text like "This user does not care about black people" and "This user believes that women shouldn't vote". Vandal and nonsense only account. IrishGuy talk 09:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Need sanity check on BLP concern[edit]

I believe that the following information [31] placed into the Every Nation article is rather inappropriate-it reveals a couple of people's personal finances, and appears to be largely original research "sourced" to a PDF of a tax document uploaded to a filesharing site. At any rate, it doesn't seem terribly appropriate to discuss people's personal finances in an article about their organization. However, as I've been involved with this page before, I would appreciate if someone involved could please review my reasoning, and if appropriate ask Osakadan not to re-add it. Seraphimblade Talk to me 09:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Punk Boi 8[edit]

Because I have been mentoring this user and he recently posted an RfC about me I am requesting a block rather than blocking him myself.

  1. User:Punk Boi 8 is under a mentoring agreement with me
  2. After I was on a short break, I left Punk Boi a message reiterating that he was to focus on articles, specifically instructing him not to create any new WikiProjects
  3. He came back the next day, and on his second edit he created a new WikiProject and requested comments on Template:Announcements & on the Village Pump
  4. He created a template for the WikiProject which he