Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive221

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Berks[edit]

The above user has been stalking me on a number of articles which I have started and developed over the last few weeks. This has led to an edit war which is annoying beyond all measure. He has obviously categorised me as difficult and inflexible, and on a number of occasions has stated that I am not worth talking to. I feel that his following me and changing articles as they are being written, is more than any reasonable person should be expected to endure. Besides Hermann Eckstein which was started a few hours ago, he has edited among others - sometimes constructively, often maliciously - George Albu, Lionel Phillips, Lady Phillips. I feel that I am being deliberately targeted by Berks and cannot work under these conditions. For a list of articles I have started please see my home page. Some help and intervention would be appreciated. Paul venter 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

In order to avoid discussion forking, it should be noted that this situation has already been commented on above (look up about 9 sections). Please leave all future comments there. Thank you. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 14:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:B9 hummingbird hovering[edit]

Marks almost every edit made as minor. When cautioned about it It's not vandalism, per se, but has, in past content disputes, been seen as a dishonest way of pushing unsourced POV material into article so it won't be noticed. retorted (their words) with an accusation of offensiveness. Continues, after being asked not to mark additions of information as minor, to mark them as minor.--Vidkun 13:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Well you did kinda hint he was being sneaky. I would probably have taken offense too. I left him a polite note on his talk page telling him how to turn it off in his preferences. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn

Another WP:BLP case[edit]

This stems from an OTRS complaint.

Melissa Guille (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) was stated in the article on Canadian Heritage Alliance (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) to have been a member of Heritage Front, a white supremacist organisation; therefore she was stated to be a white supremacist, and Canadian Heritage Alliance was stated to be a white supremacist organisation. Uninvited Company stubbed it, but it still contained a stray weasel word, and of the two sources one is 404, one seems pretty trivial, and the other looks like a piece of investigative journalism which is, functionally, the sole source for either.

Problem 1: Guille denies ever having been a member of the Heritage Front. Others have also denied this.

Problem 2: Although it is stated that Guille was to appear on charges [1], there is no other coverage of this that I can find, and no evidence of a conviction.

Problem 3: I set out to rewrite the Guille article from scratch, but with fewer than 900 Google hits (including mirrors) and zero on GNews or Factiva I could not actually find any neutral sources from which to draw.

Problem 4: As problem 3, but for Canadian Heritage Alliance, and the number of ghits is below 600.

Truthfully, I'd vote to keep these at AfD based on the sources originally cited and because of my natural bias against racists, but I am having a really hard time finding anything which indicates notability of these subjects. I'm pretty confident that if I heard her speak I would cheerfully pelt her with rotten fruit, but despite my liberal tendencies I can't see that as a reason for maintaining an article. Guy (Help!) 14:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Soroush vs and 89.165.58.9[edit]

On 300 (film)'s talk page we're having a struggle with User:Soroush vs and anon IP 89.165.58.9, both of which I'm assuming is the same person (seeing as how they are both posting the same message), but I may be wrong. They are continuously spamming the talk page, even after several warnings, with the same message. Despite being repeatedly told that the talk page is not a forum, this article does receive a lot of forum-ish additions, but this user has, by my count, copy and pasted the same message more than six times after having been reverted, and has likewise added innappropriate comments about the movie (not the article) in the past. Some help would be appreciated. María: (habla conmigo) 15:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

You've already given a level 3/4 warning to the non-anon so I think that's fine if you keep increasing it. The best thing to do, however, would be to ask the user why he/she is continuously posting that information again and again. x42bn6 Talk 15:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll[edit]

Per comments on the Talk page here, and in other locales, it appears groups of editors are specifically against Jimbo's specifically requested public poll to gauge thoughts/support on the idea of the ATT merger. As it has been stated that the Poll is "dead" per users such as User:WAS 4.250, I am nominating this. If there is wide spread support to run this poll, this page should be kept. The MfD is here:

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Attribution/Poll

Thank you. - Denny 16:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Glad that was speedy closed. No one is forced to participate in a poll, but editors shouldn't try to go against those that do want to participate. You have been played into submitting the poll for deletion and derailling the whole proces. Here's a rule of thumb: if you don't want something deleted, don't nominate it. --Edokter (Talk) 17:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I realized afterwards that those who want to stop the poll had unwittingly manipulated me into doing that. - Denny 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Huh?! You saw discussion regarding the possibility of not taking the poll "live," so you ran off and nominated the whole thing for deletion (despite the fact that you didn't want to delete it, nor did anyone else). —David Levy 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

On that note, good luck with this poll. I'm going on to work on completely different things for now and won't be editing these pages again except to state my desires when the poll does go live. - Denny 19:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC) Guess that didn't last long.El_C 18:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

My faith in my peers having the common sense to let everyone finally voice their opinion in one place, with everyone being notified, won out. - Denny 18:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Outside of MfD, thankfuly. El_C 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"Let everyone finally voice their opinion in one place"?! You forked the discussion into yet another vote on a separate page!
Your argument is a straw man, given the fact that no one is attempting to silence discussion or prevent adequate notification. Only the format is under debate. —David Levy 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Since getting involved with this really my only concern is that 1) every or theoretically as many users get shown this thing for at least a week, so no one misses it for being out of WP a day or three; 2) everyone gets to see and read everyone's thoughts on ATT in one centralized place. Whether we call it a poll, rfc, or whatever, is meaningless. Basically, people are entitled to voice their support or displeasure at this point in one centralized place. - Denny 18:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:CarlHewitt revisited[edit]

I'd like a second opinion as to whether suspected sock puppet 2ndMouse (talk · contribs) is violating Carl's RfAr in multiple edits of concurrent programming articles, mostly adding Carl's articles and re-adding his POV. As I've actually made substantive edits in (some) of the articles, I don't think I'm the one to block. Please feel free to edit the {{user}} template to a more appropriate template if it adds appropriate links.Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet attack - range block?[edit]

After this sockpuppet army attack by Shuppiluliuma (talk · contribs), involving mass uploads of unfree images, and most recently this: [2], I'm considering a range block. Takers, anybody? We are dealing with two blocks of /16 each, for starters. He has apparently enough wheathered accounts to sit through semiprotection of his articles. Fut.Perf. 16:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I support it. That said, I suspect complaints will be raised about blocking 131,072 IP addresses. It's worth trying to contact the ISP first though this has never worked for me. --Yamla 16:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Microsoft[edit]

Can an admin pls fix this? It was moved to Micropoop and Microcrap, then blanked, and it appears that, without admin tools, I can't fix it. I don't know how/where to find the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Am I correct that admin tools were needed to undo that, or should I have been able to do it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Your correct that admin tools were needed as new pages were created to prevent the page being moved back to it's correct location. It'll not be going on any mystery tours anytime soon either ;-) -- Nick t 17:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. And also Xbox 360 moved by by the same account User:Falcon866, who seems to have previously been a good contributor. His account may have been compromised. Anyone familiar with this user? There is an email enabled- perhaps I should contact him.... WjBscribe 17:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I just denied his first unblock request, but do what you will if he responds in a way you deem worthy of unblocking, and preferably if you can get a bit of consensus to do so. My view: I see a history of off-and-on vandalism, including previous pagemove vandalism. If this account is compromised, it should be blocked. If this user is interspersing good edits with vandalism in order to game the system, it should be blocked. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree. And it doesn't appear to be a compromised account, I suspect someone who gets bored easily- there have been similar page moves in this account's past. I don't envisage unblocking at present. WjBscribe 17:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Agree as well. The March 10 A-Rod to Gay-Rod is too recent. I'm not convinved on the moves to The Naked Brothers Band either; it seems that the original disambiguation page made sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And then there's User:66.30.157.82, whose autoblock affected Falcon866 (User_talk:Falcon866/Archive_1). Looks like the user. There may be more instances of this occurring... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:POINT.[edit]

Steve Dufour (talkcontribspage movesblock userblock log) was previously blocked by User:Johntex, for "Violation of WP:POINT". Certainly the recent nomination of a Featured Article for deletion qualifies as such a disruption. The result was Speedy Keep, clearly there must be some sort of process to take with regards to this user's inappropriate actions?? Thank you for your time. Smee 00:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Steve Dufour has been a member since May 2006, and has over 4,500 edits. This was clearly not a good faith AFD nomination, but an out and out disruption of the project to make a point. Smee 00:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
As well, the notability of the article (specifically the primary criterion) was pointed out to him before he added the AFD. AndroidCat 01:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

