Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

R. Mika[edit]

  • I really need some assistance here. Check the history of this page and the talk page, but the long and short of it is, 216.139.219.148 (talk · contribs) is accusing me of having a Judeo-Christian bias because I don't think the bust size of a fictional character is encyclopedic (or even necessarily very important). JuJube 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, I've warned the user not to make personal attacks, for a start. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Other than that, I'd encourage you to stay WP:COOL and have a reasonable discussion with the editors involved with the page. Consider asking for help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and/or a third opinion if that doesn't lead to progress. The person may just be passionate about their topic rather than intentionally trying to rile you, so try to find some common ground to work from. William Pietri 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Passionate about the size of a video game character's breasts. I think I'm going to have to pass the buck here... (BTW, the user has shifted IPs, somewhat dramatically, to 85.13.251.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). JuJube 02:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadley Junior High School[edit]

This article either needs deleting or fixing BADLY. As it stands, it's nothing more than a dartboard for random garbage, most likely from students. I can't make heads or tails of where the article ends and the vandalism begins.

--Ispy1981 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appear to have a talent for turning really crappy articles into only moderately crappy articles, so I will take a look at this one for you. --Haemo 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Much obliged--Ispy1981 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, it's been "repaired" - but it needs more information to be anything more than a stub. --Haemo 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I requested it to be semi-protected Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Hadley_Junior_High_School_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Now only established users can edits. -- Hdt83 Chat 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Brower article[edit]

The article appears to be about a non-notable student. I added a proposed deletion tag but there is absolutely no references or sources and a search around the Internet shows nobody named Jesse Bower as described on the article. Should it be speedy deleted instead of prod? -- Hdt83 Chat 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as {{db-bio}} inasmuch as there is plainly no assertion of notability here. Joe 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Spam (Monty Python)[edit]

There is nonsense on the talk page of Spam, which for obvious reasons is a target for such things. The user who posted part of it keeps trying to revert it [1] on the grounds that the talk page policy doesn't allow removing information posted by others. It doesn't seem to me that that part of the policy should apply to vandalism, but can an administrator please look at this? Ken Arromdee 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally offtopic (the topic is improvement of the article) remarks and vandalism can be removed from article talk pages by any editor. I've made a note of this on the editor's talk page. Kusma (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the "resolved" tag was premature. He just put the nonsense back with a comment saying "revert war". Ken Arromdee 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Just reverted it again. I left a warning on the user's talk page. -- lucasbfr talk 08:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 on Frank Rossitano[edit]

Resolved

User:Zscout370 has fully protected Frank Rossitano to settle a content dispute in violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy. Jingra11 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the violation? Full protection can be used in cases of edit warring due to content disputes. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Temporary full protections are used for enforcing a 'cool down' period to stop an edit war." User:Zscout370 has given no indication that the full protection is temporary and apparently has the intention to full protect the article indefinitely. Jingra11 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
It'll stay protected until the dispute has been resolved. Sean William 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Temporary" denotes that this should stay in place until there is a solution to the edit war. Time to use Talk:Frank Rossitano to resolve the issues.--Isotope23 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The reality is that the dispute will not be resolved anytime soon. Several users involved have stated outright that they simply will not debate the issue. Jingra11 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, then. Maybe they'll just have to learn to work together, or they won't be able to edit the article. Sean William 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The users who have refused to debate the issue have displayed no desire to edit the article. Preventing them from editing it will therefore not motivate them to reach an agreement. Meanwhile, those of us who wish to make constructive edits to the article could be locked out for weeks or even months. Jingra11 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Dispute resolution is right over here.--Isotope23 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected tag. SWATJester Denny Crane. 19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the second protection the article was given. The first one was a time expiration set by another user. Once that expired, the IP went back and decided to add the content in. So, in my mind, it felt like the IP kept on reverting our decision to remove a table. So, the only way we could solve the problem is the protection by me. I knocked the protection down to semi protection a few hours ago, so more folks can edit the article now. Though, personally, I wish you talked to me first before you came here. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in another section below, this user filed more complaints on other users invovled in the article mentioned and got blocked as a sockpuppet. Consider this matter closed. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
An FYI to anyone who's wondering about this, admins fully protect pages indefinitely, because we do not know when disputes are supposed to end. When a dispute is resolved, or has ended, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP, or at an administrator's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can easily do the unprotection myself, so when the dispute is over, then it can be knocked down from semiprotection to nothing. But when it will be over, not sure. I started some kind of discussion on the article talk page. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Added to WP:LAME. Grandmasterka 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Chiswick[edit]

This user is currently violating consensus on Huntington Beach, California. After various attempts to plead for him to discuss it on the talk page, he has decided to attack me for using an IP rather than a user name. Please check out the article and its talk page, its a pretty clear case that he has no regard for consensus if it involves something that has to do with British spelling. I'll guarantee that half of his British to American spelling changes likely violate WP:ENGVAR. For example: [[2]], the "armour" line is part of the template and changing it has no point since nothing is in the field. There is absolutely no reason to do what he did except for his hatred of seeing British English spelling. And now the user has said this blatantly saying that he hates British English and will keep his articles as American English, a violation of WP:OWN. ANd if that isn't clear enough, he says it again here. And to make things worse, the user blatantly deletes messages off his talk page rather than archiving, likely to hide his various sock, 3RR, and NPA violations. 128.227.43.42 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing to see an anon editor complaining about how another editor chooses to manage his talk page. I would nonetheless be quite interested to see a link to this so called personal attack on this anon user (although how exactly one can personally attack an IP address is beyond my understanding) so as to see the nature of the insult and the context in which it occurred.Zebulin 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have stopped editing Huntington Beach and I created the article SS Paris using American english and it is supposed to stay that way since that was the way it was originally written. It is true, I do not like British english and I had a problem with changing things to American english but I have stopped. The only exceptions are Huntington Beach because it is an American city but I have stopped editing on that page after User:Akhilleus warned me. The article SS Paris was created by me useing American english and it is a rule that if a page is originally written in British or American spelling it should stay that way. I also I wasn't attacking you for not signing in , I just said you should sign in. You were the one that actually attacked me by saying I blank by talk page which I am allowed to do but I have stopped doing it and User:Akhilleus pointed out that you told me this in a rude way. I did not violate WP:OWN because all I was doing was making sure the article SS Paris is written in American english since that was the way it was created. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also if you notice that when I am sent warnings I stop. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also WP:OWN is when you do not allow anyone to edit a page and revert everything a person does to the page, which I do not. I am just making sure that the style of english used when a page was oringinally written is maintained. Also you really should make an account. Also I would like to point out that you made a comment towards me that is age discrimination [[3]], remember you said "Daniel Chiswick,you are just 16,i recommend to comedown your hormones" and User:Driftwoodzebulin warned you about it? Infact you personally attacked me twice on that page by saying how I have been blocked before in a very rude way. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also I is not against the rule to say I dislike British spelling. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Since the official name used by the Huntington Beach Harbour is with a U and a consensus was reached at the talk page to include that name, this is how it should be spelled in the article. We can't change the name of a place just so it can adhere to our guidelines of American vs. British spelling. Regarding the latter edit war, if the template uses British spelling, you're gonna have to use British spelling when using it. Yonatan talk 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay good, but I already undertand this and somebody sent warning to my page so I stopped. The person that started this is overreacting and everytime I tell him that I have stopped editing Huntington Beach he keeps talking about it like I am still doing it. Also as I said, I created the article SS Paris using American spelling and keeping it that way is not violating WP:OWN. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

There's no problem with keeping the American English but you shouldn't change the parameters of a template, as they won't work with American English... Yonatan talk 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added on the talk page citations showing the city using both "Huntington Harbour" and "Huntington Harbor" hundreds of times in their own documents, including corporate minutes, planning documents, and phone directories. Either is defensible. Harbour has the edge from Mapquest. The definitive is probably "Harbour" from the planning document. Google has tehns of thousands of sites with each spelling for the same place, so someone putting a website in a comment is not that definitive. Get a ruling from the city planner. Edison 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Stephen Colbert outbreak[edit]

