Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive293

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

Noticeboard archives


Abuse of Authority[edit]

IrishGuy ( is clearly abusing his authority, as well as poorly interpreting the rule forbidding the posting of "spam" in External Links.

There are thousands of articles on Wikipedia whose external links include fansites. I'm not going to cite examples, because then sad, power-hungry individuals like IrishGuy would indiscriminately blast them all. It's unfortunate that he has decided to single out an article about a B-movie most people have never heard of to abuse his authority. was begun by a friend and I to raise awareness of the movie. We have the blessing and support of Bill Lustig (director), Larry Cohen (writer), Robert Z'Dar, and Bruce Campbell. Yet, he seems to believe that this link violates a vague and subjective rule which is almost never enforced. The term "spam" denotes unsolicited marketing, not a link to a fansite. We make exactly zero dollars from the website, and it's only intended as a place for people to gather and discuss the films. How can IrishGuy ignore links to "official" movie sites (which are clearly commercial) and instead focus on ours?

Here is the article in question:

Please help me to understand why an administrator like IrishGuy can repeatedly abuse his authority without intervention from others. I will respect your explanation and/or ruling, but I do not respect IrishGuy. Thank you very much.

kd4nuh 23:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Our external links policy discourages "Links mainly intended to promote a website." Linking your own website, even if it is not making you money at present, is considered spamming. What other articles may or may not have in their external links at the moment is irrelevant. You can use an article's talk page to discuss inclusion of a link. Grandmasterka 23:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The pertinent words in the above guideline being "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent". ELIMINATORJR 23:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
This tirade has already been left in various places: [1] [2] [3]. This user has also brought forth numerous meatpuppets to continue inserting his link into various articles. He also left the following message IrishGuy, kindly fuck off. Thanks - Matt Cordell on various talk pages. He further left another abusive message here. IrishGuy talk 23:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec)::I must say, that while I hardly would call this an "abuse of authority" (it would be if Irishguy blocked the said user, the kind of thing I've seen before), I have to agree with kd4nuh. The EL guideline is only a guideline, and for good reasons. The said website is a good website, and there are no other external links (I have seen users give links to their websites before, and it was quite helpful to the WP page). In fact, it's probably a good thing if users who are knowledgeable about a subject have links to their website, as long as it's not promotional, as it helps the overall knowledge of the 'pedia. However, kd4nuh, I would say you haven't much of a leg to stand on, considering that you decided to revert Irishguy's change as "revert vandalism" and telling Irishguy to f*** off. That's totally inappropriate, and its' not going to make anyone want to bat for you. The Evil Spartan 23:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I just gave Kd4nuh a good long block for continuing his temper tantrum. Grandmasterka 23:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't see it in the block log. Is the system lagging today? IrishGuy talk 23:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
(ec again)Doesn't look blocked to me. Though a 24 hour block is probably in line ("go to bed, take a day off, let the steam on your head cool down, I'm sure you're a good guy"). But please don't block for too long. The Evil Spartan 23:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I unblocked and reblocked. (It was one of those phantom blocks that happens occasionally.) It's there now. Grandmasterka 23:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And this was his lovely reaction to his block: It's fine. I'll just register another account or fifty. Kindly go fuck yourself. IrishGuy talk 23:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Aaaaand we get this. Grandmasterka 23:53, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
We don't need stuff like this. If there's a good reason not to change the block length to indef, I can't think of it. Raymond Arritt 03:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
indef. There are some few good reasons to change the block length to indef...Total of 259 edits of which 170 were made to their own userpage, +/- 30% edit summary usage, and of course spamming and disruption threats. Let's move on. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I changed my mind. I feel indef is too harsh. We'll see. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 07:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The editor in question is apparently a role account, and a hostile one as well. If you look at the link they're trying to add, the screed agaisnt IG and wikipedia in general is probably within the guidelines for determining an attack site. I'd indef him and his IP. ThuranX 19:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Kd4nuh has returned as Americanhero1985 to evade his block. New account blocked. See his user page and edits for evidence. Identical reverts as Kd4nuh, identical userpage to Kd4nuh. IrishGuy talk 02:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Indef for good now. I had assumed good faith more than necessary. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 09:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Soapboxing on user page[edit]

