Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive280

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Image upload of Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg for review[edit]

I recently closed a rather complex and contentious DRV (see also here) involving attempts to discredit a photograph purporting to be from the Nanking massacre. The entirety of the discussion is a lot to summarize here, but I deleted this image that was used to illustrate the supposed doctoring of an earlier, now deleted, revision of the photo Image:BuriedAlive.jpg, located here. Another edited image has now been uploaded to Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg by Hare-Yukai, now attempting to discredit the newer revision of Image:BuriedAlive.jpg. This revision was nominated for speedy deletion as a repost by HongQiGong who has also been a party to this dispute. The image is similar--but not identical--to the version that was deleted, however, so I am unclear if CSD G4 applies in this case. It does seem a bit like fringe-theory POV pushing, and would like outside thoughts and input on this matter. IronGargoyle 18:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe CSD G4 would apply. In a case like this, I'd apply a "substantial similarity" standard - if the replacement image is substantially similar, even if not completely identical, to the deleted original, then it should be caught by G4. Otherwise one could imagine a scenario where editors attempted to get around G4 by making minimal changes to a deleted picture, then declaring it to be a new image to which G4 doesn't apply. -- ChrisO 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I believe it wouldn't, and I'm someone who was a delete voter on the previous image. It's more complicated than minimal changes to a deleted picture. Here, let me use numbers here
  1. Image:BuriedAlive.jpg is a reasonably famous historical photograph documenting the Nanking massacre. It was originally uploaded in a form with a cut or a fold in it - part of the picture was missing.
  2. Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg was made to show the cut in image 1 - it was an enlargement of the cut area.
  3. Image:BuriedAlive.jpg was then re-uploaded with a version without the cut. For a while, it looked like image 2 was made as a deliberate fraud to discredit the historical photo, and when we saw it at DRV, we almost lynched the uploader. Image 2 was properly deleted, since it no longer served any purpose once Image 1 was replaced by Image 3.
  4. Image:Fake Photograph as BuriedAlive.jpg, a completely different image, was then re-uploaded to dispute Image 3. (I guess the uploader wants to say something about shadows, I don't know.) It's a different image, for a different purpose. Personally, I think it should still be nominated for IFD, since it's Wikipedia:Original research. But that's not a speedy criterion, is it? --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's a very good summary, and I am inclined to agree now. IronGargoyle 21:12, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is strange to think about this problem. The sauce images (the foundation of this argument) are complex. Obviously it is pointed out as montage image by plural scholars and Journalists. Please refer to argument until now by the following reference. An old image (it was up loaded by user:Johnnyboyca) was discussed here. It was decided as editing of the old image not to be suitable in accordance with the decision of this argument. I followed the decision, and change to new image (up-loaded by User:Nv8200p). The image (new one whitch up-loaded by User:Nv8200p) hasn't been discussed yet. Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_July_28#Image:Fake_Photograph_as_BuriedAlive.jpg Anyway, it is strange that the two different sauces exists.[1][2]. This case doesn't correspond to G4 yet. It is a problem whether two sauce is rather right. It is natural that I point it out. --Hare-Yukai 21:42, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 28/Buried Alive Photo

This admin did mistake again. they decided as a original image the low resolution image, and as a fake the high resolution image. Those decisions violate natural science theory. How do you think about it? --Hare-Yukai 13:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Goebbels children child corpse photos[edit]

Resolved

Take any further comments to the talk page, please. -- Merope 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I am rather bothered at the edit warring by User:Sherurcij over these two photos [3] and [4]. A concensus against retaining them emerged so I removed them and requested an RFC on the photos, but User:Sherurcij keeps replacing them against concensus. There is already one [5] longer, more tasteful shot of these poor dead children. Does it really add anything to the article to have two close-ups (one including a graphic, charred corpse) as well? Personally I find it ghoulish and sick, objectively, as the identity and manner of death of these children has never been called into question, I cannot see what the pictures add to the article. I would appreciate if an admin or two would keep an eye and advise? --Zeraeph 18:58, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Those images are horrific and disturbing in the extreme. I know all about WP:CENSOR, but geez - these are dreadful. At the very least, {{linkimage}} should be used. Can you provide links to the relevant discussions re. consensus? - Alison 19:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Total agreement with Alison, and I can't see how they would any add more than an extremely disturbing aspect to the article. I know Wikipedia is not censored for minors but it's not a shock site either.--Sandahl 19:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Discussion goes throughout the talk page[6], it isn't very long, but recent discussions go from here [7]. It is only a small concensus thus far, but still?
User:Sherurcij just took it upon himself to edit my RFC request[8] to totally change the meaning! I have reverted but I have a feeling that editing other editor's RFCs in this way is so far against policy it is unreal?
I know Wikipedia is supposed to be objective, but I find User:Sherurcij's determination to post and retain those photographs as disturbing as the images themselves. --Zeraeph 19:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
RFCs are supposed to neutrally describe the issue as concisely as possible. Editing RFCs isn't unacceptable behaviour when it promotes this goal. WilyD 19:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not it wasn't "neutral" it totally changed the meaning, I will go back myself and ensure it is neutral. --Zeraeph 19:34, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There was a definite problem with you advancing your position. Just "A dispute over the appropriateness in quantity and quality of photos after the children's death that centres around encyclopaedic value versus shock value". People can come and look at the dispute on their own. WilyD 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, that mostly works for me as "neutral"...but User:Sherurcij's edit was rather different...to say the least.--Zeraeph 20:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I disagree with any use of linkimage. Either the images are inappropriate and shocking, in which case they shouldn't be anywhere, or they are encylopedic, in which case they should be visible. To do otherwise is systematically biased. --Eyrian 19:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Eyrian. The Goebbels children would not be notable were it not for the circumstances of their death, and the photos are quite well-known. I should also add that they are one of the few free images on the page (however much I might dislike the fact that much Nazi imagery is allowed to maintain copyright and must be used as non-free content). IronGargoyle 19:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not know what is the problem here. These photos are historical and not more offending than many other images in Wikipedia. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Or should we delete images such as this as well? Of course not. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 19:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
This is what wars and genocide are like, folks. Toning down the unpleasantness serves no one. Raymond Arritt 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually I think, on reflection, I would resist linkimage myself...you can't have a "secret wikipedia peep show" of inappropriate images...
Jossi, I am not, in principle, objecting to the use of one long shot of all 5 corpses, but THREE images of child corpses seems excessive by any standards.
I would SUBJECTIVELY call those images "inappropriate and shocking" but equally I would OBJECTIVELY question whether a 2nd and 3rd image of the corpses adds anything of value to the article at all? --Zeraeph 19:28, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Sean William @ 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
At some point, we need to ask ourselves if this image adds anything to the article. The kids were murdered, but does a picture of their bodies do anything except present information already covered in a paragraph free from disturbing images? Sean William @ 19:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd say it does. Words cannot convey the true horror. Wikipedia is not here to white wash history. pschemp | talk 20:08, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely not, which is why I would NEVER contest retaining the one, single longshot, but not all three. Conversely, human perception is such that in response to an overload like three photographs of dead children in one place, we tend to zone out emotionally ANYWAY.
If you really want to see an image of the true horror of war, look at the closeup of Voss's face sometime.--Zeraeph 20:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, in this case, I think a link to commons would be appropriate. --Eyrian 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Since the RFC has been listed and reworded to be more neutral, this doesn't appear to need administrative attention. Any further discussion of this issue should be confined to the article's talk page. -- Merope 20:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange movie template[edit]

User FerryUser, also editing from 172.209.243.209, has been inserting a strange template on upcoming film articles. The intention appears to be to list all 2008 movies in order of release? Anyway, I can't really call it vandalism, but I think that it's clearly inappropriate and the user refuses to stop. Any ideas on how to handle this? Thanks. -Chunky Rice 19:27, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

He got to at least 8RR on The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian, ignoring pleas to stop and discuss. Blocked for 24 hrs. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Request outside admin[edit]

User:Rktect is disrupting Talk:Global warming by repeatedly posting long, rambling off-topic screeds that touch on all sorts of political issues from the CIA to Al Qaeda to the Spanish-American War. Yes, folks, let me repeat -- this is the Global warming article we're talking about here. I'd be half tempted to block the guy for an ongoing campaign of disruptive editing but I'm heavily involved in GW-related articles and thus would have a conflict of interest. Any outsiders want to have a look? Raymond Arritt 19:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • If they're not particularly inflamatory, just remove them. WilyD 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a new problem with this editor by any means: see Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Rktect. There's also an open RfC, but people seem to be shying away from it. MastCell Talk 19:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've warned him regarding appropriate use of article talk pages, and tagged the article talk page with Template:Notaforum. I'd recommend, from here on, removing without comment any posts which do not deal directly with improving the article. I'm generally in favor of some leeway on the talk page, particularly on controversial topics, but this particular editor has clearly abused that leeway. MastCell Talk 19:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I'll take a look in as well from time to time. Physchim62 (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
OK, thanks all. Raymond Arritt 00:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yardus maximus socks[edit]

Resolved: Yardus version 5 blocked indef as a sock

User:Yardus maximus was indef-blocked for vandalism and had created several sockpuppets to vandalize Aqua Teen Hunger Force-related articles and create nonsense articles, as documented in Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Yardus maximus. A couple of more socks have appeared more recently:

Can this latter sock be blocked as a precaution? And for future reference, is there a better place for the reporting of such low-level puppetry? Thanks. --Finngall talk 21:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

You can report obvious sockpuppetry to WP:AIV, especially when the sock is a vandal as well. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:43, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course, but since the vandalism wasn't recent and the user wasn't currently active, this seemd like a less inappropriate place. Thanks. --Finngall talk 22:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible compromised account[edit]

Resolved

Owner has changed password, account unblocked.