I've noticed a sudden surge in vandalism to library, librarian, libertarianism, and similar topics: the meme is "hiding something"; Colbert must have had something Wikipedia-related on his most recent TV show. Please be on the lookout, and also for newly registered users with Colbert-related names. Sigh, Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales was interviewed. After the episode was pre-recorded, Jimmy told us which pages we should be protecting. We'll be fine. For the record, Colbert told people to insert "Librarians are hiding something". Sean William 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently Jimbo was on Colbert tonight..... SirFozzie 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was a guest on the Colbert Report this evening. Discussion of the previous "Elephants" issue came up, and Colbert threw out several other possible vandalisms, including a banner run across the screen saying "Librarians are up to something" so Jimmy couldn't see it. Einstein raising Alpacas was another off-the-cuff comment, but there were quite a few, so expect it to be a busy night around Recent Changes. --InkSplotch 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha, yeah just saw the interview myself. Was surprised that the vandalism came so quickly. But it is being handled generally quite well.--Jersey Devil 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Check out their "Vandalism in process" page: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismo_en_curso --Jersey Devil 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We should probably deny them recognition as much as possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Bunch of articles are locked down; Albert Einstein, Spanish, Alpaca, Oxygen - so that oughta hold the little ... :-) - Alison 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be left with a change of former "oxygen is toxic" to "oxygen is poisonous" in high concentrations as the result of the Colbert program. Seems about as good a phraseology. Edison 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Next time, maybe protect the library and librarian articles too? Poindexter Propellerhead 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice work to everyone who got on this right away. A friend of mine mentioned the interview, and I immediately came in to find most of the articles already protected (though Einstein was locked down on "Colbert = God" for a few minutes). Tony Fox (arf!) 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I recommend adding Librarians are hiding something (currently a redirect to Stephen Colbert) and its talk page to Protected Titles. 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected titles has no effect if the page exists. Just protect it normally. —Centrxtalk • 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Limin8tor[edit]

Resolved: Block shortened

Limin8tor (talk · contribs) made one small constructive edit in January, then was inactive until they made a pro-Colbert talk page comment and were blocked indef by DragonflySixtyseven. Then then requested an unblock which was granted by Yonatan, and then undone by DragonflySixtyseven. They're requesting unblocking again. My gut feeling is that blocking indef without warning (even for suggesting a Colbert-ism) is a bit of an overreaction and a stern warning would have been sufficient. Since this approaching wheel-war territory I'd like to discuss it here. I will contact the two admins shortly. —dgiestc 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - an indef block for something like that is an over-reaction. I mean, we don't immediately indef block even for really obvious vandalism to mainspace pages - and this was on a talk page. --Haemo 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, we should take a zero tolerance stance with Colbert vandalism. That one was a sleeper. We will not negotiate with Colberrorists.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Or possibly just a fan of the show having some fun? Seems like an over-reaction to me, that's all. He didn't even vandalize in mainspace. --Haemo 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • "Sleeper" is a bit misleading because the target was a talk page which was not even semi-protected. While Colbert may be de-facto banned, I don't think it's reasonable to assume every editor knows they may not even discuss it on a talk page. —dgiestc 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Guys, remember that blocking is not meant to be a punitive measure. The question is; is the guy likely to re-offend? Judging from his talk page right now, the answer's probably no. He stepped out of line just a little and got sideswiped by the Colbert banhammer. He didn't know the gravity of the thing & now he does. His block should at least be reduced significantly. Other run-of-the-mill vandals tend to get a 24 hour block for a first offence ... - Alison 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
His block has already been reduced to two weeks by Dragonfly. Yonatan talk 06:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think a day or two would be more appropriate. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that would be sufficient as well, we can always block for longer if necessary. Yonatan talk 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. The guy knows he's going to get clobbered by 100 admins if he does it again. It serves no purpose at this stage, apart from alienating a potentially constructive editor - Alison 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The user's comments and indication that if the idea were rejected or laughed off, he would have accepted it seem genuine. We shouldn't be biting, unless someone asks nicely. :P They were bold, took it to the talk page but didn't receive good faith. I understand they were caught in the Colbert ban storm, but really ... calling what he did Colbert vandalism is a bit of stretch. He's been very eloquent and calm through this, and it speaks to his credit. If he commits some actual vandalism, disruption or attack, by all means block him. Given what's occurred so far, I don't think he should be blocked at all. Aren't we supposed to be friendly and helpful here? Vassyana 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I declined the unblock request before reading knowing about this thread, but you're right. If the user promises to stop colbertizing, I'm not opposed to an unblock. Sandstein 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and reduce the block to 24 hours. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • For the record, I try to avoid wheel wars. I did consult with Yonatan (yes, on IRC, sigh) prior to re-blocking. I'm pretty sure that Limin8tor would have screwed around with the article had it not been protected - but okay, he didn't actually do what he suggested doing. We'll see what, if anything, he does once his shortened block expires. DS 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible wikiproject conflict brewing[edit]

Resolved

There is a wikiproject conflict brewing about this article. The two issues of conflict are a) the name of the article ("list of" seems to confirm to WP:NAME and b) which wikiproject WP:OWNs the page (neither is the correct answer). While this in many ways is a editing conflict, because it is at the wikiproject level, can an admin pop over and bang some heads before we get into "my wikiproject is bigger than your wikiproject" type situation with multiple editors banging heads. A little preventation is worth a lot of cure... --Fredrick day 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message there and Alison (talk · contribs) move protected the page.--Isotope23 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Elie Hobeika[edit]

Elie Hobeika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) One or several users are trying (in my view) to build an effigy to a mostly unknown policitican by removing the text and replacing it with texts from various websites. What is the best way to proceed regarding the editing of this article? Thuresson 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jsw50[edit]

After User:Jsw48 and his sockpuppet were blocked the other day for vandalizing, he changed his username to User:Jsw46 and made threatening comments on my talk page. He was then blocked again as User:Jsw46. He's now back as User:Jsw50. See this. He also uses the IP 24.34.119.22. Can someone help me out again? Thanks. --Evb-wiki 02:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jsw50 indef blocked, IP blocked for a week. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be the same guy using User:Evx-wiki. He has again attacked me on my talk page. --Evb-wiki 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
He has again evaded his block. This time with User:Jsw45. See this. --Evb-wiki 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And User:Jsw51. See his edit to Cynthia Ozick. --Evb-wiki 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Blocked and blocked ... *sigh* - Alison 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And I got 47 and 49. That's all I could turn up. William Pietri 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
FYI - "Jonathan Worthington" <jsw45@yahoo.ca> has sent me a real-world e-mail to continue his attacks. (yawn.) --Evb-wiki 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This was placed on the talk page of the article that started it all, Cynthia Ozick. Apparently, this troll intends to maintain his course of conduct using various IP addresses. See this and this. --Evb-wiki 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected for a week. Hope that helps - Alison 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, User:69.177.29.245 appears to be yet another sockpuppet of User:Jsw48 et al. Today, he vandalized my user page in the identical manner as User:Jsw46 vandalized it here. User:69.177.29.245 had also made the inappropriate edit to Cynthia Ozick here, which was mentioned above. --Evb-wiki 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam and COI from CBS[edit]

So I noticed this unblock request. It identified an IP address that is registered to CBS. A quick look at the originally blocked user's contributions clearly demonstrates a pattern of spam promotoing WCBS' website. I declined the unblock, but I'm not sure what to do next. --Selket Talk 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been reverted. --Selket Talk 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already lifted the autoblock by the time you declined the request Thomprod (talk · contribs). Not seeing any conclusive evidence that Thomprod is a clear sockpuppet of Ggell100 (talk · contribs) and also noting that 170.20.11.116 (talkcontribsInfoWHOISRDNSRBLsblock userblock log) resolves to proxy-ny.cbs.com, assuming some good faith here isn't too much to ask for. We can always hard block the IP address if Thomprod starts spamming too. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, perhaps, but it's obviously the same person. In any case, this user will just be blocked if he/she continues. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please explain how you came to that conclusion considering Thomprod only has 2 edits to his account. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm betting most of the CBS officies and radio stations go though the same (or same set) of proxies. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Doing a Wikisearch on my username today, I came across this discussion which I had not been aware of. Although I do often post from my business PC (which happens to be located at a CBS Television Station, although not at WCBS), I assure you that I am neither a sockpuppet nor a spammer. Thank you assuming good faith, as I try to do. Cheers! --Thomprod (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redsox04[edit]

User Redsox04 is claiming to have banned the shared IP User:147.114.226.173 and has placed a {{Uw-block3}} on the user page, together with the following message

  • Hello User:147.114.226.173, Unfortunately, your recent behavior at Wikipedia was deemed detrimental to this website, therefore I am forced to block your username. Many have given constant warnings and have pointed out your violations as clear as they could but your actions continued, causing me to make a decision that is in the best interest of our site and the viewers of our site. Sorry. Redsox04 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

on the talk page.