The article I nominated for deletion was Xenu. Xenu is a fictional character created by L. Ron Hubbard but not featured in any of his stories published for the general public. He is a mythological figure for Scientologists, a very small group of people numbering perhaps 100,000 world-wide. Not all Scientologists, even, believe in his existence since he is only revealed after they reach a higher level of training. As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all. Xenu, unlike other supernatural figures, seems to have had no influence on human culture. To me this does not add up to WP type notability. Having said that, the article itself is well written and well sourced and represents a lot of hard work by the editors. However, the information about him is already featured in other WP articles including Space opera (Scientology). I think that the article specifically about Xenu as an individual should be deleted, while the ones on Scientology beliefs which mention him should be kept. Another article on Xenu as a pop culture fad (South Park and stuff like that) might also be a possibility. I brought up all these points in the discussions before and during the deletion process. Steve Dufour 03:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your definition of notability is remarkably different from that of Wikipedia. The threshold of notability on Wikipedia is whether it can be sourced via reliable sources as prescribed by WP:RS, not whether the general public knows of this character's existence. —210physicq (c) 04:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
A character in an unpublished story is not notable. But maybe you are right and I don't understand WP at all. Steve Dufour 04:08, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't buy that, particularly considering the number of edits you have. I suggest you lay off the trolling; it's not helping anyone. -- ChrisO 08:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
I did expect the discussion to be left open for more than four hours. Steve Dufour 10:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You see, it was closed due to the numerous "Speedy keep" votes, a sure sign that editors believed it, as a featured article, and also as an important one that meets the first and other criteria of WP:N, those being that if it can be sourced by reliable sources, it is of value to Wikipedia. The role of editors on Wikipedia is to contribute to a comprehensive resource of human knowledge. Actions taken in potential bad faith, such as nominating a well-sourced (You yourself have admitted on many occasions I could link to that it is well sourced AND well written) article for deletion unilaterally, rather than discussing potential issues with other editors, hamper the whole process.
To quote from the previous link:

I think that the article is well sourced and mostly well written, and represents a lot of hard work. It just does not establish the notability of the subject. Steve Dufour 16:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Those two contentions contradict one another. If it is a lot of hard work, well sourced (Implying an abundance of sources, which are also reliable), and mostly well written (something you could improve by contributing writing instead of AFDs intended to make a point...), then how can notability not be established, being aware of the bolded portion of WP:N listed below?
Xenu IS notable. Your definition of notability seems to differentiate from WP:N. I am willing to cede that some things just are not notable, but contend that Xenu definitely is. I am not going to claim I have a closed mind, though. If you can show me how the Xenu article, as it is, does NOT stand up to the first condition of Notability as stated in WP:N, you will have brought me around to your way of thinking.
The criteria I am thinking of is as follows: "A topic is notable if it has been the subject of at least one substantial or multiple non-trivial published works that are reliable and independent of the subject"
Your view of notability is not the one shared by Wikipedia as a whole, and this editor and others who have expressed their opinion here, in particular. I support consideration of your actions as a violation of WP:POINT, and as a watcher on the sidelines, would like to add that someone with so many edits really ought to know the notability and reliable source criteria, and understand that the vision of Wikipedia as a repository of extensive human knowledge would be harmed by the removal of any substantive subject matter, not helped. There is a difference between meaningless bombast and well-written information on a subject of interest, with myriad web sites referring to it. Xenu is notable, I humbly request you take the outcry over even -considering- deleting it, to be in the vein of deleting any other article about a notable subject:
That vein being abject disbelief that anyone could consider removing something people are bound to desire extensive knowledge about, and which is well-sourced. I posit also: If the article WERE to be deleted, where would we put all of the well-written, well sourced (and therefore also notable and reliable by Wikipedia's standards) information? Delete it and remove it from this repository of knowledge? That seems counter-intuitive to the whole project goal here.
Peace, and Eris be with you. Raeft 15:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. The information on the non-notable person Xenu could be put in the article on the notable subject of which he is a part: Space opera (Scientology). ("Xenu" could be redirected there.) Xenu as a pop culture fad, which is how he is known to the world, could have its own article. If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article. Steve Dufour 16:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
And again, after having it explained to him several times, by several different people, that Xenu does not in any way match Wikipedia's description of "non-notable", Steve does not even acknowledge that anyone has even questioned his assertion of non-notability but instead states it as if it were fact (gratuitously, I might add.) Is such behavior CIVIL or evidence of trolling? -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:53, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
You can kick me off of Wikipedia if you like, but that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable. Steve Dufour 17:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Woah, let's calm down here people. Was this a bad faith nom? Yes, absolutely. Was this a WP:POINT violation? I'm nto exactly sure what point he was trying to make in this case. I've seen him around, and he's generally a good user from what I've seen. Warn him, let it go, and don't provoke him into violating anything. Oh, and Steve, there's plenty of imaginary things on Wikipedia, leave it be. Of course there's not going to be a sentence that says "this is notable because..."--Wizardman 17:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Wizardman. If they want to have an article on Xenu I will not object any more. Steve Dufour 17:16, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with this. The argument for deletion was basically WP:IDONTLIKEIT and completely ignored the substance of our notability policy - the AfD was a complete waste of time. I suggest that the user be given a warning and with a request not to post any more AfDs. (I'd do it myself, but I voted in the referenced AfD, so I'm recusing myself on this one.) -- ChrisO 01:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I second this recommendation, it would be a fair approach, in light of this user's recent disruptive actions. Smee 18:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC).
    • More disruption, violation of WP:POINT: DIFF 1, DIFF 2, AndroidCat thankfully removes, with edit summary: "rv Steve, please stop mucking about with WP:POINT". It may take a bit more than discussion here, for the disruption to cease... Smee 19:28, 26 March 2007 (UTC).