I reverted two vandalisms by User:Limetolime. He is an established editor and looking over his last month of edits, vandalism seems very unlike him. After giving him the warning, he sent me a message saying that his cousin is the culprit who has vandalized the pages and would like to know how to change his password.

This has set off red flags with me, With as much experience as LtL has, he should know how to change a password. I'm concerned that it may be whomever has compromised his account that is asking me how to change passwords.Trusilver 21:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've indefinitely blocked the account for now until this situation can be resolved. Hopefully we can get in contact with the actual user to quickly get a hold of this situation.--Jersey Devil 22:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The vandal/cousin would not be able to set a new password without knowing the old one, and he might not have needed to know the password in the case of a shared computer with the web browser persistently signed in as User:Limetolime. On the other hand, if the suspicious edits came from a drastically different IP address than the older ones, it's probable that multiple people know the password. Of course, that still might be true even if all the edits are from the same IP, and we have no way of knowing if/when a user's password is changed, or by whom. —freak(talk) 22:51, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Page move warring by User:Frater FiatLux[edit]

So far FFL has made the following moves while the title of the page was under discussion. Attempts to move it back over the redirect have been overidden by FFL at least three times. He has also cut and paste moved the article to multiple locations.

Here's the move log. I've given up trying to fix it. There are 9 page moves since 23:22, 1 August 2007. GlassFET 21:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, here is the record of a cut and paste move over a redirect and edit warring when I tried to correct it. There may be other cut and paste pages out there. It's such a mess due to about 7 or 8 moves by User:Frater FiatLux that there are many double redirects, etc out there (he never followed instructions to fix them between moves or even at the end of his moves). GlassFET 22:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I blocked the editor indefinitely for now (anyone may unblock when this nonsense is completely resolved.) Generally other people are better at fixing this sort of damage than me, but I'll try... Grandmasterka 22:11, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea who is right or what is what... Anyone involved in these articles care to comment? Grandmasterka 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I move protected the page and its talk page after moving the talk page back with the article. They got separated somewhere in this mess. Now comes the cleanup. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It is all at Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn (A+O)... now. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 22:18, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I can help find the pieces. The associated talk page appears to have been put back, yay!

There are at least two copy and paste moved pages, I've marked them for speedy:

As far as I can tell, the page belongs at Rosicrucian Order of Alpha et Omega. It will need to be deleted first. I made a typo trying to move back over the redirect, then the page got moved again before I could fix! GlassFET 22:22, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to everybody for their help. As far as I can tell, everything is back as it should be, with the exception of some strange and misspelled redirects. GlassFET 22:53, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have deleted some of the redirect pages per WP:CSD#R3 as very unlikely search terms. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

User:PitOfBristol1973[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for 24 hours

PitOfBristol1973 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) keeps on reverting discussed changes to {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} and {{SockpuppetProven}}. I've warned him to stop and discuss. If I revert again, I'd be violating 3RR. Cheers, Lights 23:15, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • now that's not fair dinkum. --TEDPITMAN 23:17, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Note: {{SockpuppetCheckuser}} has been fully protected. Cheers, Lights 23:24, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
It's kind of strange for a relatively new user's major contributions be to vandalism and sockpuppet templates. I'm going to investigate. DarthGriz98 23:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
There really isn't very much harm being done here vandalismwise, but having a revert war is harmful and he is in violation of the 3RR. DarthGriz98 23:33, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

70.109.171.218[edit]

70.109.171.218 (talk · contribs) despite several notices persists in adding {{stub}} tags to articles that are clearly not stubs. [9] [10] [11]. user has made no attempt to communicate. --emerson7 | Talk 01:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked this user for 8 hours. Note: Not all edits from this IP are unproductive. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Concerning User:JoshEdgar[edit]

Resolved

Just wanted to ask about WP:NPA policy regarding personal attacks on a user's own userpage. (See example; permanent link) For the record, the whole story -- User:JoshEdgar, as an anonymous IP user, persistently blanked his own user page. I insisted that he log in to do so (since I could not tell whether he was legitimate or a vandal), which apparently aggravated him. Thanks! Ratiocinate (tc) 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

You seemed to have done the right thing, given the circumstances and the doubts on the ip being the user in question. The user is just upset about having to revert all the time, but Shoessss has reverted the incivil comments, and the user has stopped. The incident is finished and done, nothing that requires admin attention. And by the way, it is wrong to use attacks in the userpage, much the same as in discussions and talk pages. --Dark Falls talk 06:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard Goldberg[edit]

Please keep a watch on this article. The subject has complained to OTRS and there has been a spate of persistent vandalism to the subject's article, including an instance of subtle vandalism where a quote was summarized as extremely negative when it was clearly not. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: according to reports, he just bashed Wikipedia on Fox, on O'Reilly. I can't find the transcript at FoxNews.com but apparently it's there. This might deserve additional attention, though the semi protect has calmed things down. SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:56, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User: Perspicacite[edit]

About a month ago, this user prevented me from expanding the Press TV article. I was trying to add a list of shows and a funding and management section, both of which he deleted. I requested a 3PO, but when invited by an admin to discuss he refused [12]. He then wiki-stalked me as described here. [13] The article was locked to prevent further edits. Eventually it was unlocked and he repeated the same behavior. [14] I am going to revert the article to its prior form, and expand it further. Please provide assistance to prevent this from happening in the future. --Vitalmove 04:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Massive disruption[edit]

There is a user who keeps disrupting articles regarding cities in Croatia. He posts either as anon or uses one of his two-three sockpuppets. I suspect this user has an original account named Inter-milano ( his pictures where he states they are "made from his trip to Republic of Serbian Krajina in 2005" and are used in edits of other accounts are more than obvious). The other accounts (sockpuppets) he uses are: Wermania, Benkovac and LAz17. Bunch of other disruptions are made with anon accounts always with the IP beginning with 124.181.xxx.xxx. Check contributions: Inter-milano, Wermania, Benkovac, LAz17 and couple of anon accounts here and here. It is possible that he or she has more sockpuppets. I have already posted a similar post to this at User talk:DarkFalls thinking he is an admin. There is also an explanation for the nonsenical category this user is constantly creating despite it being deleted two times already. Can someone please help? --No.13 18:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If you believe you are facing sock-puppets, you should take the issue to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser.
On the issue itself: You seem to be pushing yet another occupation theory; how your virgin country was occupied/raped by Slavs/Huns/Commies/whatever. All may not agree with your views. Some may in fact see your POV-pushing as hate speech. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't see how can this happen. We have article such as Republic of Serbian Krajina and Croatian War of Independence which extensively speak about this. We also have articles such as Milan Babić and Milan Martić which speak about the leaders of this illegal political entity and confirm the fact they were indicted and convicted of joint criminal enterprise. This state is was neither recognized nor accepted by anyone, not even Federal Republic of Yugoslavia who were their main sponsors. I suggest you read up on this matter before you draw your conclusions and start throwing accusation. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Don't pay too much attention to Petri Krohn, a known weaver of alternative histories, when he's merely saying weird things. He's much more dangerous when he's meddling: [15] Digwuren 11:05, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
On Petri Krohn. This is a copy of what I posted at User talk:Isotope23: Petri Krohn is lately viciously attacking me and accusing me. You can see his accusation on WP:ANI (Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Massive_disruption) and on [[16]]. Additionally to his support to now confirmed vote stacker and sockpuppeteer LAz17 (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17) he also seems to be following me around and reverting some of my edits withouth actually knowing anything of the subject. It seems he does it just to revert me. He did it on Dubrovnik where he keeps reverting despite Ragusa not being the official name of the city and despite the various versions of the name presented in the separate section of the article. On Giacomo Micaglia he completely reverted to User:Giovanni Giove version (the user which was blocked for edit warring and refusal for making a compromise on the same article, Marko Marulić and Zadar) disregarding me or Kubura's arguments. Today I noticed he reverted one of my earlier changes on Theories on the origin of Croats where I have removing unscientific rant by one of the anon vandals (you can check the anon's diffs here and I especially point to these changes [17], [18] of the same user). Petri Krohn obviously has something against me though I am still uncertain what that is since I never met him on Wikipedia until the case about the disputed Category I mentioned above. --No.13 13:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
Hi, I talked to Petri Krohn and he suggested that I should post a complant here. I came across a number of pages and found that User:No.13 has deleted a number of images and a few link to relevant websites (eg: Strmica). Here is an example Glina, Croatia, he/she deleted all the images. He/she deleted them without giving any reasons. I believe that's just clear vandalism. I suggest you search No.13 history. Another example Benkovac. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Semberac (talkcontribs) 05:04, 30 July 2007
If I deleted some images that was not done on purpose, I was merely reverting edits by a edit warrior. The link for Strmica is no a relevant website, it's a personal website and cannot be used in the way it is at the moment, it's not even in english. --No.13 07:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. You were edit warring and summarily reverting edits of someone you call an "edit warrior". This is not acceptable behavior on Wikipedia, even if you did not break WP:3RR. Your edit warring should clearly earn you a block.
On the other hand I am not convinced your summary deletions were mere accidents. Your edit history indicates you are systematically deleting content that is sympathetic to Croatian Serbs. -- Petri Krohn 19:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Reversion of massive disruption is not edit warring. I also warn you Petri if you continue with this offensive attitude I will report you. It is now evident that you are supporting a sockpuppeteer who uses his accounts for vote stacking and massive disruption. I point you to Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/LAz17. --No.13 08:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
I checked your history again today and you went to the Dubrovnik page and deleted a image. Be careful !!!
Could this be... Afrika Paprika, infamous for disrupting articles relating to Serbs and Croatia? ionas68224|talk|contribs|email 16:09, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry? Where am I disrupting articles? Especially as you say relating to Serbs and Croatia? I was merely reverting edits by an obvious sockupeppeteer who uses vote stacking, vote fraud and causes massive disruption on Wikipedia. The articles he vandalised are not even my prime interest but rather I came upon it by accident. NOTE: The above comment was made by a user who was just recently blocked for trolling on RfC. --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I relisted Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Afrika paprika. -- Petri Krohn 03:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I would really like to see what is the base for this. Also I am interested in your support for this obvious vandal LAz17, Benkovac or whatever his other accounts are. Let us not forget how you also reverted my edits of an obvious vandalism on Theories on the origin of Croats‎ where you reverted edits of a anonymous user who previously and after that vandalised several articles and also writing on Croats: "Croats are shit". --No.13 10:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Jaranda arbitrarily deleting the trivia section of the entry on the film Field of Dreams.[edit]