There's no actual abuse evidenced, and Redsox doesn't seem to be an admin. Is this not, in itself, a form of abuse?

Paul Tracy|\talk 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the subject of this discussion. This makes no sense to me. Grandmasterka 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Nobody had told him on his talk page that he can't impersonate an admin; I have done so, we shall see how it goes... Georgewilliamherbert 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
[4] This isn't the first time the user claimed he blocked someone. However the response to the action I linked to did not reference the fact that he can't impersonate an administrator. Funpika 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
And he claimed to have blocked a school IP for vandalism. AecisBrievenbus 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Several times I've seen people think that a page can be protected just by placing the protection template. And it appears he has made the same mistake. Perhaps the fellow is just unusually ill-informed about how Wikipedia works, rather than out to impersonate an admin. William Pietri 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. In the absence of any evidence of pernicious intent here, AGF would surely serve us just fine. Joe 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I feel that is important that I address the situation at hand. With all do respect, I feel that many punishments here at Wikipedia seem too lenient. I feel that the "three strike rule" should be enforced. After 3 warnings regarding the same violation, a suspension, at minimum, should be in order. All I am trying to do is keep this site free from vandalism. Yes, I can be strict and a bit "rouge" but if you're strict, you get the message across much easier and keep this site as fully functional and accurate as possible. I do, although, want to apologize for my wrongdoings and hope that you'll take my requests seriously and work with them. Redsox04 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nembard[edit]

Resolved: editor blocked for gross incivility - Alison 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had requested a block on this user based on his silly contributions but it was unheeded. Now this guy has left a very "nice" message on my user page in response to my warning:[5] --Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • Blocked. That kind of behaviour is just not on - Alison 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks!--Deepak D'Souza (talkcontribs) 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal threats by User:Parsecboy[edit]

I have recieved personal threats from User:Parsecboy as he is accusing me of sockpuppetry in conjunction with the voting on the Dokdo article.[6] He has left two nasty messages on my talk page. I have explained that those edits were not mine, and clearly someone is trying to make it look like I voted and signed my own name a second time with a different account.

On his talk page, I have asked him not to message me. [7] He refused to comply leaving yet another nasty message on my talk page. [8] I have been a Wikipedia user for quite awhile and have never had a sockpuppet (nor will I ever do such a thing). I know there isn't a hell of a lot you can do, but I would appreciate it if an admin would ask him to leave me alone. Davidpdx 12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal threats kind of implies threats "against your person." Was there some personal threat not included in the diffs you gave? I watched this little exchange and didn't chime in because I thought I might make it worse, but I was surprised you brought it to the level of an AN/I report when it was basically just two messages accusing you of sockpuppetry with some evidence he thought made it look like you were pulling a fast one. The talk page in question has been ravaged by some people attempting to disrupt the poll, and someone by mistake signed your name on a second vote and then change the message (he thought you were likely, since it was your name).
Keep in mind also that you don't "own" pages on Wikipedia, not even your talk or user pages, so you can't really "ban" a user from posting any messages at all there. Telling another user that you'll report them (and then following through with it) if they ever post any message to your talk page again doesn't seem like it's going to promote the best relationship between editors. --Cheers, Komdori 12:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
While it's true I don't own my talk page, I have the right not to be harrassed. While the threat was not implicitly against me (physically) it does constitue harassment. In terms of your bit about not promoting the best relationship about editors by reporting them to an admin, what do you think leaving nasty messages on someone's talk pages does to promote relationships? How about nothing, but nastiness. It's clear this guy was looking for someone to go off on, dispute no proof the the allegations he was pushing were true or not.
I still have a right to report harrassment and the fact that I've asked him no to post a reply on my talk page. His continued messeging is harrassment and if need be I will take any further steps to prevent him from abusing me including filing for mediation or arbitration. Davidpdx 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In my own defence, I was never "nasty" with you, Davidpdx. Perhaps you're exaggerating a bit there. There was indeed proof enough to make the allegation that I did. One editor (created yesterday, with no other edits) signed his/her name as yours, and then changed it. You have to admit that is highly suspicious. If I was in error, I apologize, I don't want to falsely accuse anyone. But I feel I was justified at the time, with the evidence I had at that point. Parsecboy 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you were nasty with me, I have the comments in my talk page history to prove it. As stated below, if you had at least asked me, I would have told you it wasn't me. It's easy to go around accusing everyone of being sockpuppets, but when you accuse someone who isn't doing it you make enemies. Flying off the handle does nothing but piss people off. If that's what your trying to accomplish, then you were successful. Hopefully you learned your lesson about that one. It's nice to see at least a half-hearted apology, although you certainly could do better in that department as well. Davidpdx 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Asking for clarification about the edit would have been preferred to accusing Davidpdx of blatant sockpuppetry. I myself think it would be highly unlikely for an editor using a sockpuppet to make the mistake of cutting and pasting their own signature to the sock post. It doesn't take much good faith to believe that this may have simply been a confused new editor...who also received a threatening message about the block he was going to receive after his first attempt to contribute. --OnoremDil 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I will do that in the future. I have, however, seen the same exact thing happen with a user who openly admitted using the sock puppet after being confronted. Parsecboy 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayor Quimby and Anonymous IP 207.81.56.49[edit]

After I declined an unblock request, this message was left on my talk page:

Nice to meet you, JPD! Thank you for your review of and assistance with the blocking of 207.81.56.49. I am not sure if I am going about this in the right way, but I would like to draw your attention to this anon. IP. I am concerned that the person behind this anon. IP may been a user called Mayor Quimby who engaged in similar disruptive behaviour and was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. I have requested a comment on 207.81.56.49 and the hypothesis that I make above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. I would appreciate your input if you are so interested. Thank you for your time. Mumun 無文 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mayor Quimby was indef blocked for doing nothing other than attacking other users. I don't have time to look into it further now, and possibly won't until after the (long) weekend. JPD (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I lodged the original 'request for comment' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. Please take a look. I think that if my hypothesis is plausible to you all, we need to block this anon. IP indefinitely because he/she made legal threats against Ryūlóng (竜龍) and other editors, is highly disruptive, and firmly opposes the aims and goals of our encyclopaedia project. Mumun 無文 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I was involved in the original MayorQuimby case and, yes, that IP address is definitely the same guy. Same articles, same edits, same POV - Alison 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a little presumptive and circumstantial. Are you attempting to silence any and all discussion that is counter to your POV ?--207.81.56.49 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Not really, no - Alison 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830[edit]

This is a WP:STALK complaint.

I originally got into a dispute over an edit at this page with the user User:Someguy0830 for removing a link that was used on one page but not removing it on another. The person claimed that wiki verifiability did not allow the link, but allowed it to be placed with a secondary link verifying it. After going back and forth, the guy game up with criteria that, when presented with, still refused to act on what he said. I left the situation, not wanting to deal with someone who didn't seem to want to deal with anything except what he already predetermined. After butting heads with the admin User:Jossi about a similar page, Shane Ruttle Martinez, over editing conflicts pertaining to WP:BLP, this user complained about me on Jossi's talk page. When I was having a dispute over Jossi's objectivity at the Village Pump Policy forum over possible objectivity issues relating to the current BLP conflict, the user decided to take over the argument, trying to question me constantly. I told the user that unless he wanted to be a mediator between Jossi and myself, that I would not have anything to do with his questions. His questions did not stop, and Jossi and I later resolved our issue on our own.