My 2cents: Steve is a border case - he has always been very polite and nice and has avoided edit wars. However, many of his edits result in a waste of time for the other editors involved. My argument is somewhat weak, since he isn't disruptive enough for me to keep evidence records. I suggest a symbolic, short block for his AFD of a featured article, whose name has over a million hits on google. I wish Steve would concentrate on topics he knows about, instead of trying to "please" groups or people whom he thinks would appreciate it. --Tilman 19:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that "polite" and "nice" are not at all the same thing as behaving with actual civility. An important part of WP:CIVIL is "Do not ignore the positions and conclusions of others", yet this is exactly what Steve has done repeatedly. It is pointed out to him that notability of a concept is not measured solely in terms of those who believe in that concept, and a counter-example is provided,[3] yet his response simply asserts once again that if "almost no one believes" it then it is "rather unnotable".[4] He even continues to advance arguments dependent on this already debunked 'only consensus reality is notable' principle on this page: "As far as I know, no one outside of Scientology believes in his existence at all."[5] "If Xenu is discovered to have been real after all then he should have his own article."[6] "... that wouldn't make the imaginary Xenu notable."[7] Trying to shove through a deletion based on premises that other editors have already pointed out is false is not polite, even if the language used is polite. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Antaeus Feldspar makes some excellent points above. Here is more evidence of what some would term a veiled personal attack at users who work hard finding sourced citations for this project - DIFF. Smee 17:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
Steve Dufour I do not mean to pile on here, but this gives me second thoughts about whether I should WP:AGF toward you. I had assumed that the WP:COI issues were based on your friendship with Barbara Schwarz and nothing more, but when I see you nominated Xenu for deletion it put our dealings on Barbara Schwarz in question. I haven't followed the Xenu story closely, but I notice that Scientologists tend to downplay it's importance rather than deny it outright.
What you've done could be interpreted as either an indirect attack on Scientology, or as a favor to them because the CoS wants to keep Xenu and their higher levels secret. Saying that someone's spiritual beliefs simply don't exist could be accurate, but seems like a double standard if what you believe in is just as unprovable. Ask yourself, if someone made the same argument about the ideas of Sun Myung Moon being fictional and nominating they be deleted you'd probably feel somewhat slighted.
The other option is that you are helping to keep secret information which should not be. People ought to know what they are getting into upfront in any religion, wouldn't you agree?
  • To anyone else reading this, Steve Dufour has been informed that some of his past WP:AfD requests and actions are against what Wikipedia is supposed to be. Here is a link to a WP:COIN archive of his actions on Barbara Schwarz. He has nominated the article for deletion twice, the logs can be found at Talk:Barbara Schwarz. Anynobody 01:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Something believed in by only Unification Church members probably should not have its own WP article. Come to think of it the Prodigal son as a person separate from the story in which he is a character probably should also not have his own article. (But then Jesus didn't give the characters in his stories as much interesting background material as Hubbard did.) Steve Dufour 17:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment - I would like to point out that the story of Xenu is not "unpublished". It has been published. The mere fact that the COS hasn't itself published it, is not relevant. Other people like Operation Clambake have. Whether or not that in itself is a violation of copyright is not relevant to the question of whether it's been published. Wjhonson 06:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I took the side of Barbara against the people who were attacking her. I take the side of Scientologists when they are treated unfairly here. And I take the side of Freezoners when they are attacked by the Church of Scientology. Steve Dufour 13:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Some would say that you take the side of Scientologists even when they are the ones acting unfairly. In fact that seems to be how you earned your previous block for violating WP:POINT.[8],[9] -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:10, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Well, since I apparently missed all the fun, let me make just a quick comment. For an editor that is not too familiar with Scientology or the criticism of Scientology, the amount of prominence given to Xenu here on wikipedia must seem very odd indeed. Now, if I personally had put Xenu up for AfD then I would deserve a strong warning as I know the "importance" that Xenu plays in holding Scientology up to scorn and since holding Scientology up to scorn is near and dear to the hearts of a number of editors and admins here and, in general, has a broader degree of agreement among 'netizens, of which the larger population of wikipedians is a subset; knowing that it would be disingenous of me to AfD something such as Xenu. Steve, however, is pretty much a neutral 3rd party who comes along and says, "This is odd". Very odd, indeed. But not in the way Steve thought. I can AGF that he truly wondered why such an article existed on Wikipedia. Myself, I know exactly why. --Justanother 16:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi JA. I would have told you about the nomination but I was afraid you would have to vote against it since as a Scientologist you probably believe Xenu is real and deserves his own WP article. :-) Steve Dufour 16:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi. No, I would not have voted anything. I would have simply made the same comment I make above. --Justanother 17:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
We couldn't possible have the article because of the multitude of sources that mention it. Right? He's not a new user, and he was told about this before it was nominated. I'd prefer to assume non-studity: he knew what he was doing. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Xenu is small potatoes (actually one small potato). The only "prominence" of Xenu is a manufactured prominence. It is a total red herring promoted by critics of Scientology to divert attention from the real purposes of Scientology; increased ability for the individual to be at cause over his own life. Xenu may or may not be a character that shows up to be addressed in an auditing session (or a number of sessions) on OT III. Big deal. Worth a mention in the main article or in an article on confidential upper levels. I can give you an analogy of misplaced prominence for the purpose of holding Scientology up to scorn. Fort Harrison Hotel. Here is a very nice 15-page piece on the history of this hotel. The hotel is important to the history of Clearwater. Look here at our article before I pruned it a bit and added a bit of balance. The article is predominently not about the hotel. It is about Lisa McPherson and about unrelated deaths of Scientologists in the Clearwater area sourced from one article. and the POV-pushers did not even get that right but I fixed it for them. I will leave it to another to make the call on the appropriateness of that inclusion at all but I try not to remove sourced material unless clearly inappropriate to the article. Removal of the names of non-notable people that died in a hotel from an article on that hotel is best done by a neutral party even if the inclusion was perhaps POV motivated. One small example of what I see when I survey the wikipedia landscape as it relates to Scientology. But that is OK. I am very much an eventualist and I think that neutral editors can be trusted to remove the worst of the WP:NOT a soapbox violations in the course of time and that knowledgable Scientologists like myself can improve the presentation of Scientology from its now somewhat unrealistic and disconnected presentation --Justanother 17:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but we don't care about how or why the notability was generated. Only that it's there. WP:Attribution is more important than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Putting a notable, featured article up for deletion is not the same as cleaning up an article on a hotel. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
My point being that I see it much more as simple error by an editor unfamiliar with the rules of Scientology criticism on wikipedia than as some sort of WP:POINT exercise. Had I not been on wikibreak, I would have warned him of the outcome. --Justanother 19:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't have listened to you if you had. :-) Steve Dufour 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Again, you're making this out to be some sort of anti-Scientology thing. He is not a new editor, and there was discussion about this. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 19:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. It is not only an anti-Scientology thing. The wider community has been bamboozled into buying into the whole internet misrepresentation of Scientology. Understandable given the current materialistic society, the rise of the anti-religious "New Atheists" on the 'net, and the failure of Scientology to repair the misrepresentation as of yet. Sorry again to get on my soapbox a bit. What it really is to me is just an AGF issue. Steve has proven, IMO, that he is worthy of AGF. It looks like he floated the idea of the AfD and got input from a number of the "usual suspects" (the anti-Scientologists) and a couple others and that Steve felt that perhaps the input he received was not representative of the community as a whole so he did the Afd. I just AGF that he believed that the wider community might side with him. No harm done. --Justanother 19:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
The vote was closed after 4 hours and 7 votes. Steve Dufour 00:02, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I was looking for something else on the AN/I forum, and read through this and found myself rather surprised. In the interest of a calm, outside voice, I thought I might interject my opinion. It seems both sides are getting rather heated here, but I'm not sure that's warranted: was it a bad nomination? certainly; was it a bad faith nom? I'm not so sure. It appears to me from reading the nomination it was supported by reasoning from wikipedia policy, and though I might disagree with the reasoning of the nomination I must respect the user's right to his opinion. The fact a user holds an opinion shouldn't be counted against him. I admit I'm not familiar with the other editing conflict mentioned above, but the issue here seems to be the afd nomination. I do not think this was an instance of attempting to prove a point, and acting as if it were such in the abscence of clear evidence is being borderline uncivil. The AFD was speedily closed, per due process, the nominator said his peace and it turned out that consensus was against him. It was a one-time nomination, not, for instance, a batch of Scientology nominations in a flood; which is the usual pattern of a POV-pushing or otherwise bad-faith nominator (EG the mass-floods we get every now and again, like the sex slang one a while back, or others). It was perhaps a lapse of judgement, but consensus spoke and the user is now acting rationally and calmly. I fail to see the need here for tension... Wintermut3 00:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The pattern of behaviour on this user's part isn't so much one of POV-pushing as concern trolling - it's not surprising that people find this vexing, as it's been going on for some time. To assume good faith on the matter of the Xenu nomination, we have to assume that (a) the user was unaware that it was a featured article, which is improbable; and that (b) he was unaware of the thousands of reliable sources supporting the article's notability, which is extremely improbable given that many of them are cited in the article. If you're going to argue for the deletion of an article on the grounds of notability, shouldn't you at least make sure beforehand that your arguments hold water? Add to that this user's contention at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Scientology overcovered? that there are too many articles on Scientology on the grounds that "There seem to be about 100,000 Scientologists in the world so there is one article for every about 420 of them." The basis for this argument is dubious to say the least (it's already dealt with at WP:NOT#PAPER), but it seems to be the reason for the Xenu deletion nomination. -- ChrisO 07:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I did not say the article was a bad article. It is just that the subject of the article, the fictional character Xenu, is not himself notable. The stories about him are and are covered by other WP articles. Steve Dufour 16:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I think we should be extremely cautions about any banning or blocking of an editor because he nominated someone's favorite article or an article which has been promoted to "Featured Article" status. It is all too easy for a relatively small number of editors to promote an article to featured article status. The article being kept is a sufficient remedy. Punishment would have a chilling effect and make editors afraid to nominate any article which addresses someones beliefs for consideration of deletion, no matter how richly the articles deserved to be deleted. Repeated nominations of the same article by the same editor, or POINT nominations of a large number of articles would be the cases where punishments might be considered. When I use the "Random article" button I find a lot of utterly unsourced, poorly written, and trivial articles mixed in among the good articles. There are only about a hundred AfDs each day, and it does not take that long to go through them. I don't think anyone's life or Wikipedia were adversely affected in any way by this Afd, which probably should have been left open for the normal 5 day period. Edison 17:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison, I couldn't have said it better myself. I admit that I'm unaware of any previous history, but on the basis of the evidence for this incident alone I so see potential chilling issues, as well as the fact that this does not match the typical pattern of a disruptive user. Wintermut3 22:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Gen. von Klinkerhoffen[edit]