He "chainsawed" it once before--his term--and after reading a question in the talk page that had appeared in the trivia before his "chainsawing" it, I undid his deletion of most of the trivia section. He later undid my undoing, leaving a note on the talk page that only linked to guidelines, where, interestingly enough, I found the following: "Do not simply remove such sections; instead, find ways to improve the article so that this form of organization is no longer necessary. It may be possible to integrate some items into the article text. Some facts may belong in existing sections; others can be grouped into a new section of related material. Convert bullet points to prose or narrowly-focused lists (such as "Cameos" or "Continuity errors"), as seems most appropriate." As this is exactly what he (?) is doing, I left him a note regarding it on the talk page. Again. Who's right? Thanks in advance. Kiloheavy 02:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The trivia in question that he removed was extraneous, trivial, unsourced information such as "George W. Bush claimed that this was his favorite movie" and "the outfield grass on the baseball field died and turned brown" that does not appear to be integrable into the prose sections of the article. This is consistent with the spirit of our trivia guidelines. Krimpet 03:19, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Trivia sections are, by definition, sort of expendable anyway, aren't they? HalfShadow 04:05, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. We have way too many of such sections that attract random arbitrary unsourceable comments. They tend to be highly unencyclopedic, especially as bulleted lists. >Radiant< 09:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I have often found there is only maybe 10% of such lists that is worth integrating. The rest can happily be deleted. --John 16:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Whether he is "happy" deleting or not, whatever (10% or otherwise) is worth integrating should have been integrated rather than deleted.--Epeefleche 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Nearly all of the "trivia" is verifiably true, and should be worked into the article rather than being meataxed. Baseball Bugs 17:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Then do so. The trivia is still in the history, it's not like it's disappeared. Take your time, refer to the history, and add the info properly to the article whenever you're ready. But trivia sections are, by definition, unencyclopedic, because they're trivia. wikipediatrix 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
And when working them in, be sure to include sources, or other editors will be perfectly justified in removing them again. Remember, the criterion is verifiability, not truth. Oh, and the article's talk page is the right place for this kind of content discussion. Dicklyon 17:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The source, for the most part, is the DVD extras. As far as the typical wikipedia "truth" vs. "verifiability", that's wikipedia double-talk. The word "verify" means to make true. They are the same thing. Baseball Bugs 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, I hadn't looked at the article recently until just now. I can't believe you chopped out the factual stuff, and left an essay about the film's plot that reads like a high-school kid's book report. The article is hopeless. Jaranda is right. The whole thing needs to be "chainsawed" and started over. First, lose the "spoiler" tag, which is against the rules, especially for a two-decades old film. Then rewrite the plot in an encyclopedic way. Then we can worry about the "trivia", i.e. the production facts, most of which are referenced on the DVD specials. I can get the exact quotes for you, and who's saying them, if you want. But first, the article itself needs to be rewritten. I'm sorely tempted to roll it back by about a year and see how it looks. Baseball Bugs 18:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#MEMORIAL,[edit]

VK’s WP:NOT#MEMORIAL, argument re Birmingham Pub Bombings is a simply a red herring. I believe it refers to the subject of articles and here the listed victims are not the subject. My understanding is WP:NOT prevents victims of non notable incidents (car crashes etc) getting their own wiki page which is not happening here. Removing the dead is inconsistent with List of victims of the Virginia Tech massacre; Columbine High School massacre; Beltway sniper attacks; Hungerford massacre; Bloody Sunday (1972); The Troubles in Warrenpoint; [[19]] here Aatomic1 10:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It may well by a misapplication of the police per se. The "not" is a codification of practice. We initially got clobbered by individual 9/11 memorial pages. That said, there is an argument for removing lists of victims. There is an argument for keeping them. Personally, I'd rather not have victim lists unless there is some significance to a list (e.g. if political officials were being targeted, members of a particular ethnic group, and the list shows how the attackers did or did not operate) or usefulness of a list (e.g. in Bloody Sunday the victim list itself became a memorial in Belfast, and there were films and films and films illustrating the events, and so the names become characters), but, if no one links the names they do no harm in any case and do not make the article a memorial. Geogre 13:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
or in the case of Birmingham where there was a second class of victim, namely the Birmingham Six; whose notability rightly gives them column inches in Wikipedia. However to discuss them while censoring the names of the dead is too lopp sided for truly encyclopedic coverage Aatomic1 13:41, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't believe a list of victims and a mention that there is a memorial breaches the WP:NOT#MEMORIAL. I edit a lot of crime articles involving multiple victims and have also come across some edits that are a little to zealous in their application of this particular policy. Jmm6f488 16:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I have made a compromise suggestion on the Birmingham Pub Bombings discussion page: "have a list of victims only where their victimhood is an important part of making the subject of the article notable and the list of victims constitutes less than 10% of the characters in our article"...Gaimhreadhan (kiwiexile at DMOZ) talk • 10:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Multiple vandals active in Chris Langham[edit]

Following the verdict in this article's subject's trial various vandals have come out to play. See [20] [21] and [22] Someone may wish to prevent edits from IP addresses and take action against the culprits.--Peter cohen 22:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I've semi-protected the page for two days.--Jersey Devil 22:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking the actions you have so far. However, I now note the following change [23] by a user who is unaffected by semi-protectgion (which I think was a good idea) --Peter cohen 22:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've given him a vandalism warning. If he continues he will be blocked for vandalism.--Jersey Devil 22:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
I've indef blocked him/her. We don't need this. ELIMINATORJR 00:36, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks both. Things have quietened down for now. --Peter cohen 16:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandal in 200.45 / 200.43 etc. range[edit]

Several pages relating to the Nuclear reactors in Argentina have been a target again for a POV pushing vandal (in various ranges under a.o. 200.45, 200.43, 200.82 ... (around 150 /24 ranges) I have semiprotected the pages for 6 months (I am sure the vandal will return after the protection is gone)

and earlier:

The vandal has a tendency to target more pages (e.g. Ronald Richter), but these 4 seem to be the favourite for this period. It would be nice if a more permanent solution to this could be found. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Tough call. Blocking a whole /16 is clearly undesirable (much less several of them). Guess there's little to do but whack-a-mole, or near-permanent semiprotect. Raymond Arritt 01:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Added INVAP to the list. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


TTN (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: Nothing to see here Will (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a user called User:TTN who lately has just been merging character articles into their master pages. He just merges them without consensus, he doesn't talk it over on the talk page, and he has merged some longer articles compulsively, such as Doug Heffernan and Bulbasaur. When I reverted his merges to Doug Heffernan, carrie Heffernan, and Arthur Spooner, he sent me the message saying, "Do you believe that they deserve to exist? If not, then no discussion is required." [24] I believe that this guy needs immediate some administrative attention, before he gets too out of hand. Karrmann 01:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

My god. How do people really not understand that many articles will not receive discussion? You discuss things like Bulbasaur before merging (which had a project wide discussion), not articles primarily edited by IPs. If someone that actually wants to keep the article comes along, a discussion happens (hence my message). TTN 01:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Karrman is not the only person who thinks your actions are over the top. IF *anyone* disagrees with your merges, you must discuss. You are not the merging God, and do not have final authority. IF a duscussion is requested, you have to provide it, then get consensus for your actions. This attitude that other people's opinions are not important is not helpfull, and you've been quite the bully when people disagree with you. pschemp | talk 03:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, this editor's got a noted history of redirecting/merging articles against consensus, so this appears to have become a habit. PeaceNT 03:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
However, he thought there was consensus to merge the article in question (Bulbasaur) because there was a lull between when merging was first suggested (shortly before the latest two games in the Pokémon series were released) and when the merging actually started (a few weeks ago), during which there was a lot of discussion, Grimer-flinging, and disputes on how to merge. Why these users held their silence until Judgment Day is something I can't fathom, but they had every chance to bring up the issue of a former FA prior to this point. If anything, given what I've seen of the dispute, this looks like an attempt to canvass support to censure TTN and keep Bulbasaur unmerged and in its current state, which users in the project are not defending, citing WP:WAF, WP:NOT, and WP:V. -Jéské (v^_^v) 07:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

AVoiceOfReason (talk · contribs)[edit]

I'm a bit concerned about this user. I just noticed an edit shi made to this article in the vein of some of the trolls that caused me to complain here in June about the situation at Talk:Mudkip. Although the edit was reverted by ClueBot, looking at hir contribs, I notice an "Encyclopedia Dramatica" [sic] article on them - one where shi creates the article with "do it for the lulz"; a second where shi blanks the page. User:WarthogDemon placed a speedy tag on the article; it has since been deleted.