Then I decided to blow off steam and create the Warhammer 40,000 page on Graphic novels, titled Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000). This was named based on Graphic Novels being used as a proper title by Warhammer 40,000 as a series of their works. The name follows the conventions of the Wikiproject for Warhammer 40,000, and other such pages like Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) and Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) follow. This user came to the page, removed a lot of my edits and then moved it. This has caused me great stress, because not only did he not respect the already decided conventions by the Wiki group, he started claiming that I was owning the page by creating something already determined by my wiki project. Now, he has protected the page and furthers his campaign. Not only has he followed me to various places, he disrupted a wikiproject to harass me. This is very disturbing and User:Jossi asked for me to place my concerns here. Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please - whatever other issues there are between you and User:Someguy0830 (which frankly I don't know about and don't care about) - my hour of interaction with you shows that you have serious WP:OWN issues and a serious misunderstanding of the power and scope of wikiprojects. So in regards to your first complaint - I have idea of the validity of that, as for the second - there are straightforward concern from multiple editors about the warhammer page - so to suggest he's "disrupting a wikiproject" is bunk - because if he is, there are quite a few of us helping him. --Fredrick day 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that user Fredrick day is not a member of either wikiprojects, according to what he said on the comics project page and is a possible sock puppet/working with Someguy to further this disruption of Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000 in order to harm me. "I'm not a member of this project, I'm not a member of any project - I'm a Wikipedia editor - that's ALL the authority I need to get involved. Neither wikiproject has any power over that page. --Fredrick day 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. He also shows a clear disrespect for consensus or approaching the members of a wikiproject during the creation of a new page. SanchiTachi 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah, my first AN/I note. I'll start off by being honest. I did find Sanchi's page through his contribs. I was bored and went looking for something to fix. Graphic Novels isn't a proper title, so I moved it. Then I checked the talk page to find Sanchi threatening to remove a Wikiproject banner simply because the opposing user felt graphic novels wasn't the proper term. I told him in no uncertain (and undoubtedly frank) words why such behavior is unacceptable, as well as the reason for my move. Rather than try to discuss this rationally, one need only read his contributions to see him go on a crusade against all would would threaten his page. This user simply has ownership issues and a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
As for all those accusations, though I'm flattered by the effort he's taken against me, perhaps because I'm one of the few people willing to put up with his behavior over any length of time, Sanchi's points are falsehoods. He didn't resolve anything with Jossi. He simply left the conversation after realizing his nonsense wouldn't fly. As for the Marxist-Leninist thing, I asked him not only to provide a second source, which he only half-did, I asked him why it was relevant to the person in question. I never got an answer to that, or my request for proof with the Jossi thing for that matter. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice the dates:

[9] 22:16, 24 May 2007 was the time of original establishment. 04:00, 25 May 2007 was the time of his moving. Note, he is not a member of the Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000, nor did he ask for consensus before a move. SanchiTachi 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Nobody has to ask a Wikiproject for permission to edit or move an article, nor do they need to be a member of said Wikiproject. As I said on your talkpage SanchiTachi (talk · contribs), you appear to have an incorrect understanding of exactly what a Wikiproject is.--Isotope23 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I take it that Isotope23 no longer understands that "Consensus" means or that you should seek Consensus before moving a page? I'm pretty sure thats one of the most importan Etiquette rules. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have had no dealings with either SanchiTachi or Someguy0830 before today (that I can recall) so I cannot comment on previous behaviour interactions but I have had a chance to observe them both in the recent incident that seems to have kicked this up a gear. The whole thing can bee seen on the talk page but it arose from my querying the name of the entry (which conflicted with general naming guidelines) and added the Comic Project header. Someguy0830 moved the page to its current location and while I would have preferred more debate about the correct name he was within his rights to do (especially as we tell people to be bold). What followed was SanchiTachi removing material added in good faith, moving the entry back again, making wild and baseless accusations and rapidly escalating this otherwise minor problem to the point of (amongst other things) making accusations at all of the Comic Project [10] and bringing the issue here. I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia blow up out of all proportion like this and have seen enough disputes over the naming of entries and the conduct of editors to know that something this minor can almost always be resolved simple and amicably. The speed with which SanchiTachi has made a mountain out of a molehill has been quite startlingly. Anyway that is just my perspective. As far as I can see the person who has grounds for a complaint is Someguy0830 but I'd hope they'd take the higher moral ground and walk away or just agree to disagree and try and stay out of each other's ways. This whole thing seems awfully unnecessary and could/should have been sorted out before it became such a big issue. (Emperor 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
What material in good faith? Actually, material was removed from the main page, and I removed the Comics project title from the page until it would be officially deemed by consensus to be part of the comics project, especially seeing as how the page didn't actually deal with comics. Furthermore, when a user, like Someguy, follows you to 5 different unrelated pages and startes responding, attacking, and editing those pages, then claims that he is doing it because he believes you have an "own" problem, then that is WikiStalking. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors like myself are free to add project headers where appropriate - it isn't for you to decide what is or isn't relevant to a page but, like everyone else are welcome to put forward an arguement why it might not fit. (Emperor 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Fredrick day is a sockpuppet now? o_o JuJube 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems I'm a wikistalker at least. --Fredrick day 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
When one user picks up the argument from another user, and that user is a self proclaimed "non-participant" in the group projects and has no other reason to be there, then its either a strange coincidence or sock-puppetry. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You need to get over this Wikiproject "non-participant" thing SanchiTachi (talk · contribs). Every editor has every right to edit any articles here. Fredrick day has every reason to edit the article in question if he so chooses. Many of the statements you've made here and at Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels are veering into WP:OWN territory. I suspect you feel ganged up on, but you have to understand that Wikiprojects don't hold a monopoly on any article, even if one of their members created that article.--Isotope23 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope - it's because you turned up on the wikiproject for comics with your WP:OWN claims (I don't join wikiprojects BECAUSE I feel they have OWN issues and need independent editors such as myself to keep them honest) - while I am not a member of any wikiproject, I watch quite a few of them for various reasons. It's quite laughable for you to claim that I am trying to work against consensus when I was the one to start the debate on what the article name should be and came here for admin intervention to try and prevent an edit war. --Fredrick day 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If Sanchi Tachi hadn't made his unkind accusation of "hijacking" on the WikiProject Comics talk page [11], many of us would have been unaware of the article. --GentlemanGhost 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
From my dealings with SanchiTachi I am also of the opinion that he has WP:OWN issues. On many a page it is "his way or the highway" (and to be honest [and before anyone else brings it up] his attitude was the reason I quit the 40K Wikiproject group). Darkson - BANG! 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the subject at hand (the WP:STALK accusation), following someone's contributions in good faith is not a violation of any guidelines or policy. Often times you'll find "messy" users (such as those with poor English skills or whatnot), and following them around cleaning up their messes can be very productive. WP:STALK is not an issue in this case, as it would appear that Someguy was not acting with the intent to harass (as we should assume). In the instances where Someguy cleaned up after (i.e. "wikistalked") Sanchi, it seems that he had a valid stance in each case. –Gunslinger47 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A "valid" stance? You mean going over and interfering in a conversation which he didn't belong in, and then looking through my contributions and following me to a new page and moving it without placing a move tag or asking for a consensus? Really? You think those are "valid" edits? Wow, you need to reread WP:EQ then. Thanks. Furthermore, where was his assuming good faith? Where was his looking for a consensus? Where was his unwillingness to not harass me on Public Pump Policy when he was asked kindly to stop? SanchiTachi 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Who are you to decide who belongs in what conversation? JuJube 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So if I went around and interupted disputes between you every where you went, you would think that falls under proper Wiki Etiquette? Please read WP:EQ, and you will see that it does not. SanchiTachi 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:EQ: "If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."
Is this the only part of this page that you read? Something tells me might have glossed over a certain part of it. –Gunslinger47 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More revert war at GNAA and Talk:GNAA[edit]

Resolved

Pretest (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has been re-adding the troll group to GNAA against all consensus on the talk page, and keeps adding flamebait such as this to the talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 18:35Z

In 1 hour he's up to 3 reverts in both the article and talk page space. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 18:38Z
Why hasn't this user been already blocked for his previous vandalism? Corvus cornix 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the 3RR warning made him stop. If he reverts again, I will block, although I would not be offended if someone else blocks him before. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his edit history, I'm having a bit of a problem assuming good faith here. It seems to me to be an entity we shouldn't be feeding.--Isotope23 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
ifdef blocked by user:W.marsh. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And the troll created a sockpuppet exactly 3 minutes after the block: Theburk (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 19:23Z

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor[edit]

Resolved: Blocked it hours ago - Alison 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ychromosome (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log), going back to articles that have been repeatedly edited by his previous sockpuppets to reinstate the reverted edits. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney303 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)[edit]

Actually, he seems to have realized that he went to far sometime yesterday, and some other recent edits are him apologizing and sitting down to work with people politely. Given that he realized that, stopped on his own, and is behaving himself right now I'm inclined to leave it at the warning message I left on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These 2 were today from annonymous IP addresses. [21] YoSoyGuapo 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If i ever get blocked...i shouldnt be blocked alone because theres an annonymous user that User:64.131.205.111 that was reverting my edits and doing inappropiate things which made me get angry and caused me to act the way i did...Did was my first time i ever had trouble with a user because i alwayys got along with every body until the last couple of daysEdwinCasadoBaez 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Screen captures in Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope[edit]

I thought that the policy was that only one screen capture can appear in each article. The article Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope, which is a featured article, has a total of 5. Each one has a fair use rationale, but that still doesn't exempt the images from the screen capture policy. Rhythmnation2004 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording from the rules on fair use is "minimal use". There is no numerical standard. If five fair-use images have five good fair-use rationales, then it is certainly possible that five images is "minimal" in this case. (ESkog)(Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There appear to only be four screenshots, actually. Lexicon (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, I suppose there's five if you include the Nazi thing. Lexicon (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So then five screen captures is acceptable, as long as there is a fair use rationale for each one? Rhythmnation2004 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but fair use galleries are not acceptable, and the fair use rationales have to be very, very solid, and any more than 5 would be dubious at best. Minimal fair use: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That's free as in free-content, not just beer. Moreschi Talk 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hacked account[edit]

Please have a look at the move log for Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 25.