This is a good faith user, who was blocked indefinitely for violating 3rr once. I've gone through his contribs, and I can see that he was indeed acting in good faith. So what does he get? An indefinite block on his accounts, and a three month block on his static IP which he has already specified is shared. Granted that his 'for Brian Peppers' edit summaries did not help, but he was just trying to carry out a Jimbonian decision. I'm posting this on his behalf after extensive discussion on IRC. I believe he should be unblocked after a week's cooldown on his main account, his socks should stay blocked,and the IP should be unblocked. He's certainly not a 'YTMND troll' as referred to by David Gerard in the IP's block summary. (That violated WP:NPA even.) Discuss below. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 23:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course...he has used a load of sockpuppets which doesn't help his case. IrishGuy talk 00:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
This is because Klinkerhoffen feels the first block was unwarranted, which I agree. He simply violated 3rr once, which on such a new account should be treated as just giving a warning. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 00:16, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
While the indef block may have been a bit severe, he was an edit warrior. It also doesn't give him the right to create 14 new accounts and continue the same behavior. I am not the blocking admin on this one so you should probably ask Ryulong his reasoning for the block. IrishGuy talk 00:22, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I also spoken to the blocked user on IRC; my suggestion to just to wait until his 3 Month block expires and monitor from there. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 01:06, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Me too, right now infact. So far I've found him... unconvincing. There are several holes in what he's saying and he's dodging around positive suggestions about what to do about his problem. --Deskana (talk) 03:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I gave him some other suggestions, but he still claims that the "sockpuppet" accounts were used to get around a block that he considered unfair. Some of the things Ryulong said below (and to me in private) were confirmed by Klinkerhoffen himself, so I feel Ryulong's block was a good one in the context of the situation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have said this several times and on each and every one of his talk pages. He was censoring specific articles because of the sexually explicit images used on articles that describe aspects of human sexuality. I was not going to block him at first, but then I saw the two "For Brian Peppers" edit summaries. And this was on the day that we received a shitton of vandalism related to that damn YTMND meme. Since then, he has returned under a dozen sockpuppets, and when he confronted me via IRC, and I asked him why he had done the two edit summaries, he told me (paraphrasing) "that he could not help himself, as Brian Peppers Day only comes once a year." Gen von. Klinkerhoffen under any name is not here to contribute to the project constructively, as is evident from his wikilawyering and other forms of rules lawyering to try and get himself unblocked. It was originally just his edit warring, but now it's because he has not let go of this fact. Klinkerhoffen is not necessary for the improvement of this encyclopedia, and he has most certainly become a troll.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I have trouble advocating for this individual, and come here because this was pointed out to me. I discussed the issue at hand with Ryulong and Klinkerhoffen in #wikipedia, and felt there may have been a case in his defense. The problem I have after the discussion is that Klinkerhoffen represented the following statements: that he intended to continue removing what he deemed pornography from the website, and that because there was no concensus for the images in question, they should not be placed (contrary, they were placed and given no concensus for removal or replacement). To his defense, "wikilawyering" is about all any blocked user really has to help themselves, and he does seem to have put forth a sincere effort at trying to get back on the right way, post sock-puppeting of course.
In the end, though I'm leery, I don't doubt that he will be watched upon reinstatement, and it is the newest users that tend to make the hardest mistakes. The motivation to sign up and contribute is one that I believe gives users a personal feeling to what they do, and hence the number of 3RR issues, odd entries, etc. we see from new users (and the number of contested speedy deletes, etc.). In my time of wikivigilantiasm, i've seen a lot more concerning users last through more. He's been blocked for some time, knows that when we block, we back it up, and, hey WP:AGF until he proves otherwise. Be nice to the newbies. PS, Steak and a Blowjob day only comes once in a year :) --Auto(talk / contribs) 02:53, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, based on a conversation that I missed through IRC, it appears that Klinkerhoffen is not here to contribute to the project, but remove what he deems pornographic in nature. He claims he wishes to voice his opinions on what problems Wikipedia has, but it is clear that he is only here to voice what problems he has with the project, which includes photographs (or images) of sexually explicit acts which he feels are pornography, despite the context. I stand firmly in my belief that this user will continue to act as such once the 3 month block on his IP is lifted and he is allowed to edit, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:14, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Why not find out sooner and let him demonstrate intent by action? Though I don't like his statement, the context makes it seem like something that was kneejerk. Just hand him a polite notice saying "you may wish to avoid this topic entirely for a while." If it weren't for the Brian Peppers comment, I presume the block would have been much shorter to begin with, and we'd actually know by means of escalating blocks instead of spending all this time debating the issue. To some extent, now we're just wikilawyering. --Auto(talk / contribs) 16:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
If it were not for the Brian Peppers comments, I would not have performed any block. I would have simply directed him to WP:NOT#CENSOR. But his use of those were a glaring "I'm not here to be productive" sign.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
From my admittedly limited interactions with this person, it seems they are intent on imposing their views regarding "pornographic" content in articles and are unwilling to abide by consensus when it does not suit their views. While you could make a case that the original block was overly harsh, I have seen nothing to indicate they will refrain from disruptive behavior. —dgiestc 05:25, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
IMO, this person is likely the most prolific sockpuppeteer since PoolGuy (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). I do not believe Wikipedia would be better off with him - it seems that he is treating Wikipedia as a "political platform" of some sorts, and IMO no amount of policy citation will make him change his ways. I recomment applying WP:RBI to him should he resurface. TML 08:47, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[de-indent] Posting here to avoid archival. IRC query log with Gen. von K. here. ~Crazytales (Hasta la Pasta!) 20:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken with them a few times -- didn't always realize it was them, even, until later. They seem intelligent and largely reasonable, which would generally lead me to favor unblocking. I'm very, very leery, however, of how easily they justify creating a small army of sockpuppets, and of what seems to be an "anti-porn crusade." You asked whose definition of "good taste" they would be applying, and unfortunately the read I get from them is "mine and no one else's, discussion be damned." If they indicate a clear willingness to discuss things and abide by consensus, I'd be a lot more comfortable -- to channel things into more of an "I have a strong opinion, so let's discuss this and see if we can resolve it" attitude, perhaps. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Is it time to suggest the inevitable?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Asahi Shimbun[edit]

The article Asahi Shimbun, which was canvassed on comment in a popular Japanese blog [10], has since that comment, which suggested that to let people know of the "Asahi problem" (which in turn supposedly would help the situation on the Comfort women article, which was canvassed in the actual blog post), this article too should be edited. I have not removed the poorly written English, because I know Asahi Shimbun actually have been involved in some controversies, but when I tag the article as "disputed neutrality" and the controversies section as "not properly referenced" and "totally disputed", my edits get reverted by the same user every time, User:DDRG. He is a single purpose account who has only edited any article beside Asahi Shimbun (or its talkapge) once - and that was to participate in a revert war (Japan-Korea relations). I would like to see this user warned, his behaviour is not acceptable. Mackan 11:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You are doing personal attack with false reason. Those were written at least in last year in Japanese wikipedia. Stop parsonal attacking. You are faffing my translation tasks. It's a holding action for Wikipedia community. Please warn Mackan for his parsonal attacking. DDRG 11:37, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I can't read Japanese, so can't check the sources myself, but the section of the article does seem to be disputed. I'll restore the tag at least until there is some genuine effort to reach consensus or compromise. By the way, please focus on the content of the article, not whether the other party is "behaving childishly" or performing "criminal act"s. The language issue is probably adding to the confusion here, so if you think the other person is writing something that attacks you personally, please assume that it's a language problem, and don't respond in kind. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your comment. Although I think Mackan is a rather combative and rude as they said here[[11]]. I have completed all citations though they were in Japanese. But there isn't any published translation of the newspaper. So I do best efforts. And if you can use translator, please read here [[12]]. What I did is only making a translation of some paragraphes of Japanse wiki. Those facts are very famous in Japan, and I think Mackan also knows them because he opposed only about citations manner. But those manner is same as The New York Times. What I can do next? And he did again the revert in antagonism to Administrators' arbitration. I think he has reached the end of our tether. DDRG 03:42, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse asked me for some help since I'm slightly proficient in Japanese, but I'm not exactly sure what the dispute is about and what sources need to be checked. Then again, my Japanese is not what it used to be (10 years ago, I was nearly fluent), so I'm not sure how much I can help. howcheng {chat} 06:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It would be appreciated if you just posted on the talk page. BTW, AnonEmouse, I am fluent in Japanese. Mackan 07:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Dear howcheng. If you can read Japanese, please read Japanese wiki Asahi shinbun [[13]] and compare the paragraphes. And please give evidence that what I want do is only to make translations of the facts in which there are no controversy in Japanese Wiki, and Mackan is obstructing my right conducts for some reason and is also obstructing the development of Wikipedia community. DDRG 21:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales's requested poll nearly done - please see[edit]

Jimbo Wales requested a poll to gauge community thoughts on the Wikipedia:Attribution merger. A poll for this is being crafted, and is somewhat close to done. Concensus for the past 24 hours (with the occasional dissenting voice of course) that the thing is close to done. Only the main question is still heavily debated. A pre-poll straw poll is here:

Wikipedia_talk:Attribution/Poll#Q1_Straw_poll_duration

To sort that out. Accepted group concensus seems to be to pre-poll to 4/1/07 22:00 and then launch a site-wide poll (again, as implied/requested by Jimbo) at 4/2/07 00:00. Please help hash out the wording for that last quesion. - Denny 13:31, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Just a thought, and please feel free to disregard it, but... am I the only one who thinks a poll on 4/1/7 is just BEGGING for problems? It seems to me that doing anything on April Fools Day gives ammunition to whichever "group" doesn't prevail on it... <whine> "But it was done on April Fool's Day! It can't be any good!" </whine> Philippe 03:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Leaving ANY article on Wikipedia open to editting on 1 April is begging for problems. Rumor has it that the developers will protect every Wikipedia page on that date for at least 24 hours (maybe longer to reflect that days starts at different times across the world) including Wikipedia/sandbox. Except for one Talk page, just to see if anyone can find it. I hope I'm wrong. -- llywrch 21:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

multiple ip addresses contributing the same spam[edit]

Hi, I'm not sure how to give out a proper set of warnings to this character: User_talk:87.167.233.5, 87.167.215.187, User talk:87.167.220.117, 87.167.230.46, and User talk:87.167.239.105 among others. The vandalism/spam can be found [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], and [28]. He continues to argue his point about the genre of the article [29], [30], and also at the album article [31], [32], [33], and [34]. Which is why I haven't reported him or her as a vandal. He or She has received five warnings total on different IP addresses, they are listed above. I've tried to rationalise/compromise with him or her, however, he or she has not understood that changing the genre over and over again will only make more work and load for the wikipedia people and servers. Should I put future warnings on every IP address talk page? That seems quite daunting. I await your advice on this matter. Thank you for your time.--JUDE talk 18:35, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Figuring semi-protection is the way to go -- hopefully forces discussion. I saw a few other anon editors, but they also seemed to be participating in this revert war, so not sure how much of a concern locking the page down is. – Luna Santin (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Is it time to nuke the unreferenced Power Pop article? Guy (Help!) 08:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
    • I wish.--JUDE talk 20:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Dog_Man311 - claims to be the user behind banned User:Animeguy99[edit]

Noticed this user while looking at newly created pages. User page here states: To Wikipedia Staff: Do not ban. This is a new account created by the guy behind Animeguy99. I looked up Animeguy99 (talk · contribs) and found them to be a banned user. Very unusual. --EarthPerson 22:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call this "unusual"; I bet cops & judges hear this kind of defense all of the time. Unpersuasive, & more than a little sad, maybe. How about renaming this section "No comment"? -- llywrch 20:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt57 and WP:STALK[edit]

I have reason to believe that Matt57 is Wikistalking. The first occurrence was this:[35], where he edits a page which I had been editing for quite some time, and he does not contribute to improving the article. Instead, he accuses me of trolling and basicly acts like a troll himself because he is distracting from the main point of the talk page, which is to discuss improvements to the article, not my personal views. I left him a message on his talk page telling him not to stalk me [36]. His response? "um, i'm not wikistalking". So I left it alone, but then today (March 29, 2007) I find theses two edits of his as well:

Again, Matt57 has no history of editing any of these articles[39]. I notified him of these two edits as well, and he responds by telling me to assume good faith and not be paranoid[40]. So I'm putting this all here, so I can see whether other people agree that I'm paranoid or not. Thanks.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 22:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth: You started out a bit paranoid, but, yes, it does look like he's stalking you. (Following you from one article to another, criticizing you over what you said in the previous one) Where you're from and your views on the holocaust aren't relevant in an article about child pornography. What you said in CP isn't relevant in Lyndie England. What you said in LE isn't relevant to Pedophilia.
I'll be honest... some of those questions were even slightly disturbing to me... but I wouldn't go following you around citing each one into the next. Bladestorm 23:14, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Bladestorm and other admins, KirbyTime is requesting pictures of CHILD PORN. I dont see how I could not respond to his request. Kirby, I should have complained to the authorities here when you personally attacked me by telling me to "GTFO" and abused other users as well ([41], [42]). You can be assured I will follow up quickly with any abuse from you from now on. Regarding your allegations of STALK, how can I not be expected to raise alarm for any editor (you) who is requesting pictures of child porn, requesting pictures of Lynnie England having sex with Graner and your most recent request was to add pictures relating to Pedophilia. If someone requests pictures for child porn, what do I, walk past silently and say nothing? If anyone else raises objection to your requests for objectionable pictures on Wikipedia, are they stalking too? How am I then? The fact that I havent contributed to those articles doesnt mean that I cant participate on the Talk page of that article. Have I "stalked" any of your other edits? No I have not. I was simply very alarmed by your request to add pictures of Child Porn to Wikipedia and thus commented on that issue and other similiar requests. I dont see any other alternative way I could have dealt with this matter.--Matt57 23:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't think there's any confusion here, but just to make absolutely sure: I'm not an admin. I was merely offering the opinion of a regular editor. And it certainly wouldn't have necessarily been a bad idea to raise concerns about the requests through the appropriate channels.
However, saying that requesting kiddie porn isn't suprising just because he's from iran... or because he questions the holocaust... (I can understand you finding that offensive, but the holocaust and kiddie porn aren't in any way related) well, that's crossing the line. Especially the "This is not a surprise, considering Kirbytime is from Iran" part. That's downright racist and despicable.
And if the requests concerned you so much, you should have dealt with them through proper channels, not followed him from one article to another insulting him. I'm not saying kirby's a saint. I'm just agreeing that your own conduct was wrong; and nothing kirby might have done can change that. Bladestorm 23:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
Ok, well, I suppose if Ahmed Dijenedad came here himself and edited Wikipedia and denied the holocaust and requested pictures of child porn, I could'nt refer to that editing activity as well. What can I say about the freedom of expression here. Fine I will let people like Kirby request more pictures of child porn from now on and let everyone else deal with these requests. I was about to come here and warn Kirbytime for telling to "GTFO", I regret I shouldnt have been so forgiving. I'll agree with some of the points you raised about my comments on Kirby but again, this is someone who has denied the holocuast and requested pictures of Child Porn. Is there no Wikipedia policy to deal with people like that? You can see the talk page of the Child Porn issues where OTHER people have pulled out their hair besides me, telling Kirby that this is not appropriate. Ok, from now on, I will not refer to any past activity of Kirby, except where making abuse complaints. That helps?--Matt57 23:39, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
You know, I was going to reply to this, but it occurred to me that you never responded to the allegation of equating iranian descent with pedophilia. I really think that's more important than the rest of the issues. Bladestorm 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to it if you had read my response fully. Anyway, others too are finding Kirby's requests for Child Porn pictures disturbing and that is basically what I had done too. I will not continue this discussion further unless an administrators requires me to. --Matt57 01:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
When I first saw those articles, I was surprised they didn't have any pictures, given that we have pederasty, lolicon, etc. full of pictures. In any case, it is totally irrelevant. How I personally feel about a subject is wholly irrelevant to my intention of improving the article.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 00:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Matt57, you wrote, "KirbyTime is requesting pictures of CHILD PORN. I dont see how I could not respond to his request." Are you sure you wanted to use those exact words? If so, I for one can easily resist responding to his request: I don't have any child porn, nor would I share with someone posting to Wikipedia. (For one thing, the guy might be a cop -- or worse, ex-congressman Mark Foley.) -- llywrch 20:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with Bladestorm that Matt is stalking. The first diff Kibrytime provided makes this clear for example. Posting this diff [43] on a talk page of an article to which Matt had never edited contributed before can be only stalking. --Aminz 00:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

While it is really disturbing that Kirby requests such pictures, I cannot help but notice that the first diff is incredibly prejudiced. Matt57, you should be ashamed. The Behnam 01:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Matt, while I did agree with you on your talk page that I found Kirby's requests for pictures disgusting, that diff The Behnam provided is very embarrassing. It is perfectly fine to disagree with Kirby (I do myself), but equating it to the fact that he is Iranian is way out of line. MetsFan76 01:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
My main point was that he had denied the holocaust. I respect many people from Iran, including Ali Sina, Parvin Darabi but I am strongly critical of anyone who denies the holocuast. I apologize if I came across as racist, that was definitely not my belief and intention. --Matt57 01:50, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
And the problem is that I don't reject the Holocaust. That's the whole reason I even care about this issue.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 01:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
But you did request that the article be moved to "Allegations of the Holocaust." Kirbytime may be trying to make a WP:POINT regarding the depictions of Muhammad issue. And Matt's comment about pedophilia and Iran may stem from the fact that Iran's supreme leader declared that all sexual acts but penetration are legal with children of any age, and penetration of children aged nine and up is perfectly legitimate. Arrow740 02:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't follow the specific edicts of the Supreme Leader so I don't know anything about the accuracy of that, but none of this justifies a racist attack on Iranians. The Behnam 03:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What? Depictions of Muhammad? How am I making a WP:POINT? Can you expand on that because I have no idea what you are talking about. And also, my sexual preferences are none of your business. And, I believe you may be referring to the former Supreme Leader, not the current one. Either case, I'm not a Muslim so I don't give a shit what some old guy in a beard says.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 03:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Kirby, please be civil and do not use language like "I dont give a shit". --Matt57 03:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have to admit that the trolling accusation seems grounded in conspiracy thinking, as far as a 'payback' for Mohammad issues. The Behnam 03:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Why is that incivil language? Are you offended by it? If you say yes, I will stop.--ĶĩřβȳŤįɱéØ 09:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Block review[edit]