My question is, based on hir edits, could shi be inspired by the recent Fox report on "anonymous" or something worse? (If this is in the wrong place, I apologize) -Jéské (v^_^v) 07:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The user was warned, I would imagine if there's any more vandalism then the account will be blocked. Neil  08:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Sapienz[edit]

Can some keep an eye on this editor User:Sapienz, I think he is the same banned user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Potters_house who vandelised my home page more than twenty times in june-july under these IP addresses:

58.165.200.19

124.183.0.50

58.166.64.70

60.229.13.176

124.187.145.155

124.183.205.16

124.176.109.6

124.179.74.12

124.187.140.114

124.184.94.155

124.183.227.185

Currently he is using: 124.184.131.250 and vandalised several other articles. The first thing Sapienz did was vandalise the Potter's House article than he complained to 3 other editors about me. I left a note on his page (because I wasn't sure it was the same guy) but he deleted it. He has a history of being disruptive causing other editors trouble.Darrenss 09:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User Christopher Mann McKay - refusal to discuss[edit]

Hello. This concerns the American Family Association article and talkpage [25], and primarily the editor Christopher Mann McKay [26]. The main issue is refusal to correspond and removal of comments on personal talkpages regarding constructive editing.

Context: AFA is a controversial pro-Christian activism group that promotes free speech on Christian-right issues and organizes voluntary consumer boycotts. Editors on the article have not generally sought to remove criticism of the AFA. There has been a general move to balance views as criticism is often directly and explicitly denied by AFA and other sources. Controversy is pretty much written into every section in the article which is natural as it is a controversial area. There has been a very long dispute over categories. It is generally realized that categories can be problematic, though a lot of editors there, including myself, are open to the use of lists. Categories are constantly removed on the basis that there has been no statements presented that e.g. “such and such is uncontroversial” or words to that effect. The controversies on certain categories are obvious yet editors Christopher Mann McKay [27] and Orpheus [28] keep adding the categories, even during discussion [29][30][31][32][33]. Categories are removed so that there is no ongoing disruption to other editing while discussion is ongoing.


The dispute on the talkpage has been disruptive so the suggestion has been made to move such discussion to personal talkpages. I have contacted Christopher Mann McKay [34] on his talkpage [35] several times in order to solve the problem and was met with deletion. I did wonder whether I was unduly harassing Christopher Mann McKay, but on the policy page [36] I see that I have not committed any of the offenses mentioned. The editor Christopher Mann McKay actually stated that he did not want to talk to me at all about the issue of forcing categories onto the article during discussion [37]. So according to the harassment guidelines I am bringing this to the attention of administrators. My main concern is to allow reasonable discussion on editor talkpages, and to avoid undue or distracting discussion from article talkpages. I look forward to your comments. Hal Cross 09:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hal Cross, you violated WP:HAR by user space harassment on my talk page. You keep demanding the removal of categories from the AFA page when many editors want them up. You cite the guideline WP:CAT's reference to excluding categories if they are controversial as your reason for removing the categories. Multiple users have told you there is no controversy and that if you believe there is one then you should find a reliable source stating this is controversial. However, you can not find any source to back up your argument, so instead you demand I (and others) show proof the AFA's stance is not controversial by finding a reliable source that says "_____ is not controversial"; this idea is nonsense and multiple users have told you no one needs to produce false proof. You keep filling up my talk page with your demands and criticism of my edits, incorrectly calling my edits "unconstructive" "disruptive" and "uncooperative" and when I remove your comments from my talk page, you add them back in, even after I asked you to not comment on my talk page. This type of behavior is not acceptable. The reason I don't want to discuss with you on my talk page is because despite multiple editors telling you that your demands are unjust, you keep demanding the same things, you see determined not to comprise, and you repeat same weak argument over and over. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 10:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Some further comments associated with this ANI report. User:Hal Cross has been contributing to Wikipedia since the beginning of July. In that time, he has made very few actual contributions and a significant number of edits calling other editors disruptive and other personal attacks. ([38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]) His style of contribution on Talk:American Family Association has been mostly along the lines of asserting that he has the final right to decide the content of the article. ([49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57])

When other editors (four by my count so far) have asked him to moderate his approach or contribute more constructively, his typical response is to either cast aspersions on their motives or adopt an air of injured innocence. ([58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63])

I personally feel that it's more constructive to discuss the content issues and forget about these things entirely, but it's a bit on the nose to bring this against an editor who has been working towards a constructive outcome. Especially when it's brought by an editor who hasn't yet edited anything except for a single article that he's obviously very invested in. Orpheus 12:00, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

CMMK, from what I understand of WP recommendations and policy, your behaviour is quite disruptive [64]. Your (and Orpheus') editing seems to me to be tendentious (“continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors.”) cannot satisfy verifiability(“fails to cite sources, cites unencyclopedic sources, misrepresents reliable sources, or manufactures original research.)[65], you seem to be dismissive of other editors on the article, and seem to me to be owning the article by dismissively forcing categories onto the article even when reasonable discussion is in progress [66][67]. I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action. You did not directly involve yourself in the direct personal attacks against me[68] [69], and that is a plus to you. I would prefer to encourage a situation where calm discussion is the norm instead of particular POV’s holding the article hostage. I realize the article is becoming more balanced now despite long term disputes, though I feel it would do us all a lot of good if we could openly discuss on each other’s talkpages, instead of having to handle personal issues on the AFA talkpage. I deliberately brought this issue to admin notice in order to avoid any harassment issues according to guidelines [70]. Again, my main objective here is to encourage discussion rather than the constant forcing of any unsupported or disputed information into the article. Editing would seem to go far better when discussion is followed thoroughly on article and user talkpages Hal Cross 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
PS, if anyone is interested in my own editing on the article, my main drive has been towards broadening the view out of the pro-anti flavour that the article has taken e.g.[71] . According to the literature AFA has far more issues involved that need including in order to make the article encyclopedic. Unfortunately, the constant insistence on certain disputed categories has made editing quite disrupted. I have no particular interests in the group (AFA) and am not affiliated to it in any way. I do see a problem that needs fixing with the article though. I have rather taken to the WP recommendations and am fairly motivated to edit on horticultural articles once we have this problem sorted out. Hal Cross 12:55, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Hal Cross: "I am not interested in blocking or banning you though I am led to believe that is the way policy may direct the action." -- I will not get banned, as I have not done anything wrong. This whole ANI notification is completely unnecessary and pointless. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 23:58, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I am following the recommendations [72]. This is an admin notification. Administrators don't have to reply at all. The main point is that the facts get presented out here and you start to re-consider your behaviour. Editors are not supposed to refuse discussion, and they are not supposed to constantly force disputed edits or categories onto articles for months on end while being dismissive of discussion. The personal attacks are a minor point I think as I have pretty much forgiven the attackers. Encouraging good editing behaviour is the main purpose here. So there is a very useful point to all of this. Hal Cross 03:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
You are misusing ANI. "This page is for reporting and discussing incidents that require the intervention of administrators, such as blocked users evading blocks," this page is not for disputes or complaints about users. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 08:54, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The recommendation was to take the issue to admin. If anyone here has a better idea of a venue for the issues then feel free to chime in. I'm all eyes. Hal Cross 10:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
Unlike yourself, I have not violated WP:HAR (or any other behavioral guideline), so this recommendation does not apply to me. You are misusing ANI to complain about a user/dispute instead of requesting a block or requesting another action needed by an administrator; even if you were requesting a block against me, I would never get blocked because I am not doing anything wrong. In the future, you should use ANI for its real purpose; else admin will ignore your request like they have here. End of dicussion. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 17:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
The only people discouraging me from adding this information are you and Orpheus. I added it specifically to avoid harrassing anyone according to the rules. I'm sorry but this information has to be presented somewhere. There has been a long term dispute on the AFA article and this is exactly the kind of venue which may encourage all editors to behave properly. The rules said to inform admin about your refusal do discuss and your removal of discussion from your talkpage and I am doing that. Hal Cross 02:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There is no recommendation that says to complain about me on ANI when I have not violated any policy or behavior guideline. —Christopher Mann McKaytalk 00:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Honestly I'm not sure what definition of "homophobia" you are using but this group fits every definition I know of! Jmm6f488 02:52, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Jmm, and welcome. So do you think editors should refuse to discuss with other editors, or force disputed categories into the article? Regards Hal Cross 06:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Chichichihua[edit]

This User continues to edit war on Chihuahua (dog) over a photo for which there is consensus on the Talk page not to use. They have been told in two separate AN/I:3RR cases (that they raised) that their edits are disruptive. They canvassed the original uploader of the offending photograph, who joined in the edit war. They have been repeatedly asked on their Talk page to stop and to raise any issue on the Talk page, which they refuse to do. I'd like to request a week-long block for this repeated behavior that has been going on for over a week, with at least three admins telling them they are being disruptive, two regular editors of the Chihuahua page, and five editors of the Chihuahua page who want the current lead to stay, per the Talk page. --David Shankbone 16:40, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I think thats sarcasm about the three admins, two editors of that page and an extra five, but if its not, that is a ridiculous proposal to have so many people tell a person something. Its simply extraneous and impolite. See WP:STICK. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:43, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Three admins on the 3RR page, two editors (VanTucky and myself) on his Talk page, and under the photo Talk page and in reverts of the User where they don't want a poor quality photo as the lead. Are you saying that such strong consensus is in favor of the vandal? Huh? --David Shankbone 16:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Miscommunication alert: AD thought you meant that you want this many people to tell Chichichihua to stop. You meant that this many people have already done so. --barneca (talk) 16:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. Apologies for my inartful wording. --David Shankbone 16:47, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Aha! such a difference a small amount of wording makes. I understand now. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 16:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I would also like an IP check done of the User. I believe they are a banned User. See here. This is exactly the behavior this user engaged in over a five month period, mostly with my photographs see here. --David Shankbone 16:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to weigh-in and support all of David's statements. This user has literally done no contributing except to this disruptive nonsense. I personally consider it to be vandalism, and the idea that this is a sockpuppet created to harass David makes perfect sense to me. The user has done nothing but: 1. try and remove his images 2. try and get him blocked for 3RR. This is especially odd as he is far from the only one to revert this user's edits 3. be completely uncivil 4. canvass others to harass David and remove his image as well. VanTucky (talk) 17:07, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

File:A Chihuahua named Papi.jpg
is this not a chihuahua?