The edit summary indicates a hacked account.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't in my eyes - it looks like Gay Cdn was simply nominating a lot of pictures with similar but confusing names for deletion. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Huh? Gay Cdn wasn't being reported, he/she made the report. He/she was reporting Saltwynd110, who is now blocked. —METS501 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Ryan, he means this guy. Sean William 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe he meant that it had been moved by a vandal (I fixed it [22] and thanks to the others who just now helped clean this up). Antandrus (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm assuming that a checkuser isn't necessary to make sure it actually wasn't BuickCenturyDriver? —METS501 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm in the process of filing one. Sean William 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Looks like Real96 beat me to it. Sean William 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SocialistBasturd[edit]

Indef block? What do you think? He/she has only made one edit outside of his/her userpage, and it was to vandalize User:UBX [23].

I think a hard username block is in order for this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell was the Libby Hoeller page deleted?[edit]

Resolved: This isn't an administrative issue; see the deleting admin of the article. EVula // talk // // 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be censored. 151.197.191.191 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review. —METS501 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GBpacker4 7 block[edit]

I've indefblocked GBpacker4 7 for trolling. In addition to the recent events of recreating his autobiography and subsequently requesting others to do it, he blatantly violated our WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NPA policies throughout his entire contribution history[24] [25] [26] [27]. He was warned several times regarding this, but didn't cease his behavior. Michaelas10 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have notified the user both of his block and of this thread. AecisBrievenbus 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Good call, although I'm generally opposed to noticing users of such discussions. Michaelas10 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz[edit]

We have been trying to mediate a dispute on Stephen Barrett for quite sometime now. The mediator was fed up with the incivility and felt that meidiation would not be successful given the hostile environment. The mediator made his comments here. In an effort to move forward with more civility, I have pointed other editors to this page so they can read what our neutral mediator's take on the state of our dispute is. Ronz takes our mediator's comments as personal attacks against himself and therefore has engaged in removing my link to our mediator's comments and further engaged in talk page edit wars when I tried to revert this censorship. Overall, Ronz is behaving with gross incivility, rampant censorship and is preventing us from reaching a compromise to this dispute. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?[edit]

Resolved

Hi - another editor just noticed that this article has had a deletion tag on it for almost a month now - despite the fact that there appears to be a clear "keep" consensus. Can an admin either close the delete, or relist it, so this can be settled? --Haemo 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with! Thanks! --Haemo 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the nomination was never included in any categories, and thus was likely miscalculated by bots. Geez, what a rare case. Michaelas10 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Violent threats[edit]

Dear Sir or Madam: There have been a number of long-standing serious disputes on the Jat people and associated pages (such as the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats page) - as you can tell if you read the notes by myself and others on the Talk pages and even in the archived Talk pages.

But just today I have noticed a new and very worrying progression to threats of violence. They are not directed at me specifically - but I thought I should report them right away. Here they are:

"WE ABOUT TO FORM [[JATTISTAN COMANDO FORCE.WE DEMAND SEPRATE STATE OF HARIYANA,WESTERN UP,EASTERN RAJASTHAN ETC.PUNJABI JATS INVITE TOO.JO BHI JAT KI AULAD HAE SUPPORT US.JAT IS GREAT.JAT IS GREATER THEN ALL OF CAST OF INDIA.JO HUMSE TAKRAYEGA CHOOR-2 HO JAYEGA.JAI JATtISTAN,JAI HINDUSTAN.
===Dispute===[[maa ki ....dispute ki.no cast greater then jats.if anyone stand fingure on jats.we cut his hands."

"== NO IF NO BUT ONLY JATT ==

   * If anybody have bad thought about jats.give me his addrss.i meet him personally"


Would someone please do something to stop this sort of misuse of the Wikipedia? Many thanks, John Hill 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The account apparently responsible is Dharamveer singh (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log); they're indef blocked for threats. Georgewilliamherbert 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much - but the threats still stand on the main page of Jat people - they have not been reverted. Could this please be taken further? Many thanks, John Hill 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You could have reverted it yourself, but I just went back to your last edit on the 23rd, before all the random cruft and threats started. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Theyoungstunna[edit]

Theyoungstunna (talk · contribs), also known as the (non-notable) rapper Magnificent, has for the past four or five days been trying to promote himself, the record label he is signed to and several colleagues/friends. See the article history of Magnificent, Special:Undelete/DJ Yung Stylez and Special:Undelete/Magnificent rapper. The user has been warned and warned and warned not to use Wikipedia for advertising or as a free webspace provider. I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to block the account for up to one week, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption: "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week." AecisBrievenbus 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules[edit]

Could I request some more admins watchlist Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? (I suppose it is on many watchlists, but I want more, more I tell you.) Billy Ego, a banned user, has already employed three socks today, one as I was typing this message. It would be preferable if everybody could just rollback and block the further ones which are likely, as opposed to protecting the article - although that option might become necessary. Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a few days. Brand-new editors are unlikely to be drawn to this page. Feel free to lift the semi if anyone cares to, especially if a checkuser can find and block the socks' IP. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Watched for new socks. Sean William 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Watched here as well. Someone might want to keep an eye on the account creation log as well. AecisBrievenbus 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, though, the edit that the socks keep making, although I don't care for it too much, isn't the sort of trolling I was expecting. There must be a history there I don't get. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the accounts be CheckUsered against Billy, for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein#Log of blocks and bans? AecisBrievenbus 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard already did, he's using some sort of something which went over my head (this being a different something than whatever he previously used.) Not sure if the IP can be blocked, and if so for what amount of time. So yeah, I think a full report listing all four would be good, and seeing if the underlying IP can be blocked. As to logging all his socks on the case page, I'm pretty sure the arbcom won't care for every single on to be listed from now on. Picaroon (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting to feed Billy beans, you'd probably need a separate subpage for all the socks in no time, judging from the amount of socks he's already used. AecisBrievenbus 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Both are on UUnet dialups, which is a HUGE chunk of net, about a /10. And those dialups could be ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE USA OR CANADA! yay. So it's not a close match but it sure isn't a miss. And of course he could just use a different ISP. And of course it could all be coincidence - David Gerard 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For further proof that this is Billy, compare edit summaries from a known sock, here, and one of those from today, here. And then compare the usernames. Voila, socks beyond a doubt. Picaroon (Talk) 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This probably should've been posted on AIV...[edit]

Resolved: User blocked and edits reverted.

...but I'm not sure, and this person is not editing right now and has no warnings. Yet it is clearly either page move vandalism or really odd edit tests...