Sexandviolencemovie (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), all edits are spam, promoting Bloodstained Memoirs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I blocked indef. Guy (Help!) 10:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the block...Spam is still vandalism... --KZ Talk Contrib 10:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Looks like an accurate read of their intentions -- the article, in particular, was deleted multiple times over the span of what looks to be two days, and I see multiple warnings and attempts to head them off from advertising like so. I took a look and couldn't find any edits unrelated to promoting the film, so far. – Luna Santin (talk) 00:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Don Murphy[edit]

Don Murphy has taken a dislike to User:BigDT, see www.donmurphy.net/board/showthread.php?t=17898 - not sure what, if anything, we should do, but it would probably make sense to get more eyes on that article as a first step. Guy (Help!) 13:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[44] makes it look like he is, or was, interesting in stalking BigDT / taking to RL. It seems to have calmed down, but I don't know. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 23:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matrix17[edit]

This editor is seemingly on a one man/woman trolling spree at present, with repeated incivility, personal attacks, failure to assume good faith and bizarre AfD !votes. See - [45][46] [47][48] [49][50] [51][52][53][54] and also User talk:JzG. Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 16:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've left a warning on his talkpage, though I'm not sure how effective that will be because I've interacted with this editor before and I suspect he believes I have something personal against him. He was blocked about a week ago for similar interactions with other editors in conjuncture with some WP:POINT violations. Might be worth an uninvolved admin looking into this though or maybe even a User RfC/mentoring solution as Matrix seems to keep getting into conflicts with other editors.--Isotope23 16:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It also appears there is a bit of User:JzG stalking by Matrix17 going on here after JzG AfD nominated one of Matrix17's articles.--Isotope23 16:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This has been brought up before. SWATJester On Belay! 16:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
All the latest diffs were in the last couple of hours, so unless you're referring to it being part of an ongoing problem it hasn't. One Night In Hackney303 16:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I mean his behavior has been an ongoing problem. Sorry for the confusion, I wasn't referring to this specific event. SWATJester On Belay! 17:34, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This user hasn't crossed the line completely yet, but he goes to great effort to attempt to hide any warnings or comments he doesn't agree with on his user talk page. He archives these types of comments within minutes and is quick with an abusive reply to any criticism. Hatch68 20:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:EECEE at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth[edit]

I am working on upgrading the inline hyperlinks at Swift Vets and POWs for Truth to citation templates. During the course of this, I ran across a small section at the end of Swift Vets and POWs for Truth#Book which I felt was a clear violation of WP:SYN, so I removed it. I had a minor content dispute with EECEE, and I decided to compromise by adding a {{or}} tag to the statement, and move on. EECEE has now removed that tag twice, here, and here. She seems to not understand that the purpose of the tag is to elicit further opinion from the community. Apparently, she does not want further opinion beyond her one hand-picked admin, who has not responded yet. I intend to put in quite a few hours on this article, improving the citations. If I see something problematic, like OR, I intend to flag it so that others can provide consensus. I'm not going to even bother improving the citations if people who think that they own the article are going to revert my tags. Can someone please tell this editor that I have the right to place an {{or}} tag on a passage that even she admits is in dispute? It's really starting to piss me off, and I'm not sure my civility will hold out much longer. - Crockspot 17:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I'm not a he. Second, I didn't "handpick" Gamaliel any more than you did. He or she is simply the only administrator I have seen post on the page recently, unless Derex is also an administrator. I welcome the input of any other administrator who cares to comment. I'm sure looking at the discussion at the "Talk" page will explain it all much better than I could. --EECEE 17:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This looks an awful lot like a content dispute...--Isotope23 17:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
At this point, the dispute is simply over whether or not it is appropriate to add/remove an OR tag from a passage in dispute. I'm not looking for a ruling on whether the content is OR, I just want my tag to stay so that others can add their opinion to the consensus. And I apologize to EECEE for referring to her as he all this time. Should have said something sooner. (gender references corrected above). - Crockspot 17:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Crock wrote: "Should have said something sooner." Really? How many times HAVE you referred to me as "he"? Never mind, I'm sure it's all my fault. --EECEE 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Habbo Hotel raid[edit]

Resolved

Per edit at Habbo Hotel's talk page, I reverted vandalism. The contributor, User:TalHurner, has a userpage that is purely vandalism and filled with spammed images. It needs to be deleted and prevented from being recreated. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

And the contributions are not too helpful, either. If there are any outstanding vandalisms, I'll revert, but his userpage is impossible to navigate through. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, reported instead to WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 18:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Blocked as a vandal only account.--Isotope23 18:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Incivility and harrassment by User:Trigam41[edit]

This use has been blocked for seven days for malicious page moves but I still wanted to bring the issue up here in case he continues at the end of his seven day banning. The user began by created an article that I tagged for speedy deletion. He then removed the SD tag and it was replaced by User:Hatch68. The article was then deleted. Trigam41 then recreated (you can see the log here; it is now protected from recreation). It then appears the user began a vendetta against Hatch68 and myself. He began vandalizing articles that I frequently edit ([55], [56], [57]). I placed warnings on his talk page but he removed them. He then started making accusations at me on my talk page and he deleted my response on his talk page. He then moved my user page and Hatch68's user page. This is when I reported him to WP:AIV and he was blocked. It appears now he is leaving inappopriate comments on Hatch68's blog and this editor has placed Hatch68's personal information on his blog. Hatch68 has blanked his user page in an effort to prevent this editor from getting any more of his information. Again, action has already been taken on this editor, but this should serve as a reference of his actions if he comes back.↔NMajdantalk 19:30, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

The user has e-mailed me saying "I don't understand. What do you mean by "moving pages"? I have only been trying to report a user for abuse. NMajdan has been sending innapropriate comments and deleting information from Wikipedia. How can I report him?".
I find it unlikely that the user was really trying to report NMajdan when his was moving his page around: [58]. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This person has frightened my wife and made comments on my blog and my son's blog that have since been deleted by my wife. I contacted the Nashville police department this morning, but it doesn't seem to be a high enough level of harassment to justify a police report at this time. I realize that my address is not that hard to find, but to take a simple deletion of a wiki article to this level indicates a potentially unstable person in my opinion. Hatch68 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
What do people think of my idea of increasing User:Trigam41's block to indefinite per this continuing harassment? HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 19:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything that actually ties this editor to that blog? I agree, if this can be conclusively proven, the fact that someone would take an on-wiki incident off wiki in this way would definitely warrent a longer block.--Isotope23 19:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you do a google search for Trigam41, this website is the first result. Under Sites and Blogs I Author is a blog called "Kevin's Blo..." That is the blog in question.↔NMajdantalk 19:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks... that is what I was looking for. I'm going ahead and implementing HighInBC's idea. There is no reason to allow this editor to return to editing if they are going to carry a deletion dispute off wiki to the point of slandering another editor. I don't know if Blogspot would do anything, but you might want to contact them Hatch68...--Isotope23 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not trying to drive the issue in the ground here. I'm ready to completely forget about it. If you want one final key piece of evidence, refer to a statement by Trigam41 that he made on his own talk page in reply to me: "The only personal attacks I made were on your blog and were not affiliated with Wikipedia." Hatch68 20:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Silly trolls[edit]

I appear to have found myself a troll. Shadowstar5 arrived and made silly edits and trolling comments...nothing productive at all...so he was blocked. Immediately thereafter Luckye arrived making the same kinds of edits. He, too, was blocked. Luckye also created Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/irishguy which is silly as I already am an admin. I'm not sure what to do with that. Should it just be deleted or what? IrishGuy talk 20:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Edits suggest he isn't interested in contributing productively, so I think the blocks were appropriate. Don't forget to tag the user and user talk pages with {{indef}}. Picaroon 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An odd one[edit]