What disruptive nonsense? Putting up a better picture? The picture isn't perfect, I agree, but it is a chihuahua, unlike the current dog up there which looks just like my neighbor's chihuahua-terrier mix. It sounds like this is Davidshankbone's dog and he wants it to be on the page as a vanity effort. You and Davidshankbone have been edit-warring on the chihuahua page, Davidshankbone has even violated 3RR with his persistent reverts. It's really hard to have a dialogue with these two when they constantly revert, threaten people with blocks and label their edits vandalism. Chichichihua 17:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, three admins have told this user their edits are disruptive, two editors have engaged them on their web page, and five regular (and long-term) editors of the page have agreed to the photographs currently on the page. I would like this user blocked for a week for their persistent vandalism. --David Shankbone 17:25, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Does it really matter that much which picture goes on the page? If there's consensus for one, then that's the one that goes up. simple as that. However, blocks aren't punitive, so unless he does it again no reason to. Wizardman 17:31, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Wizardman. Is it even worth discussing? Who cares what picture is on the page? No difference. You have already posted the picture on your userspace; let people see it there, instead of edit-warring over it on another article. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
The block is for persistent vandalism, disruption and edit-warring. They were already warned here on the 3RR board and again here on their second 3RR. It's odd that good faith and regular editors have difficulty asking for a block for obvious behavior that is disruptive. That's what makes Wikipedia frustrating for many of us. --David Shankbone 17:36, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Previous message was addressed to the subject of this discussion, not you. I dont care either way, really, if the user is blocked. I can see why he would be blocked.

-- Anonymous DissidentTalk 17:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'll keep an eye on this user. Vandalism's a misnomer, though i don't think anyone's trying to deny that he's being an edit warrior. Wizardman 17:41, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • The request was for a block, not for discussion over the photograph, over which the page has consensus. The user's entire edit history is over disruptive behavior with this photograph, which they've been told repeatedly is not wanted. Two editors are now asking for a block. Is it being denied?--David Shankbone 17:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I've blocked the user for 31 hours. There's clear disruption here.-Wafulz 19:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I had to leave and take care of something. Looking over his contribs I most likely would've ended up blocking him myself. Wizardman 01:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Retired[edit]

The amount of time and energy it takes for regular, established and good faith editors to get admins to help them when their pages are being trolled and disruptively edited makes working on Wikipedia too frustrating and too time-consuming an experience. I have supplied diffs, I have supplied warnings, and I've supplied evidence that this short-term User, whose entire edit history is full of disruptive editing, is worthy of being blocked. Another editor backed-up the request. It's rare I ask someone to be blocked. The last time I had to spend two days compiling a lengthy case against an IP user, who I suspect is this person again. That little credence or respect is given to people such as myself, who have given a lot to this website and continue to give a lot, is beyond frustrating. Instead, my request just sits here. It's not worth my time and energy. I have three people I am photographing at their homes this week for Wikipedia; I will put those photos up and then call it quits. You all are welcome to the User:Chichichihuas - they are the only ones who are going to be left when you give little care or concern when those of us like myself ask for you all to help - which is what I thought the purpose of this incident board is for. Not even as much as a warning on the user's talk page. Good bye, and good luck to you all. It's time for me to move on instead of waste my time. --David Shankbone 18:08, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

It's been less than 2 hours since you made your first report. Isn't this a little premature? Thatcher131 18:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Concur with Thatcher131. User:Chichichihua was blocked less than three hours after you made the report here. It might have been more appropriate for you to have placed your request for the block at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism given the circumstances. Getting a response for blocking in less than three hours on this particular noticeboard is certainly a reasonable response time. I'm sad to see you feel it was entirely too slow, and certainly hope you reconsider leaving. --Durin 19:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
To be honest, I think the advice to use Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism is misplaced here since the situation does look at first glance like a content dispute. The problem for an uninvolved admin is to determine whether User:Chichichihua is being disruptive (and may be the same editor who was harassing you before) or whether you have ownership issues with photos you have taken yourself. It takes time to review a situation like this, and while there are admins who are willing to do it, they won't always be active at the instant you need them. It's a very distributed, decentralized system and can, but does not always, turn on a dime. Thatcher131 20:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yeah, AIV might not be exactly the right place, but there was a final warning and obvious disruption. As to the distributed nature of administrators...what are you talkin' about? Admins are paid out the wazoo to respond to customer service issues within minutes ;) (not to belittle in any respect David's concern, just making a joke). --Durin 20:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Damn! Someone's been cashing my checks, then. Thatcher131 20:23, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, and agree, about the points made concerning decentralization and whatnot. But don't try and make backtracking excuses for letting this trolling go on too long, and driving an immeasurably valuable contributor to want to quit Wikipedia. David is not some wonk like me that flys off the handle at the touch of a button. Frankly, the idea that we have someplace else to report such a complex problem - one that blurs the line between trolling, 3RR, and simple content dispute - is a falsehood (to put it lightly). Not one person actually gave an example of a place we could have gone other than ANI. VanTucky (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Maybe that's the case. Regardless, even if this was the best resource, the response time from when this noticeboard was informed to the block being applied wasn't too bad at all. In fact, it was rather good. It takes time to review complex situations. That's why we HAVE this board. If it's a simple case of base vandalism, no sweat; blocks come in minutes if not seconds. More complex cases take time to review. I'm not suggesting David flew off the handle. Rather, each person's patience level is different and from my chair his was exceeded earlier than one should probably expect from this board. I'm disappointed this has happened, but there's nothing anyone can do about it. Only he can make this choice. He has to make his own choices. --Durin 15:03, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem I'm not sure can be rectified[edit]

I went off half-cocked, for sure, and as I explained to User:Wizardman my quitting smoking recently had something to do with it. Still, It can be difficult to get admins to assist with help. I recognize the "Assume Good Faith" mantra is sacrosanct, and I appreciate its wisdom; however, it is also a double-edged sword. The last time I dealt with this user I had to spend two days (which, for a volunteer, is a lot) compiling an (unfinished) case of this person's bizarre behavior that stretched over a period of five months so that I could get their current disrupting taken seriously. The obvious angst I express above is not just from this one issue, but also from the past episode. My reason for getting annoyed was because when the issue was engaged by others, it didn't address the disruption, or it appeared they took a casual attitude about it. I experienced the same laissez-faire attitude in the previous episode with this troll, and it was beyond frustrating. Pretty much every edit I make is done with a serious desire to improve this Project. I've contributed a large body of work that is difficult for anyone to do (myself included - I have been far more successful at it than I ever expected). My point is that I find it a problem that the "Assume Good Faith" policy is stretched beyond reason, as it was here. We had 1. A single-purpose account; 2. two editors making the complaint; 3. diffs supplied; 4. Talk page consensus; 5. previous warnings to this user by other admins on the 3RR boards. I don't even see where it merited discussion. And it's anyone's right to do so--but if the Project, by which I mean all of us, wants to keep around those of who make every edit in a serious attempt to improve Wikipedia, then perhaps when we ask for help it shouldn't be treated casually. A lot of planning, time, editing and work goes into my photography; I don't just log on and change wording. What I do on Wikipedia is actually a lot of work, and perhaps people don't realize it's not easy to 1. get people to agree to have their portraits taken, 2. to arrange at time to do it, and 3. to get it done well (such as former Governor Jim McGreevey). It's not easy, it's not just about keystrokes. It's artistic and it's time-consuming and the results are owned by the Project, by which I mean all of us. Almost every time I have had this troll persistently mess with me I have had difficulty getting admin assistance. Like all of you, I'm a volunteer. I get a lot out of my contributions here and find them personally gratifying, but this year has tested my patience since I have some oddball in Snohomish, Washington who is obsessed with bothering me, and I have trouble getting help from the people who are meant to be the guardians of the project. If, in the end, I just don't have the emotional dexterity to "weather" these people, then perhaps Wikipedia is not the place for me. That's fine. But it doesn't seem to me it should have to come to that. Again, I recognize I was impatient with this episode, but there is also history and experience behind that impatience. --David Shankbone 18:48, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Potential BLP violation on Dean Barker[edit]

--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)User:Lgask's entire contributions to wikipedia Special:Contributions/Lgask have been to add unsourced negative contributions about Dean Barker (e.g., [73], [74]). Although the material has become less negative over time, myself and User:Boatman still see it as unwarranted, and potentially in violation of WP:BLP. Attempts have been made to discuss the edits on both the article and user talkpages (e.g., [75]), but with little success. Having warned Lgask about 3RR [76], it has merely turned it into a slow-mo edit war.--Limegreen 23:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