I just spotted a whole bunch of user talk archives of User:Dmcdevit, placed in the Main namespace (example). The interesting thing is that they apparently were put here by User:Silent Majority (example diff). I'm not sure what to do with this - don't feel like putting someone's talk archives for deletion, afraid to move. 夢の騎士Yume no Kishi - Talk 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA[edit]

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

There appears to be a mis-understanding at WP:AMA. Can someone please explain this entire thing about making it historical. I didn't see any RfC's and there is actually a discussion that is happening on one of the page and right now user:Aeon1006 is saying they're closing the thing. The constant need for re-directing all the pages is truly disruptive to our discussion on the board at AMA. --CyclePat 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry but it's history - no-one uses it anymore. I think it's best to let it die in peace. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed. Let's try to make this happen in a way that's not as messy as Esperanza and Concordia were. Sean William 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. Show me the community RfC and I'll be happy. Until then I find the actions highly disruptive as we try to rebuild the AMA and work on various cases. Could an administrator please revert the changes back to something quasi functional. Thank you! --CyclePat 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
MfD'd - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (second nomination). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ryan, a MFD was just closed earlier today. Sean William 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A bit out of process one could argue. Nonetheless, AMA needs to be killed with fire, sooner rather than later. Dragging this closing/historical/deletion process out is only wasting time and delaying the inevitable. ^demon[omg plz] 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't realise an MfD had closed today for it, I've got no objections to it being closed early - but there does seem to be a clear consensus for it's closure. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Whether it's tagged as 'historical' or not, it certainly seems to be historical. Has the AMA helped to resolve any sort of issue recently? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Its historical. It should be marked. Navou 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a comparative analysis... Though I don't think these things ever work as well as I would like them to. The WP:AMA and all our subpages have actually seen a lot more activity than WP:EA. Should WP:EA be considered historical? No... The use of each group have their use. If I want a question answered I'll go to EA... if I want someone to help me out and talk for me I go to AMA. I would like for someone to please explain how you measure the worth of a page as being considered historical, because I really don't see it in this case? --CyclePat 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It looks like WP:AMA hasn't had any cases taken in over two months (see long list of unclaimed cases at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/By Date Filed/list), whereas WP:EA has had cases followed up as recently as today. —Centrxtalk • 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And that is only up to date as of the last edit by the bot to it - the backlog is likely to have risen in the tme that I've taken the bot offline. Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the extent of your 'activity' appears to be to hold "elections" for a "co-ordinator", rather than actually responding to the people requesting assistance and cleanup. —Centrxtalk • 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the constitution which they spent a long time writing, earlier up the message board... Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Pat, please drop it. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm open to consensus and, if people don't like us, we're out. It's simple. But I'd like to know if it wouldn't be better to have an RfC to have people's opinion on this matter. Don't you think? I know there's people wanting me to be the coordinator and so on, but I honestly don't have any interest in leading something that simply doesn't exists and no one wants it to exist. Do you agree in doing this last and definitive step? Or am I just dreaming and it's absolutely useless? --Neigel von Teighen 10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes lets close the AMA down it did its duty but now it has become bogged down in process and red tape. I nomed if for MfD eariler (the one that was closed as invalid due to it being tagged as Historic) and I'm thinking of sending the invalid MfD up to Deletion review to have it restarted so we can end this before it becomes the circus that the EA debate became. Æon Insanity Now! 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm happy to see it deprecated, I think it's counter-productive. I think the first mfd showed a pretty clear mandate for closing it down and don't really see the need for an rfc. As someone who went to hell and back over the Esperanza deletion, I don't really want to see a repeat of that, it would be better if the mistakes made there could be learnt here and we could just gently deprecate it. I admit I'm currently involved in probably the last case involving an advocate, so people will have to work out whether that biases me, but from my experience it just doesn't work. Hiding Talk 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The historic tags are back up on it, Killerchiuauha replaced them. Æon Insanity Now! 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK. I myself accept our fate and hope all ex-AMA will do the same. --Neigel von Teighen 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Neigel, just because 3-4 people decide to gang rape does that make it right? Just as it is wrong to be sexually assaulted, to kill someone, or any other moral reason, it is inherently wrong to first allow it just to happen and then to think nothing more of it. (ie.: "ex-AMA") You are talking as if you have lost your membership. *(secondly that statement, when you think about it is quite paradoxal). How can you be an ex-AMA, prior to accepting this alleged faith?. Cheer up chum! AMA is as active as we use it! And right now, I'm feeling a little anxiety. 1) because our conversations at the AMA are reverted... 2) because our conversations are reverted 3) because I know there is something wrong. Trust me! --CyclePat 07:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
AMA spent a week fighting an MfD (which failed) and since then has been putting its effort to correct the issues brought up there. Closing a group for being inactive at its core function because it was compelled to devote its efforts to its own persistence is the peak of disingenuity. The whole thing stinks, horribly and moreover, unwikily. The PTB want AMA out because it made it too hard to exert minority control over the project and its members. When the MFD failed, the AMA's sincere attempts to resolve the issues were instead used to close it down? Unbelievable, and unconsensual. - Keith D. Tyler (AMA) 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

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

Atze Schröder[edit]

Please protect the page. People (mostly IPs) are trying there to abuse wikipedia as an instrument in a campaign of protest against a German court decision that confirmed the artist's anonymity rights. The real name of the artist has never been encyclopedically relevant, since he always kept it private, and only in the context of the inappropriate protest against the court decision as alleged censorship, common knowledge of the real name was forcibly pushed. That's stalking by the masses and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not become an instrument of these masses. --rtc 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  • If his real name is verifiable, I don't understand why we wouldn't include it. --OnoremDil 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • His real name is public record in germany thanks to a trademark filing. Also german court decisions do not apply to EN wikipedia, as has been proven in the past.  ALKIVAR 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Whether German court decisions apply is irrelevant. What is relevant are our content policies, which apply strictly to biographies. The biographical content is improperly sourced, being sourced to a trademark filing where person X happens to file a trademark with the same name as this comedy figure. (Ronald McDonald has been trademarked too. Clearly, the name of a trademark holder on a trademark filing is not conclusive evidence that person X has name Y.) It's obviously controversial, too. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I've removed it. Any editor who wants it in can best spend their time finding a reliable source that gives the real name of this person. Uncle G 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on this topic, I know nothing about him, but a) couldn't you print who copyrighted the name without coming out and saying it is actually his name? b) if the statement stays that he sued a newspaper after they printed his real name, then it stands to reason a good source would be whatever the newspaper printed as his name, wouldn't it? If my name is Bob and a newspaper prints Charlie, I wouldn't sue them for printing my real name since it isn't my real name. Or am I missing something here? --Cheers, Komdori 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is this: This German comedian, who goes (only) by the stage name Atze Schröder, is in the habit of suing anyone who publishes his real name. A Berlin court has granted an injunction prohibiting this against a newspaper; the verdict is being appealed. The name can probably be verified through reliable sources, notably the court verdict at issue. De.wiki has decided not to carry the name. This is probably something to be decided at Foundation level, but until at least a complaint is raised against the name's publication on en.wiki I fail to see why we should not carry the name. Sandstein 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you could in principle find a valid source for that name, and I have no doubt that it is correct. However, this name has become known only because of a court dispute revolving around someone who disclosed the name without permission that was previously explicitly kept private. The artist has always been anonymous, and hence his name is not relevant information. There are also some remarkable differences to the Tron case. 1. Tron was dead; 2. Tron was widely known by his real name and not anonymous or strictly pseudonymous (his name was just not spelled out entirely before his death); 3. Tron also used his full real name for publishing his thesis; 4. Tron's article was about his person himself, not about a fictional character played by him. In fact I agree that Tron's full name should be mentioned, but the circumstances are completely different here! Further: Such details about the person's name dispute certainly don't belong into an article about a character played by him; they don't have anything to do at all with that character. Further, I'd like to point out that it is obviously schizophrenic to claim a name to be relevant for an encyclopedia if it became public solely by a source that was judged as an illegal invasion into the person's privacy and anonymity rights. If you exclude that source and the sources created by people who incorrectly think that this is censorship and should be protested against by civil disobedience, by pushing his real name in as many places as possible, then you don't have a relevant source left that makes an explicit connection between the character and the real name of the artist. The trademark registration mentions his name, but the connection is not explicit; by itself, it could as well have been the name of his agent. So the trademark register by itself cannot be a source for the connection between his name and the character he plays, and we are only left with a publication of his name that has been deemed illegal and the attempts to controversy it provoked. Finally, Even if the article was a biography about the artist, which it isn't (compare it to Captain Picard), it is clearly the desire of the artist to stay anonymous and keep his real name private, so please respect WP:NPF and "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". The artist is not notable for his real name, and hardly for the naming controversy, but entirely for the character he plays. Of course the naming controversy is moderately notable among active internet users, and one could give a small note about the original court case, but that's it—please don't mention the name and please don't give hints on where it can be found. This group of internet users is really only a negligible minority compared to the number of people who know the person only by the character he plays and hence doesn't justify basing the whole article mainly about that issue. --rtc 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we could note the name of the character is copyrighted by whoever holds it, right? If the actor hadn't gone around and sued people it might not be relevant, but now isn't he starting to be known as the guy who sues when his real name is published? Perhaps paradoxically it seems that might make his name relevant to the character itself. --Cheers, Komdori 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that it is clearly wrong. What becomes perhaps moderately relevant about the controversy is that he has successfully sued against the publication of his name. What has not become relevant is his name itself! Referring to the trademark registration can only have the intention of giving hints about his name to circumvent the ban on publishing his name. The information in this registration by itself does not make the connection that the trademark owner is the same person as the artist. If you cannot give the original source and the name directly in a faithful way, then please be aware that using such 'tricks' is not any better. In fact, using the original source would at least not be as dishonest by playing such tricks! As a side note, please make a difference between copyright and trademark law. They are entirely separate and independent and must not be confused. The name is trademarked, not copyrighted! --rtc 22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In the absence of rtc, I'd like to say that his argument is the correct one; the information is clearly contentious, and were this artist to hear about it it would make him sad. We aren't here to make people sad. I don't buy the argument that the name in this case is potentially incorrect, as it is a matter of public record, but in my view that is not what trumps the case. --Edwin Herdman 05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I like your point Edwin and it gives me pause to consider... but the problem I kind of have with the whole deal (admitidly only for a day here) is that if someone reads that he sued to protect his name (which is clearly notable), then a reader's first instinct is to want to try to find out what the name is. While I'm not a big fan of trivia based sections of wikipedia, the name of an actor portraying a character seems intensely encylcopedic, and it seems odd to send them scurrying off to another source of information because of a lack of completeness. Just a thought. --Cheers, Komdori 10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User blocked[edit]