Please review the contribs of Biochemical Mind (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), looking at Erinacine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), Herical (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and Phosphorylserine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Check this version of his userpage and this talk page edit. I initially thought I was dealing with a scientist with limited social skills when he came to OTRS, but following the recent message where he asks (for the third or fourth time) to be given the ability to lock the contents of Erinacine before the FDA gets angry, despite being told at least twice that it won't happen and why, the kook alarm is now ringing. Guy (Help!) 20:14, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his edits, I think it is in good faith. One of his edits puts a link to FDA, saying the article hasn't been endorsed or somewhat by the FDA - which is true, but perhaps we have to point him to Wikipedia:Medical disclaimer, in that case? x42bn6 Talk 21:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

eh? --Fredrick day 21:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Ah. x42bn6 Talk 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
This seems entirely appropriate. Interestingly, the obsession with incognito royalty ([59], [60]) echoes Nikolai Gogol (Diary of a Madman), or perhaps the commentator of Nabokov's Pale Fire. MastCell Talk 22:36, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Nochnich[edit]

Resolved: Indefblocked as vandalism only account. Sandstein 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Nochnich (talk · contribs) has been been removing links to Spain and/or replacing them with links to Catalonia. I have left two messages on his/her talk page advising them against this, but such messages were removed and called "fascist". I have no intention of playing a 3RR game, so I am alerting the community at large. Olessi 21:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. Next time, WP:AIV is faster. Sandstein 21:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks and 3RR block evasion by User:Yahya01[edit]

Resolved

Yahya01 (talk · contribs) has been blocked for 24 hours for WP:3RR violations in Lahore Resolution. However, he is constantly evading the block via anonymous IP edits.

Also, he made derogatory comments and hate-speech (on religion) while making personal attacks in reply to a simple request for WP:V and some other references (which, by the way, had NOTHING to do with any religions at all). I'm quoting from his remarks

The way you have quoted Banglapedia and then quickly tried to do rv without discussion shows that you are clearly a dishonest person. I suppose this is what your Sunni religion teaches you…defend your religion’s “honour” at all cost no matter what the facts are. Good for you.. You probably deserve this religion.

I request an extension of his block for sockpuppetry and immediate block of the anonymous socks. For conflict of interest, I am not doing it myself. So, I request a non-involved admin to look into this and act accordingly. Thanks. --Ragib 21:45, 30 March 2007 (UTC)


Note that, Yahya01 has a history of making similar hate speech. Examples include this (which is amazing, given that it's in response to the comment I think the article is the poorer for listing the many degrees and awards, which all major scientists accumulate but which are not listed in biographies. It is considered in poor taste). More examples abound in his edit history. --Ragib 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've extended Yahya's block to 96 hours. Rama's arrow 22:11, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

User:薫田権之助[edit]

Resolved

Can somebody take a look at this user. They have created several articles, none of which are in English, deleted here. They also left me a message here. For now I'm assuming that their grasp of English is not that good. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That message he left either says "I use Japanese" or "You should use Japanese". Stupid pronoun dropping languages, online translators can't manage them. -Amarkov moo! 22:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
It says, "Use Japanese!!!" It's the command form. Not very polite. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks. Left me another one. Still creating articles. I don't want to block if they don't understand but if they are just copy and pasting from the Japanese Wikipedia then I'm not much for letting them troll either. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
If nothing else, the username is inappropriate. I'm assuming those are some sort of Japanese characters, but it just shows up at User:????? for me. — Knowledge Seeker 22:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Okay then, you get to explain that to the people who argue vehemently that names in any script should be allowed. :P -Amarkov moo! 22:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Lol, Babelfish stinks. New message from the guy:

Japanese use! ! ! Therefore Japanese being able to use, you say, you take and the ろ! ! ! The ど - it has become! ! ? Moving has become the ど -! ! ? Protect securely! ! ! The あ it is to do, to escape, it is not done to hide, because how it is not promised! ! ! The way you remember and dissolve! ! ! The ぅ which is - it is the ゎ ぃ ぱ! ! ! There is no air which is protected after all! ! ! The あ it is to do, judgment! ! ! Obtaining ぇ! ! ?

-Amarkov moo! 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Two issues. Should the user name be allowed - definitely not. And are his contributions constructive - not in my view. - Kittybrewster (talk) 22:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur on both counts, though the user should be gently informed that this is the English Wikipedia, and his contributions may be valued more at the Japanese edition. Chris cheese whine 22:55, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Concur, but it is completely unquestionable that the username will be allowed, because for some reason people don't want to ban non-Roman usernames. -Amarkov moo! 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Name permitted, but user acting silly. Reccommend block, and ask ja-wiki folks to come get their escaped vandal (or merely a playful kitsune? ;-) later in their morning! --Kim Bruning 22:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He(?) left me a message with the headline "無題", which apparently means "No title", and then a bunch of yelling. I've also checked some of their edits, and they are all copies of articles from ja.wiki, so they do know about the Japanese Wikipedia already. They're either some sort of interlingual troll or very, very confused. I say we block them and then find someone who speaks Japanese well and have them figure it out. --tjstrf talk 23:01, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

One of his comments to me was "At 9 o'clock, 4 futons." I've blocked him and gave him a message in English and Babelnese.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
"9時から布団4枚!!!" = "Four futons from 9 o'clock!!!". Um...yeah. (^_^) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Linking him to the Japanese blocking policy might be helpful here. (Assuming they have a section on blocking people for being disruptive.) --tjstrf talk 23:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

He understands English. As soon as I left this they stopped creating articles. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 23:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Keeping it simple, I see :-) Chris cheese whine 23:32, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to ask someone to take a look at this, although it does just look like simple trolling. Grandmasterka 04:06, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Someone looked at it and has determined that, whoever it is, they are seemingly just bored and have nothing better to do. I endorse Ryulong's block. ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
This person knows about speedy deletion templates. Probably some banned vandal we've blocked before... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Grandmasterka (talkcontribs) 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

User:Carirach[edit]

Resolved: Or seems to be, for now. --User:Luna Santin 00:11, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I think this user page is probably in violation of WP policy: User:Carirach --Sanfranman59 23:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

It was blanked, and now it's been deleted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 23:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. Is this the appropriate way to request action of this type or should I have used some other method? --Sanfranman59 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:JB196 back again[edit]

Resolved

Here, anyone want to handle the blocking please? Thanks. One Night In Hackney303 00:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Done, plus four more socks and five pages fully protected to stop the onslaught of spamming. One Night In Hackney303 01:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew's test[edit]

Matthew, who is having major problems with Andrew Van De Kamp, from its images to its references, seems to have created a user account that mirrors the article exactly, at User:Matthew's test. I have no idea why, but it seems inappropriate. Is this elegible for speedy? Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 00:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

He obviously meant to create a subpage. Move it to User:Matthew/test, delete the redirect, and tell him how to create subpages properly in the future. --tjstrf talk 00:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not so sure this is unintentional... Matthew has been around long enough that I'm pretty sure he knows how to create a subpage... anyway, tjstrf's suggestion is a good one kill the images though; no fairuse rationale for a user subpage.--Isotope23 00:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Matthew knows very well how to use subpages - hence my bafflement. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Even if he does know how, how little absent-mindedness would it take to accidentally type in Matthew's test rather than Matthew/test? People make similar mistakes all the time with categories and the like. What sort of weird motivation would there possibly be to intentionally misplace it anyway? --tjstrf talk 01:02, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
He didn't create the page by accidental typing, he created the account. I don't know why, I just thought I'd bring to administrative attention cos, as you said, it's a bit weird. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I nuked all the incorrectly used fairuse images. Other than that, he is free to have an alternate account if he so chooses...--Isotope23 01:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Wait a second, he actually made an account for that. I figured it out now, he's messing with his monobook settings. [61] --tjstrf talk 01:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like he used his monobook to convert all the episode references to cite episode templates, which he then inserted here. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 01:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Choolabuuulba and User:Booooomerang. Sockpuppets of User:Danny Daniel and User:Choolabuuula[edit]

Before I could get on to reporting these two users, you probably should know who Danny Daniel is. Danny Daniel is a user who vandalized pages related My Gym Partner's a Monkey and Zatch Bell!. His confirmed sockpuppets like to create hoaxes and vandalise articles related to The Fairly OddParents, My Gym Partner's a Monkey, Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends, Re-Animated and anything related to anime. He created a hoax article called Monk (Cartoon Network). All of this would eventually get him blocked indefinitely for vandalism on December 21, 2006. See this Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Danny Daniel for more information about this vandal.