And so the standard response to an edit war is to protect the page which I have done. I've also followed standard Wikipedia policy and protected the WRONG VERSION of the page. Sorry.
I will look at Lgask's edits more closely to see if he warrants being blocked as a [[WP:S{A|single purpose account]].
However, looking at the most recent edits, I think there is room for compromise which the page protection is intended to encourage.
I will leave my comments about the content dispute on the Talk Page of the article.
--Richard 00:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Richard, where living people are concerned, there most certainly is a wrong version, and that is what you've just protected. The most negative characterization is completely unsourced, while the other is pulled out of a long article that is otherwise quite favorable to Barker - on top of all that, it's put in the lead.
Please rectify this at once.Proabivouac 03:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for removing one line.[77] However, there is more: "Barkers privileged background is 'held by some to be an important factor in some of his success as a yachtsman." According to the source, there is a grand total of one person who says that, who isn't notable in his own right. It is very inappropriate to pick this quote out of this article to support a weasel-worded sneer about Barker in the lead. Incidentally, the other line wasn't "arguably" but definitely and obviously in violation of WP:BLP.Proabivouac 00:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see my comment regarding this issue on User talk:Richardshusr. John254 02:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking[edit]

Egyegy (talk · contribs)

The user has actually been following me in an effort to intimidate me from editing for a while and bases his stalking on the fact that he assumes that I have some sort of particular POV that is counter to his. It is undeniably wikistalking for the simple fact that the user has popped up at almost every article I frequent and reverts me with out discussion, articles that the user has never even been to before. He has reverted me on a long standing image of Coptic saint Maurice, and replaces it with an image of some European looking rendition of some man and tries to revert anyone who stands by the original images displayed. As can be seen here.. [78].. Here he reverts a dubious tag that I put on the Fayum Mummy portraits page, to show that scholars don't agree with the Original research claims of the article, and I've provided sources by way of britannica and egyptologyonline, yet he undermines them and he tries to replace it with some obscure reference with no page number, link, quote, or title just because I made an edit. (He could have done this before I edited. [79], and refuses to discuss. And then reverts me with out reason when I restore. Trying to provoke edit warring.

Then he follows me to the population history of ancient egypt page, moving people's entries around just to be spiteful and requests that an entire article be moved. Again, trying to provoke an edit war and making any statement possible that will disagree with my points in the discussion with out a reason. [80], then comes to an article called appearance of the ancient egyptians and single-handedly tries to revert me and everyone contributing, until the page was locked, pending discussion of issues. He also accuses the editors on the talk page and those who edited the article of being "afrocentric", with racial overtones, [81], starting more edit warring. MIND YOU, this person has never ever contributed to these articles at all and was lead there through me, simply to antagonize. It is extremely discouraging.. This is only recently, the stalking has increased in intensity but has always been there.

I have tried on several occasions to reasonable discuss matters with this individual, even on his user talk page, which he ignored. but he constantly assumes bad faith and refuses to discuss, simply refuses. I can't do anything with this person at all. Two people assuming bad faith won't work, which is why I try to discuss, but nothing works for me, adding to the frustration. It isn't a simple dispute, it is literally harassment in my opinion and seeing that the articles in question were not in his vision until he saw that I edited them, it definitely seems personal and it is frustrating and hard to remain civil, but I try so hard, and offer the person to discuss and elaborate, which he does not.

I seriously suggest that the user be blocked and somehow be prevented from seemingly harassing me, he has vandalized everywhere I go and checking the history you'd see that from a couple of the articles I've been there from the beginning and others, I merely started editing them first, then he conveniently pops up to disrupt me out of nowhere, seemingly out of spite. Please somebody take action against this disruption, it is beyond ridiculous now.Taharqa 01:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord, this is a big mess. Let's begin by lookig at the block logs of the disputants, since April 2007:
Egyegy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (three blocks)
Taharqa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) (six blocks)
Taharqa was once blocked for using anonymous IPs to circumvent 3RR. Egyegy claims that he did it again at Saint Maurice with 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs). For all his complaints, Taharqa cannot be considered an innocent victim.
Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs) to counteract every move that Taharqa tries to make. (See the recent items on User talk:Egyegy.
It seems unfair to block one user and not the other, and it seems unwise to continue to put out fires with short-term blocks for 3RR. I would recommend that this dispute be submitted to formal dispute resolution. Shalom Hello 05:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


But he's obviously conspiring, why is this not wikistalking? Dispute resolution will do nothing and my blocks have nothing to do with this harassment. I don't believe dispute resolution is an option, he won't accept. Can someone please send him a warning at least, I do think this is a great case tho, conspiring to counter every edit I make? C'mon now!! Wikipedia, be fair.. If I do something like this, block me.. But I haven't, no use in bringing up issues of 3rr that have nothing to do with this. You see why I've been engaged in such disputes, because I'm being harassed!Taharqa 19:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A similar thing has happened to me, and I would say that for Wikipedia to be what it represents itself to be, this incident must be looked into.
When this happened to me, the harrasser/stalker/disrupter got a law-school friend who is an administrator to block me. The administrator blocked me after claiming that he couldn't figure out the dispute, but cited the 3-revert rule, when clearly the harasser, his law-school friend, had violated the 3-revert rule by repeatedly deleting my complaints about him. My 3-revert violation was my assertion of a NEW complaint about this person's bad behavior. He complained about me on my talk page and those complaints, and my replies, are still there. I think both this user and his admin friend--whom he must have called on the phone to get me blocked because it was 1:30 am where I and the harasser ar and 12:30 am on a Saturday in Chicago where the admin friend lives, and it is unlikely that these two old pals just happened to be on Wikipedia at the same time and that the admin just happened to notice that somebody complained about his friend and made a new complaint every time the old complaint was deleted. BTW, these were not the same complaints, each new complaint was about the latest bad behavior of the harasser--I NEVER reverted ANYTHING and the admin who blocked me of course could see that. And there were not so many complaints that he couldn't figure it out as he claimed. Anyway, it appears that there is a lot of bad behavior going on by people who have first established themselves as Wikipedians. Once they do, they feel quite free to break the rules and when they receive complaints, they accuser the accuers. They then attack anything else the accuser has done with vague accusations about notability or verifiability. Why, if the harrasser has an honorable intent, does he not attempt to contribute, rather than attack? If he is concerned about verifyability, why doesn't he type it into his browser and see if HE can add a cite? Because it is not his intent to help, it is his intent to hinder.
The user who harrassed me also has harassed others, one so much that the person first made an obsequious apology to the harrasser (he is extremely dogged in his harassment, check his contribs and you'll see; and most importantly, he has an ADMIN ACCOMPLICE), the apology was so obsequious that it was obviously that of a person who had meed dogged at every move and could not continue on Wikipedia until the harrassment stopped. This harasser is so dogged and constantant in his determination to hound his accusers into submission that he makes hundreds-yes HUNDREDS of edits in just a few days (I believe his is paid to monitor Wikipedia and enforce a particular viewpoint), and there is no way the person being so hounded can answer all the vague questions. This is especially so when the harrasser has made up his mind in advance that no response is sufficient. He'll just throw out another brief, extremely brief--this is the hallmark of harassment: long replies and explanations from a sincere user and rejected with a mere few words by the hrasser and a new question or accusation of disruption or vandalism, again requiring the victim to make a long reply and have it rejected off-handedly. That harrassed person eventually resigned from wikipedia, citing his experience with the harasser--who has a Barn Star for helping convert to NPOV which is hilarious when his job is to enforce a non-neutral POV.
This accuser's admin friend see talk on tort reform) in assisting the harrassment against me, claimed that he "could not find one concrete suggestion" to change the article. In fact I had several, and began my post with (1) a quote of the existing first sentence (2) a quote of my proposed first sentence, and (3) reasons both for and against my proposal. Anyway, this is pointless. It seems that nobody here is willing to help an honest, sincere beginner. It is far, far easier to jump on the bandwagon and join the accuser. You only need to tye a few words, and you don't need to read anything (old posts, edits, and so on), and you certainly do not need to think or make a decision. RUReady2Testify 21:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Shalom: Conversely, the claim of harassment seems correct. Most of Egyegy's talk page edits recently have attacked Taharqa, accusing him of "afrocentrism" and other indiscretions. Egyegy has been conspiring with Lanternix (talk · contribs)

Shalom, what you said above is especially alarming when you point out that Egygy "accused" Taharqa of Afrocentrism and "other indiscretions", but say nothing of Taharqa's continuous and repeated violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:HAR (and many others). Egyegy does not "claim" that 71.198.169.119 (talk · contribs) is Taharqa -- Taharqa admits this himself here [82] and in this attack "I guess an ego-maniac delusional Arab wouldn't perceive that as owning up... And yes, this is Taharqa, I don't really care anymore".