Rtc has been blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "Three-revert rule violation: repeated 3RR violations with no sign of stopping". The user is requesting to be unblocked. I believe the block was valid, but also that it should have a clear, finite period of time. Since this issue is already being discussed here, I welcome comments. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinately because I see severe edit warring in his edit contributions... his recent behaviour on Atze Schröder (5 reverts in a couple days) is just one example.  ALKIVAR 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't see any 3RR violations in his (recent) contribs. Edit warring, perhaps, but no violations so an indef seems strange. Trebor 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Added to that, the change he was trying to make was arguably valid (or at least should've been open for discussion) and has now been made by Uncle G anyway. This seems odd. Trebor 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The user is clearly edit warring (and a block would be warranted for this), but I don't believe an indefinite block for an apparently nonexistent 3RR violation is appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well possibly (although it's usually harsh to block for only a couple of reverts), but the block reason is wrong and the length way too much. I'd endorse unblocking now. Trebor 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
24 hours should be the penalty for 3RR. Then grow it if it repeats. Indefinite for what appears to be the first block in some months seems excessive. Orderinchaos 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User clearly violated 3RR, but the block is out of proportion to the violation. Give rtc 24 hours. --Edwin Herdman 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Urgedspana's odd edits[edit]

Resolved: User was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Jagjagjagjab.

Kyoko 12:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I was checking my watchlist, and I noticed that User:Yan guien's page had been altered, hiding its suspected sockpuppet tag of User:Jagjagjagjab, an indefinitely blocked user. More importantly, it was altered by a new user on his/her 3rd edit to the site.

I've reverted the change, as well as another edit the user made to Collège Édouard-Montpetit.

It just seems odd to me that a new user would be aware of another editor who was a suspected sockpuppet, but I didn't want to go straight to WP:SSP. I'd appreciate your advice and vigilance about Quebec-related articles. Thank you. Kyoko 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:64.126.24.12[edit]

64.126.24.12 (talk · contribs) is canvassing for votes on the Gracenotes RfA. Corvus cornix 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody is concerned about this. Corvus cornix 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of image being disputed for two months, no resolution[edit]

In March of this year, User:Argos'Dad uploaded Image:HellenicNavy.png for use on Template:Hellenic Navy [28]. Subsequent to this, significant discussion ensued which can be read at Template talk:Hellenic Navy. At the time, User:Argos'Dad indicated the image had been published in the United States before 1923, thus clearing it of copyright concerns. I requested he provide proof of that, and gave him instructions (OTRS) for doing so (see template talk page again). It's now been two months since that discussion, and he has yet to provide any evidence of his assertion. I therefore retagged the image as a non-free logo, and tagged it as orphaned fair use since it is not used in any actual encyclopedia articles [29]. Shortly thereafter, he reverted the orphaned tag (but not the non-free logo tag) indicating this was still under discussion. The discussion ended two months ago. I left him a message on his talk page regarding this [30], and restored the orphaned fair use tag [31]. Per my statement back in March on this and per my statement left on his talk page today, I am referring this matter to WP:AN/I.

The non-derivative image is available at http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/agen_en.asp, which has a copyright tag at the bottom of that and the rest of the site.

Another version of the image is located at Image:GEN Greece.PNG, which is also marked as a non-free image.

My position at this time is that

  • The image is clearly a derivative of the source work,
  • The uploader was informed of this, and responded that the image was published in the U.S. prior to 1923
  • The uploader was asked to provide evidence of this
  • Two months have elapsed since this request and it has not been done
  • The image is therefore appropriately retagged as a non-free image and marked for deletion as an orphaned image.

I'd appreciate it if an admin would review this image and make a determination regarding its status and inform the respective parties. Thank you, --Durin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

"Buy out the Foundation"[edit]

Resolved: General consensus seems to be that we shouldn't feed the troll, nothing more to see, move along... EVula // talk // // 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, not sure whether this belongs here, but I thought it may be worth drawing attention to the intention of Jeff Vernon Merkey to either "buy out the foundation" or "put in enough resources to move it away from the hostage situation", presumbly referring to financial resources. Does Wikipedia, or the Foundation, have any established process for handling situations where an editor professes an intent to bypass the site's normal workings by applying financial pressure? Jeff has repeatedly stated that he expects certain concessions as a "major contributor" towards the Foundation's costs - is there any chance the Foundation could make some sort of statement one way or another as to whether it intends to honour those concessions (and to what degree Mr. Merkey has actually contributed)? --YFB ¿ 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is blabbering away doesn't mean we have to care. :)
(seriously, though, I don't think this is an issue; if it was Bill Gates, I might be worried. Just ignore the troll.) EVula // talk // // 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The foundationseesm to be doign well enough for the moment, no one can force them to sell. I estimate that it would take multiple tens of millions of dollars to render the foundation independant of ongoing contributions, and soemhow I doubt that Merkey gives or will give anything like that much. DES (talk) 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Considering that the conditions outlined on his userpage would make it impossible to block anyone, there is really no chance that it will happen. Just ignore it until he does something disruptive enough to be blocked. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Does "not blocking anyone" include not blocking the trolls who stalk him, who he's often insisted (sometimes successfully) get blocked? *Dan T.* 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • Well, it says pretty clearly that anyone must be able to edit without having to worry about being banned. -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • The "buying out the Foundation" thing could be construed as a veiled legal threat, but he seems to have good (yet quite misguided) intentions behind his comments. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • I think that is streaching, the only thing he is arguably threatening to do is not give money, or not ask others to give. Abnyone is free to say "do this, and I'll give you money" and if it isn't an illegal act, that's fine. No one has to take such a payment. DES (talk) 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
      • The only sort of threatening part is the fact that he wants to use money to "move it away from this hostage model" Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We can pay him in blocks, will that be enough for him? -- ReyBrujo 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Just a troll who attempts to set impossible conditions for the Wikimedia foundation to achieve before allegedly donating. Nothing to see here, move along. Michaelas10 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. It is not a company that is outright "owned" and can be sold. It is held to its mandate and ran by committee. (H) 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I know Evula closed this, but looking at the RfC, it's nice to know that trolling your own RfC gets you out of it scot-free. ThuranX 15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi[edit]

He's reported me here today, might as well do the same, eh?