I already notified User talk:Persian Poet Gal about this, but she says that she can't log on right now, so I decided to report this here. Anyways, I found two possible sockpuppets of Danny Daniel. They are Choolabuuulba (talk · contribs) and Booooomerang (talk · contribs). Both of these accounts have similar editing patterns to that indefinitely blocked user. In fact, Choolabuulba even edited a page created by Booooomerang adding on to the hoax with more misinformation and lies. Choolabuulba also edited List of characters from My Gym Partner's a Monkey, which is a page Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to edit frequently ([62], [63], [64], [65]). Danny Daniel's edits can be traced back as far as September 2006, three months before the name Danny Daniel was registered.. Both seem to be vandal-only accounts. To top it all off, Boooomerang has created a hoax page called Jeanie Meanie Minnie Mo. Note how it seems to relate to the television shows The Fairly OddParents, Ed, Edd n Eddy (see the parts about Jib), and Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. Danny Daniel's sockpuppets seem to "like" creating hoaxes like that.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Danny Daniel shows some other suspected sockpuppets of Danny Daniel that were reported to a checkuser, but most of them were considered "inconclusive." Even User:Jibbity was considered to be inconclusive. Squirepants101 00:53, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Here are some more edits directed at My Gym Partner's a Monkey. [66], [67], [68], [69]. Squirepants101 00:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Assistance with Samir Ali.xls[edit]

Resolved

This article has been recreated by the original creator, after a previous CSD A7. Could I please request assistance to get the creating user temporarily blocked or banned, since He was warned firstly by me not to take the tags off tje article. Not vandalism technically speaking, so don't know where else to go. Thor Malmjursson 04:35, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Samir Ali.xls (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) and File:Samir Ali.xls (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) are both deleted again now. Author warned. If reoccurring, just use {{db}}. Sandstein 06:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Mmbabies gave away his password[edit]

Just before the community ban on Mmbabies (talk · contribs · block log) was enacted, he asked Chrislk02 to unblock him--and disclosed his password! If someone would be so kind as to reset it so he won't be able to use that account again, it would be much appreciated. Blueboy96 06:03, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

The account is blocked from editing, hence rendering this point moot with the exception of telling us to delete personal information. —210physicq (c) 06:04, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Weird one - User:Anynobody holding my words up to ridicule without attribution or context[edit]

OK, this is weird. A while back I got angry at User:Anynobody making an issue of my religion in his every objection or disagreement that we had over editing and wikipedia policy. I blew my stack and let loose with some choice words, diff. I jokingly asked for some personal data on him so I could "return the favor". As in, "You are misapplying WP:V because you are a [fill in the blank]" as he had been doing with me. Obviously I did not expect him to give me any personal info. Anyway, now he has the quote up on his user page with my name redacted to poke fun at my words, here. I edited his page to add my name and a diff so that the context was clear. We had a discussion (see User talk:Justanother#Thought you'd be ashamed...) and the upshot was that he reverted it back to the way it was before, here. Before taking this to AN/I, I asked him nicely to remove the quote from his talk page if he will not provide proper attribution and context, here. He has been online there since but has not replied. I object to my words being used in this fashion without attribution or context but I do not know if I have the proverbial "leg to stand on" here. Any help/advice is appreciated. At best it is a little bit upsetting to me to have my words taken out of context and misrepresented on someone's user page. --Justanother 04:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

This isn't the best place to put this. Consider WP:RFC more suitable, since you and him seem to be having a dispute. No administrative action is necessary. --KZ Talk Contrib 06:19, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree with KZ Talk Contrib. what about you Justanother? Anynobody 07:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I've actually been discussing the possibility with several other editors who have had difficulty with Justanother and have invited them here to comment. Anynobody 08:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and all due respect to User:Kzrulzuall but a User RfC would be just a tad premature on my part as another editor has not yet stepped up to help me address my issue with User:Anynobody of the use of my words out of context and without attribution. If no other admin has better advice for me then I will just go the normal WP:DR route; no hurry. I would like some further admin input though. Thanks. --Justanother 08:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

An RFC is not warranted and would be a waste of time. Anynobody has confessed that the text was put there for "entertaining" purposes. It is blatant trolling and baiting. Anynobody should simply remove the comments from his/her userpage and stop using Wikipedia for his/her own personal entertainment and game playing. Sarah 11:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the text. I don't see that it improved the encyclopedia to have it there. FYI: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Anynobody. Regards, Ben Aveling 13:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I appreciate that. --Justanother 13:42, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have responded directly to Sarah, but I think it is worth a look to all involved here: User talk:Anynobody#Re: Misunderstanding. I really am trying to teach a lesson about not letting a PA get to you, so I'm going to put it back with a diff to Justanother's archive with the whole conversation like he asked.
Regarding an RfC, this is just the latest episode of disagreement between myself and Justanother that has been going on for about a month. In the beginning I suggested a RfC to resolve issues we disagreed with at that time. One was set up, and deleted thus not resolving anything. Now we're having disputes about previous disputes. I honestly believe that impartial editors will see Justanother's actions from the start of this dispute as unacceptable. I realize they may just as easily find my actions wrong, but at least I'd know for sure what the real facts are. Anynobody 02:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
Although I have stated that I would accept the restoration of the quote with proper attribution and context (diff), I think the feeling here is that it is inappropriate use of your user page to have it there. For myself, I stand by those remarks as something that needed to be said to you at the time (and on my user page) and then to pass into history. For my part, I archived the relevant discussion early and out of sequence because I did not want such on my talk page even in its proper context. For you to want to enshrine it on your user page is a whole 'nother beast and I am not going to analyze your motives. I am simply going to request here, in front of all, that you do not put my words on your user page. Thank you. And please do not attempt to further query me on the subject; this is the entirety of my communication on that. And yes, I changed my mind and yes, I am saying something different now than I said earlier, after getting some input here. --Justanother 02:16, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
It is not your place to decide what lessons other people need to be taught. Please stop disrupting Wikipedia. Sarah 07:41, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
I must once again express that just because Justanother is embarrased about his statement should not be a reason to suppress it. As it was before he started editing on my user page nobody knew who said the quote. He chose to make evryone aware of the fact that it was he who said it. I guess he must've assumed the conversation it came from went differently than it did, because his evasion of WP:DR continued in that tone. When he first insisted on linking the quote I tried to refuse because I figured it would be more embarrassing than the quote itself. The fact is I'm trying to show how it's possible to maintain composure when somebody responds with a blatant WP:PA. please see the whole conversation and you tell me if it's really trolling to show this as an example to editors visiting my user page.
  • Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
  • I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
  • Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
  • I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
  • He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
  • It was deleted again after I attributed it.
Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.
Up until this point I've WP:AGF and assumed that everyone here has taken time to read up on the history here, but I'm starting to think perhaps nobody has. Please read my diffs, or read the entire conversation Justanother references in his. Anynobody 03:14, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
[redacted] In case anyone missed it, how does any attribution or context make it ok to say to another editor? Anynobody 03:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Justanother's comment to you several weeks ago was unacceptable. If I'd known of it at the time I would have addressed it. At this time, however, quoting from the incident on your talkpage is bordering on harassing. I have reverted the quotation again; please let this drop and do not restore it. Newyorkbrad 04:15, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Newyorkbrad I don't want to give you the impression that I'm being difficult, but could you please explain how it's harassment to point out on my user page bad behavior and how to handle it? If you're saying that I didn't, then I'd be happy to hear how you think I could improve. I could see it being harassment if I was posting it on his page or in an article where he edits. So that I don't make the same mistake again I'd like to ask you to point out where I'm wrong in this sequence of events. (Also if I've missed something please don't hesitate to point it out):

  • Please keep in mind that I haven't set out to hurt anyone's feelings, which is why I didn't identify him in the first place, but I think it's an example of my ability to keep on subject.
  • I was following WP:DR in trying to resolve a conflict, Justanother responded with a WP:PA.
  • Rather than lower myself to his level I continued the discussion in a civil manner until he refused to talk anymore. Then he says it is ridiculing him by not identifying him.
  • I disagreed with him, given how the conversation went and tried to advise him to remain anonymous Justanother's talk page again to save him from embarrasment.
  • He sets up this notice stating that he wants me to delete or attribute it, after someone else deleted it I chose the latter.
  • It was deleted again after I attributed it.
Essentially the message here is that he can make these statements and not be held accountable in any way. Moreover he can foil my attempt to show how I didn't fall for a blatant baiting attack because it makes him feel bad that he looks like an unreasonable editor.
    • Meanwhile he gets to mock my attempt at WP:DR openly here: Just