Let's take a look at a small sampling of Taharqa's "other indiscretions":

The accusation of wikistalking is particularly absurd in light of Taharqa's much earlier wikistalking of different editors on a number of articles he had never edited [83] [84] [85]. This is all in addition to Taharqa's history of edit-warring and disruption (for which he apologized once on two different articles [86] [87], but is now back doing it all over again), two sockpupptry cases brought against him, vandalism under this [88] and other IP addresses, and the hostile atmosphere that he generally creates in almost all the articles he edits. I could go on and on. Let's try to keep some perspective here. — Zerida 02:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment This whole disagreement seems to be about the Coptic vs. Orthodox view of St. Maurice. I was raised Roman Catholic and agree he is a saint. What color? I could care less. A saints a saint. Jmm6f488 02:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße (was User:Prohibit Onions)[edit]

Is now wheel-warring over the location of Vossstrasse, or possibly Voßstraße; there is no question of the German spelling of the street, but a dispute over how Wikipedia:Use English applies. There was a discussion, now archived, in which a majority held for Vossstrasse, on the archive page. If ProhibitOnions and his fellow nationalists want to go to WP:RM, they should do so; but the move should be reversed first. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 16:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Avraham (talk · contribs) move protected the article, so I think that should solve the problem for now. I'd consider action by any admin to move this article over the protection to be grounds for a block though. --Isotope23 talk 17:26, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
He moved it, based on his opinion of what the title should be, and then move-protected it. That's not what admins should do. Haukur 17:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a very nice thing to do for an admin to use admin tools while in content dispute, but the edits are perfectly legitimate. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There exist arguments for both names. The "default" Avraham cites for his improper use of admin tools in a dispute does not exist (just like an "English name" for the street in question does not exist). Kusma (talk) 19:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved it based on my interpretation of the proper application of wikipedia's manual of style when in doubt, and move protected it to force discussion on the talk page based on the history. I have no other "motives" not being a party to this discussion prior or subsequent, and thus cannot be considered to have gained an "advantage", at least in my line of reasoning. Do you disagree? -- Avi 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Side point; not that it matters to me, but this is a policy application dispute, not a content dispute, re: the use of non-standard letters in Englisg wiki. Check the appropriate MoS's. -- Avi 17:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I disagree. Using the admin buttons to force the conclusion you prefer - while hypocritically "forcing discussion" on the talk page was wrong of you. There are plenty of articles with non-English characters in their names and there's no consensus to eliminate them. I don't even know which part of the MoS (which doesn't deal with page names last time I checked) you're referring to. Almost every debate could be framed as a "policy application dispute", that does not give you free reign to use your admin tools to force your way. Haukur 17:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
So, if you think there was an improper application of policy, which I obviously disagree with, you are more than welcome to ask another admin to review and should they feel it was improper, they can revert with no fear that I would revert back. Regardless, may I interest you in reading Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles), both of which relate to the matter at hand. In my reasoned opinion after reading the manuals of Style, when in doubt, we should resort to the "purer" English version and then hammer out exceptions, which is what I placed into effect. I am sorry if you disagree with it, but this is more along the lines of an admin ruling than a content dispute, as, as I have pointed out before, I have no edits prior or subsequent to this. Of course, I am as guilty of m:the wrong version as anyone, but that is par for the course. -- Avi 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia:Use English#Disputed issues, in fact I think I wrote the very sentence which you are presumably referring to: "There is disagreement as to whether German, Icelandic and Faroese names need transliteration for the characters ß, þ and ð." How you could read this to mean "admins should force renaming of articles containing ß in the title" I do not know. I have also read Wikipedia:Manual of Style (Ireland-related articles) which a) says nothing about this and b) is about Ireland. The point is that this is an issue that has been disputed for a long time. For you to step into a dispute, move a page to your preferred version and then move-protect it is just not a proper use of the admin tools you've been trusted with. I'm asking you to undo it, or for any other admin to undo it. Haukur 18:14, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There was obviously a dispute regarding the eszet here. To rename an article not under dispute is not the question here. The Ireland MoS gives a useful decision algorithm that can be applied to other cases as well, as is actually mentioned in Wikipedia:Use English. Since use of the eszet is disputed, both in the theoritical as well as in this particular article, since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence. That said, once again, every version is someone's wrong version so if you find an agreeable admin, I will not move it back per se. Regardless, it should be locked until this is solved, and I still maintain that the proper application of policy here is to lock it with s's instead of eszets. -- Avi 18:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You are completely misunderstanding the message of wrong version. The point is that an admin cannot be held responsible for the version she protects because she didn't pick it, she just came along and protected the version that was there. When you start by reverting to the version you prefer you must indeed take responsibility for that version and cannot cite wrong version in your defence. You say: "since this is English wikipedia, it stands to reason that the exception should be its use, not its absence". This is just your opinion, there is no consensus for it. In a typical dispute half of the people will say something like that, the other half will reject it. The point is that you took sides in the debate and then immediately proceeded to grant yourself the victory by using your admin powers. That's wrong and you should undo it. Haukur 18:28, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
To clarify - you should revert either the move or your protection, you don't have to revert both. You can be a party to the dispute or an uninvolved admin but you can't be both. Haukur 18:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I am asking the other pair of admins that weighed in here for their opinion. -- Avi 18:44, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If I'm simply being asked my personal opinion, it does't look to me that Avi acted maliciously or was a party to this dispute. It looks to me that he was attempting to enact Wikipedia:Use English. While I personally, wouldn't have enacted the protection in this manner, I don't see any reason at all this should be unprotected and at this point a sysop move of the article back to Voßstraße isn't going to be particularly helpful in this dispute (though it is my opinion that is the name is should probably end up at... ß has it's own article). At this point let the move war end and get on with the naming convention discussion. Wikipedia won't fall because this article name has too many "s's" instead of an eszett.--Isotope23 talk 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I never meant to imply that he acted maliciously, I'm sure that he acted in good faith. As for being a party to the dispute that's what he became the moment he decided to move the article based on his interpretation of policy. The dispute is: "Where, based on Wikipedia policy and practice, should the article be?" Once you give your own answer to that question and then act on it by moving the page you become a party to the dispute. In case there is doubt, I don't think Avi was a party prior to moving the page. Haukur 19:45, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
He was not party to the dispute; he has never edited the page, as far as I can see. The article is now where it was after the last WP:RM. Anyone is free to make another one at any time. That is sufficient justification for his action.
Whether he belongs to the section that believes the present placement is supported by WP:UE is incidental. Whether that section is a majority (as I believe) is one of the things WP:RM exists to test.
The relevant guideline is WP:NCGN, which says "Frequently, English usage does include the local diacritics, as with Besançon. On the other hand, there are cases in which English widely uses the local name without adopting some non-English spelling convention or diacritic. In either case, follow English usage." This was recently discussed (on the same spelling issue) at Talk:Meissen, as Haukur should remember. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
If Avi had given some such procedural justification (like where the page was after the last RM) I would not have complained, that would have been a reasonable admin intervention. But he didn't. He moved the page to the location he preferred and that's what I've been criticizing. I know you are fair-minded and concerned with proper procedure and I should think you would agree with this. Haukur 20:10, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
We agree, then, that Avi's action was what a fair-minded admin would have done; you are complaining about his edit summary. Perhaps he should have kept that !vote for the RM; but it seems to me that the action is what matters. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
No, that's greatly overstating it. I'm saying that moving the page and then protecting it could perhaps have been defended (though I wouldn't agree with it) on some procedural grounds. I was not at all saying that it was the only conclusion a fair-minded admin would have reached. Saying that a decision which was made on completely inappropriate grounds could perhaps have been defended on some other grounds which were never mentioned is not supporting the decision. Haukur 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
There may be other decisions a fair-minded admin would have reached (although this is what I expected when I came here). So? Avi did a right thing for whatever reason; I am not T.S.Eliot, to complain of this. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And if the unsolicited third opinion discourages nationalism (of whatever nation) so much the better. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't follow. Haukur 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Look at the article talk page; Matthead is our type specimen of the German nationalist editor, ranking with <redacted>, the professional Pole, <redacted>, the Lithuanian, and <redacted> and <redacted> the Greek and Turk. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Videmus Omnia (talk · contribs)[edit]

I am concerned about this user. He has made repeated edits to the Amy Mihaljevic that seem to be driven by some personal vendetta against myself for disagreeing with his decisions. JamesRenner

His last edit to the article was one week ago to tag as a possible COI. On the talk page one hour ago he tagged it for a WikiProject. What repeated edits or vendetta are you referring to? --After Midnight 0001 18:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Most of the edits and deletions were in reference to File:Amyphoto.jpeg actually. Sorry for the confusion. That page, however, no longer exists, because it has been deleted. I am appealing that decision. JamesRenner
You said his last edit was a week ago. Generally, this board is for dealing with incidents in progress.--Isotope23 talk 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Er, After Midnight said that. But his point is valid, do you have diffs showing ongoing edits demonstrating this vendetta?--Isotope23 talk 19:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
You can see part of the ongoing exchange at User_talk:JamesRenner. I believe he was blocked a couple days ago for taking similar actions against other pages. He's obessive about any argument he loses and continues to alter pages or have friends alter pages even if he's proven wrong. See also WP:DRV#Image:Amyphoto.jpg
Unless you can back this up with diff evidence, your claims really aren't actionable. So, diffs, please. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:21, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Just to mention, you might very well be able to find an Associated Press copyrighted version of this image; I've found, in general that when dealing with articles about crime victims that if the AP runs a story on them, they tend to acquire copyright over the image. --Haemo 21:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice to face baseless accusations of bad faith, personal attacks, and meatpuppetry with zero evidence, and not even be informed about the discussion. The only problem I had with that image was that it didn't specify copyright holder per WP:NFCC#10a, if that's met, I have no problem with the image. Videmus Omnia Talk 00:33, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I rest my case. JamesRenner

Both of you stop being snippy at each other.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 03:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Haven't been snippy with him (or anyone), but the trolling is getting old. WP:DNFT only carries you so far. Videmus Omnia Talk 03:52, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lonewolf BC[edit]