In all seriousness, though, I've had it with this user. To cite a recent incident as just an example, getting these user to answer a question on Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is like trying to pull teeth from a cheetah. He has continually insisted that he has sources to back up his claims outlined in the Name of this article discussion to reach consensus section, let is absolutely refusing to answer the question. These refusals come in the form of recommending the article simply be deleted (after which he would just recreate it under his title and this BS would start all over again), personal attacks, and more personal attacks. He only gives actual sources once, and the two sources have nothing to do with his claims. This is not the only problem. This user has a fundamental disregard for any type of policy, guideline, or rule that isn't shoved down his throat by the force of several other editors. Add onto that the severe WP:OWN issues he has with not only that page, but basically everything he does. See #User:Someguy0830 for people pointing this out. I'm honestly not too concerned with the method in which this behavior is dealt with, but it's disruptive and needs to be stopped. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user does not realize that he does not have to follow me from page to page. The above user has had a "problem" with the way I work in many different pages with admin present. However, the person has taken it upon himself to be the one to edit out, revert, and do all sorts of other harassing actions upon my posts in order to cause me emotional distress.
I have tried walking away from him and posting in places that he is not there, but he keeps following me. The above user is not following NPOV rules and is taking things personally. The only way this can be dealt with is if the user is forced to stay away from me and leave me alone. The user has no actual information on the topic posted above, and does not own any of the material discussed in the book. However, he wishes to pass judgment on a project that conforms to the Wiki rules.
He has even come to my own sandbox to "correct" me. If I wanted another use to adopt me and correct every single mistake, I would have gone to a wiki based around such. Last time I checked, this Wiki isn't based around that. SanchiTachi 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above I had hoped we'd be able to resolve this without Someguy0830 also reporting SanchiTachi but, as mentioned, I believe he is well within his rights too. My comments above also apply here and the rest is played out on the talk page. As it stands requests for SanchiTachi to clarify claims or address suggested solutions are being met with accusations. As a result attempts to hammer out some mutually satisfactory path forward are stalled. The entry is locked until such an answer can be reached and, as it stands, I am not confident that such a solution can be arrived at, at least not involving SanchiTachi, and without them all that is going to happen is this situation is going to be revisited once a week or so. What could have been solved quickly and with little fuss has spiralled out of control and spread all over the place almost entirely down to SanchiTachi's actions. This all seems a pity as the entry (as it was started, by him I should) had a lot of potential. (Emperor 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
Note that I specifically didn't want to report this here, and tried pointing out to the user that I felt he could reform (see here). His answer was to blank the entire section. I didn't want to deal with this, but by this point I feel some heavy-handedness is the only thing that brings results. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As for unwillingness to cooperate or provide sources, one need look no further than this edit summary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm not blaming you, I was hoping ti could have been fixed sooner but I have run out of ways to say the same thing. As those edits you highlight (and others) show, it is almost impossible to actually have some kind of ongoing dialoue which is an essential foundation for arriving at a solution. There aren't actually many options left other than this. (Emperor 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

[32] As you can notice, Someguy felt the need to impose himself on an argument between an admin and myself. The above user, Someguy0830 feels that he personally needs to be a vigilante force upon Wikipedia. Need I remind everyone of WP:EQ: "Forgive and forget." "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." "If you're arguing, take a break. " Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism." "Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you.""

The above user has followed me to different threads, he has imposed his own bias against me, he did not take a break (though I did, hence I created the page which he followed me to), he felt the need to revert and delete without consensus, and I doubt he wants me to follow to each of his pages and complain about different violations whether on naming, linking, or the like.

He did not: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said." He decided to move and delete without even asking. He has no knowledge of the topic, yet he proclaims he knows how the topic should be written.

I have asked the above user to leave me alone many times. What does he do? Constantly follow me from page to page and try to start fights with me. If that is not a WP:HARASS violation for stalking, then Wikipedia is not protecting its members. SanchiTachi 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot a main point:

"If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."

He is clearly violating that. SanchiTachi 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of incivility and hypocrisy: User makes an ad hominem attack, then claims the user he's attacking doesn't know what it means and makes the same attack again. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Pointing out that a user is friends with User:Someguy0830 and is not approaching the topic without POV as required is not adhominem. Calling a user stupid, making fun of religion, etc, are personal attacks. What does the above user wish to do besides point out where he had his friends criticize me on my talk page? SanchiTachi 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see the concept of friends is quite foreign to you. I did not ask them to point out your faults. They feel obligated to do so on their own. To immediately assume they have ulterior motives is a lack of good faith and a personal attack. It also shows that your position is so week you must belittle the character of your accusers rather than assess the situation on its merits. On that note, user makes baseless accusations regarding me. He also apparently thinks everything I do is out of spite. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Without poisoning the water, please review my recent exchange with SanchiTachi:
  • I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within.
  • I step in, without prejudice, to support one of Someguy's edits (stripping of non-free content in a list) and try to explain why it happened.
  • Half of the conversation was deleted (several times), but I've archived it all at User talk:Gunslinger47#Need I Point Out.
  • Following the final association fallacy, I posted {{uw-npa2}} to his talk page along with a brief comment finalizing the conversation.[33] That too was deleted, repeating for the third time the attack on my objectivity in his edit summary.[34]
Gunslinger47 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Geez. It is almost unimaginarily self-centered to think that other users are conspiring against you. SanchiTachi, you seriously need to step back, take a chill pill and walk away from this for a time. JuJube 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So Gunslinger47, who was not a part of the original page (that has only existed for one day now), just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that? Or are you ignoring this, this, this, this, this, this, this and on and on and on. Now, I would ask you, JuJube, are you seriously implying that there was no prior relationship between Gunslinger47 and Someguy0830? Please strike your comment accordingly. Thank you. SanchiTachi 03:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooo, you caught me commenting on mundane issues. What amazing deductive skills. Now prove that my rapport with this user proves your point that I'm allying him against you in some grand scheme to spite you. I suggest you not comment unless what you type is more than heresay and conjecture. Note the previous post aas yet more proof that this user is not only incapable of assuming good faith, but resorts to taking conversations out of context in order to build a conspiracy around himself. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"…just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that?"
Umm... yes?
My prior correspondence with Someguy0830 is only relevant in that your using it to attack my objectivity is a violation of WP:PA. –Gunslinger47 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Someguy0830 and Gunslinger47 appear to be friends, yeah. I'm friends with Masamage, does that mean that I'm conspiring with Masamage against everyone on Wikipedia that dislikes me? Seriously, think about what you're suggesting here. JuJube 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no way he could have just coincidentally stumbled on the page. He was either brought there by another person, or was searching through the contributions of Someguy and followed him there. Either way, he was operating under biased interest, and it was proper to ask him to recuse himself from commenting on the situation. SanchiTachi 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanchi, pay attention to what Gunslinger wrote. "I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within." It's two paragraphs above this line. You're accusing Gunslinger of things that he admits to openly. Do you think that will better your position? Because he found your conversation does not mean he commented on it to gang up on you with me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my original statement. Sanchi Tachi, you are being self-centered, and pretty much the whole community is requesting that you stop. JuJube 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As a pattern of behavior, Sanchi has been very contentious over 40K articles. He has made the same claims, and furthermore believes that he is the sole arbiter of what is valid and relevant and what is not. He also believes his interpretations and usages supersede those of Games Workshop usages wrt 40K. No one has ever seen these sources he claims cited, and dialogue is indeed impossible. Resolution of these issues has been to either give in or let them peter out. MSJapan 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Article, not articles. I was contentious over the changing of one section without asking for consensus. It was the main page of the Warhammer 40,000 group and I wasn't the only one who had a problem with the change. I would, however, point ou tthat MSJapan was on the opposite side of the argument. MSJapan claims that I had no sources, but if MSJapan is refering to the previous debate at Warhammer, I provided sources for all of my claims, and if MSJapan is claiming that I haven't provided sources now, it is because the person is either directly lying, or unwilling to see that I have indeed provided sources. Seeing that a company calls them "Graphic Novels", provides articles about the characters, provides miniatures released by the same publishing company for those models, providing certificates and rules for those miniatures, and then writing articles for the magazine revolving around the miniature game which discusses the rules, armies, and the rest. However, it is obvious that MSJapan is saying what they are saying now because of the previous argument where MSJapan did not have their way. Please see WP:EQ where it says to forget the past, or to get over issues.
Furthermore, you can see that there are many contributors over at the Warhammer group who have thanked me for my work and my contributions, and that I rarely revert people unless there is clear vandalism or if its dealing with a contentious issue on the Warhammer 40,000 page. SanchiTachi 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan can agree with you an a particular stance while disagreeing with how you argued it. This is not a conflict. The entire reason we are here right now is not because of any particular dispute, but how you acted (win or lose) during them.
…and for the record, thank you for your contributions. –Gunslinger47 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous section break[edit]

  • I was on WP:RPP patrol earlier (as I do :) ) when a request came in from Someguy0830 to move-protect the List_of_Warhammer_40,000_graphic_novels article. I reviewed it, found out that there was a move-war in progress and move-protected the article. I left a polite note on the talk page, asking the relevant editors to work towards consensus first. It was largely met with assent (apart from one person). This then led to the following comment on my talk page. I tried to answer as best I could. Having moved on, I later found out that the article needed subsequent full-protection as the war escalated. It seems to me that SanchiTachi is taking this whole matter way to personally - Alison