I believe this is the right forum to raise this: an edit war is currently going on at List of palaces between User:Lonewolf BC and myself over the inclusion of a picture and some minor text. I made four attempts (1, 2, 3, 4) to instigate a discussion about this matter at Lonewolf's talk page. Three attempts were simply deleted without comment, the final being justified by the reasoning "persistently replaced, mis-placed and misleading message. Twice gave my reason for removing pic, in edit-summaries & list's talkpage is right place to discuss edits to it." Lonewolf then did not move the discussion elsewhere and resumed reverting List of palaces. I suspect we may both have breached 3RR at this point, so I don't want it to go further. Can someone please address this user? --G2bambino 18:43, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The best thing I can suggest for you is to seek dispute resulution. It seems that you and Lonewolf BC have had some serious conflicts in the recent past. Have you thought about a content RfC or entering into mediation? Although the dispute is centred around more than one article. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. But my main beef here is the simple termination of any attempts to communicate about the matter; if Lonewolf wants to remove posts from his talk, well, so be it - a talk page is a user's castle, so to speak. But when the discussion is not moved to wherever he thinks is appropriate, that, plus the reverts with repeated yet still incomprehensible "reasons," demonstrates an unwillingness to discuss. So, what I was asking for here was for someone to address Lonewolf's uncooperative nature, not necessarily resolve any specific content disputes, yet. --G2bambino 19:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I see, well, I recuse myself from discussing with him, as I don't think I'm neutral due to blocking him in the past. To me, it looks like a bog standard edit war, just that Lonewolf does not want to discuss anything with you. Maybe it would be good for someone else to have a chat with him, but I really believe that to get to the root of your differences you will have to enter some form of mediation. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Mmm.. Perhaps. I'd rather see it resolved "out of court" though. --G2bambino 19:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I seem to be having similar issues with Lonewolf on Berber people, namely repeated reversion of my good-faith edits. His editing approach seems too confrontational with those with whom he disagrees. — Zerida 01:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


User:Giantsshoulders[edit]

Greetings, all. This request is not to ban the user as s/he has been a careful contributor and a valuable one at that. Giantsshoulders (talk · contribs) has admitted that s/he edits from several accounts (at least CannaCollector (talk · contribs) but possibly more) but was unaware of WP:SOCK and that s/he simply forgot usernames and passwords when editing from several locations. See their talk page for more information. The user has not been using these multiple accounts for any sockpuppetry and contributes in a narrow field (genus Canna). Is there a way to merge the accounts or is it a simple matter of blocking all but the main (not sure which is the main account)? The user is eager to abide by Wiki rules; any help would be appreciated. Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say to all users involved good job!!! I am glad that no one flew off the handle. So many times people assume bad faith when it is just a user that does not understand the rules. I am glad that there are people who still assume good faith until a reason not to has been achieved.

P.S. Most admins are cool like this, just some are a little over zealous. Jmm6f488 01:57, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Brusk u Trishka[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a Kurdish revisionist troll on Wikipedia now. [89] His edits on the the Assyrian people [90] article are laughable at best. He has also engaged in personal attacks on Assyrians. [91] "Syriani refugee", now clearly, that's an insult, is it not? Obviously, we're dealing with an extremist. Obviously, he is an editor with an extremely anti-Assyrian agenda. He will not be NPOV on Assyrian-related articles. I suggest that admins ban this troll, and ban him fast. Thanks. — EliasAlucard|Talk 03:37 31 Jul, 2007 (UTC)

Calm down, and do not make personal attacks on other editors. I see nothing in the diffs you provide that requires admin intervention. We do not resolve content disputes, please see WP:DR for that. Sandstein 07:50, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Review requested for Soxrock sock ring indefblock[edit]

I have indefinitely blocked long-time editor Soxrock (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) pending consensus regarding an appropriate block length. I have determined that Soxrock, who claims over 40,000 edits, is the sockmaster for a peculiar and occasionally abusive sock ring that has been around for quite some time. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Soxrock for evidence and explanation. I have deemed the evidence too convincing to request a checkuser but I would welcome one if someone wants further assurance. In a brief conversation on Soxrock's talk page, he admitted to being autoblocked but denied that it was caused by one of his socks (even though the expiration time he gave matches the sock's last edit to the minute).

Do folks agree with my sockery determination to begin with? If so, what seems like an appropriate response? I indefblocked all the socks and hard-blocked the IPs for a few days. Soxrock (who has been blocked once for socking in the past and claims four alternate accounts on his user page - and has "Sox" in his name!) is unrepentant so he is indefblocked for now as well. All input is welcome. Thanks.

Wknight94 (talk) 04:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I used to have the word "sox" in my name. does that make me a sockpuppet too? Sasha Callahan Pats Sox Princess 04:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
For the record, the report itself is fine (but not as compelling as the one on OldBear or whatever he called himself) Pats Sox Princess 04:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm pretty tired at the moment, but your evidence looks good at first glance. You suggest that you don't think these puppets are related to Tecmobowl. However, one thing connecting A. Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman to Tecmobowl is that A.Shakespeare/Sarah Goldman was advocating for Tecmobowl and suggesting they would continue Tecmobowl's work on their user page. I started an ANI thread on it here. Could be nothing, but I thought I'd mention it. Flyguy649 talk contribs 04:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that Sarah Goldberg's "advocacy" for Tecmobowl was genuine; it just looked like rabble-rousing; like NBAonNBC's peculiar and pointless rebuilding of Tecmo's talk page after Tecmo had frequently deleted content he didn't like. Even Tecmo kind of backed off from Sarah once it became clear what was going on. It is also clear that Tecmo and Sarah were not the same person. They live in separate cities hundreds of miles apart. Also, Tecmo wasn't clever or subtle enough in using his socks. He was nailed within a few days very time. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not gonna give my opinion about the "alleged socks" but I don't think it's right to block him... at least for now, anyway. You [Wknight94] say that he was indefinely blocked by yourself... I don't think he should be blocked yet. Until it is proven that he is a sockpuppet, if that is the case, he shouldn't be blocked. Ksy92003(talk) 04:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok, started a Soxrock checkuser request for assurance. Hydrogen Iodide 05:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Given the long time productive editing of the account, I would have been very hesitant to block immediately, without a checkuser result to back this up. Neil  08:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
A checkuser would be useful for further support, but there are quite a few clues that Wknight94 uncovered that suggest the connection. There is no inherent "right" to edit wikipedia, so the "innocent until proven guilty" argument doesn't work here. I've gotten along well with Soxrock, but I've also had some concerns. I would like to think this is not true, but the evidence suggests that it is. Baseball Bugs 10:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
"Innocent until proven guilty" is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding. --Calton | Talk 11:29, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I did assume good faith with this user, until evidence was presented to the contrary. Meanwhile, as was pointed out to User:Tecmobowl / User:Long levi a few weeks ago, when he made the same argument... this is not a courtroom, and there is no inherent or legal or constitutional right to edit wikipedia. Baseball Bugs 11:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I seriously doubt that -- based on your past comments, you seem to see Tecmobowl under every bush -- but that's neither here nor there, as I was merely commenting on your confusing Wikipedia with some sort of legal process, what with your attempt to invoke some sort of reverse legal principle in order to hand-wavingly carve out a convenient and self-serving exception to basic Wikipedia policy. Hint: Wikipedia? Not a court of law. --Calton | Talk 00:13, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
I never at any time thought Soxrock was Tecmobowl. And you're absolutely right, this is not a court of law. Thus, terms like "innocent until proven guilty" and "due process" do not strictly apply. Baseball Bugs 00:22, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, try reading this SLOOOWLY this time: "'Innocent until proven guilty' is pretty much implicit in assume good faith, your [further] attempted legalism (oh, the irony) not withstanding". --Calton | Talk 12:08, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Alright, wise guy... My normal inclination is to "assume good faith" until presented with evidence to the contrary. I was very reluctant, based on my limited experience with Soxrock, to think that Soxrock was the same guy as Sarah Goldberg, whose behavior sounded like mental illness. I am still not quite believing in my heart, but the facts say otherwise. Take special note of the recent entry by User:Zzyzx11 and the connection starts to become clearer. Baseball Bugs 12:16, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry for the late responses - it was about 12:30am here when I posted above:
  • Pat Sox Princess, I don't think you were being serious but just in case, no I'm not saying anyone with "sox" in their name should be blocked. I'm just pointing out the possibility of intentional double entendre in selecting that name. I'll also agree that Old Windy Bear came together even better and was a much more abusive situation (poisoning an RFA, double-voting on numerous issues, etc.) I'll confess to being confused about why Soxrock chose to create socks everywhere. And unless I turn out to be wrong, he has been white, black, male, female, Christian, and Jewish, and has talked to himself here and vandalized his own page, etc. But Soxrock is unwilling to admit to any of this so all I can do is speculate as to the true intention. (BTW, Irishguy found this un-autoblock request firmly tying together A. Shakespeare and Soxrock - I'll add that to the report). BTW, if you want me to simplify the report or try to clean it up, I'm fine with that. It's more of a brain dump than anything.
  • Flyguy649, I agree that the apparent tie between two sock rings seems awfully coincidental but there are two big problems. First and foremost, Tecmo has been pretty firmly proven to be from the Atlanta, Georgia area. I don't have diffs off-hand but I think he said as much and one of the IPs he admitted to using was from Atlanta, etc. Soxrock, on the other hand, is definitely in the St. Petersburg, Florida area. He used to have two IPs listed on his user page and just yesterday admitted to a third IP - all are unquestionably in St. Pete. Additionally, Tecmo's and Soxrock's editing styles are quite different. Tecmo wrote deeply-researched articles and was fairly well-spoken in every message. Soxrock goes more for quantity creating numerous stubs and copying statistics into sports articles and is also less polished in his talk messages.
  • Ksy92003, you've left messages in various places so I'll respond on your talk page.
  • Hydrogen Iodide, thank you for entering the checkuser request.
  • Neil, I was and am convinced of a firm connection between all of the listed accounts. WP:RFCUs are often refused in such obvious cases. Further, the simple tie between NBAonNBC and Soxrock - which Soxrock essentially confessed to by stating when the autoblock expired and by not asking for unblock all day - proves a double-vot