User:Jim62sch has a banner on his user page that may be considered to be in violation of what userspace is not and no soapboxing guidelines. This version can be seen here [4]. Earlier today, admin User:lucasbfr reverted it, quoting guidelines. It was reverted, so I restored lucas' version. It was then reverted by another editor, who claimed the removal to be "vandalism" [5], and then by another, whose edit summary was even more incivil [6] and who even left a warning note on my talkpage. Comments welcome; if enforcing Wikipedia guidelines can be interpreted as vandalism, what chance do we stand? ELIMINATORJR 19:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Enforcing policy shouldn't be controversial, especially in the case of obvious violations of policy. Vassyana 19:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism template put on the user page of an admin (or any other experienced user) who was clearly not vandalizing the site was inappropriate; I blanked that. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism template was inappropriate and inflammatory. That said, the banner is question appears to be within the limits we allow to users in good standing. The userspace rules is to prevent a page that is a long rant or such, not to prevent productive users having a few opinionated remarks on their user page. JoshuaZ 19:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree in this case although there has to be a line somewhere between permitted commentary and polemics. Thatcher131 19:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I happen to think Wikipedia is not the place for such campaigning. Expressing one's views or biases plainly is one thing, openly soapboxing is another entirely. Vassyana 19:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. The question should surely be "could this be described as inflammatory" and I am sure that for some people, this one could be. (Note that the current version has been edited to remove the polemic statement). ELIMINATORJR 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I've certainly seen worse, but this is an inappropriate use of user space. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Let him have a free homepage elsewhere. Friday (talk) 19:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Again this isn't a large homepage devoted to a topic, it is a section of a userpage which has a variety of other items on it. The drive to remove it seems to be causing far more disruption than the banner did. JoshuaZ 19:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
More censorship. Great. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it; it seems well within the level of expression permitted in userspace. Similar issues have come up elsewhere recently (for example, a now-banned troll took it upon himself to edit User:El_C's userpage using the same rationale). Nearly anything "could be described as inflammatory" to someone, somewhere; if that's our standard, then there will be an awful lot of userpage blanking. I don't like the precedent we're setting here. Using a userpage to push a fringe or inherently offensive (e.g. racist) agenda is one thing. Using it to express a mainstream political belief should probably fall under the "wide latitude" that WP:USER generally allows people in their userspace. More importantly, I think the harm done by unilaterally policing established user's userspace for this sort of not-especially-offensive commentary far outweighs any benefit to the encyclopedia. MastCell Talk 19:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the banner. It isn't soapboxing to firmly (yet briefly) assert an opinion, and user pages are a fine place for that. Really, what's it hurting? – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Now you're being nice to Jim (see below)? But I agree. It seems we have a few individuals more interested in censoring than in contributing to the project. This is hurting no one, and we have articles that have NPOV problems, factual errors, and who knows what else. Seems like this is a great use of bandwidth. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Strange as it may seem, I'm judging the case based on its merits, not based on the people involved. And on the merits, the banner is a non-issue, in my opinion. I'd say the same if it was Videus Omnia with a "Support President Bush or you're a fop with a speech impediment" banner. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It appears Dave Souza deleted the statement about "mission accomplished" becoming "Nothing accomplished" as it was here. Frankly I didn't see a problem with it one way or the other. But as it presently exists, e.g., here, I see even less of a problem. It's his opinion and his user talk page. It's not an ad hominem against a user, not even an ad hom against anyone, but rather is a personal statement directed at a situation presently occurring in the world, and in disagreement with the 2003 assessment made by GW Bush. Obviously others disagree with what the statement implies. It's his opinion, his talk page and I think he's entitled to make the statement of fact and also to display his opinion of that very unfortunate situation on his talk page. At least, that's my opinion... Kenosis 19:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Is it the war related banner? I don't have any problem with it either.. (plus he erased it) what if we don't like the crab you have on your user pages.. should we erase it? He is not insulting anyone.. is very informative.. Been there done that.. seen that!--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 19:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

As an interim compromise to end an edit war I commented out the "Mission Nothing accomplished" heading to the banner, but in my opinion it's well within being a reasonable statement of personal opinion, is at most arguably "polemic" and should stay. The removal of the banner without prior discussion was incivil and a good way of inflaming an unnecessary argument. Going through user pages and deleting statements of user opinion on the grounds that they might upset some unduly sensitive people who look away when the news comes on is a sheer waste of time and goodwill. My opinion is that the banner should be restored forthwith. .. dave souza, talk 20:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC) minor correction 20:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Please, someone explain why we spend so much time censoring each other. If it was out and out racism, a commercial statement, or something equally heinous, delete it away. Get rid of it. Hell, I'll stand right there helping out. But a political statement? I've read WP:SOAP, despite the you-can't-fucking-read and uncivil commentary left on my talk page, I don't think this even slightly qualifies as soapboxing. Probably offended some Republicans maybe. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We seem to need to have these conversations every once in a while to reinforce this sort of thing. I do not believe users should be allowed to be overly provocative or deliberately offensive in their user space, but the standard should be what a reasonable person would be offended by, not what an easily offended person might be offended by. Thatcher131 20:51, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I disagree. The issue is intent: any statement intended mainly to be polemical is inappropriate for user pages. The only acceptable uses of user pages are those that further the encyclopedic goals of the project. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for inviting me to the party. Of course, the person who decided to remove it for specious reasons, could have at least asked me about it prior to arbitraily removing it (shall I go to his page and see if anything "offends" me, and if it does, remove it? -- nah, too childish). If it was truly a vio (which it wasn't), I would have removed it (hell, I wouldn't have put it there in the first place). It's certainly becoming clear to me why a lot of good editors have left Wikipedia, or else significantly reduced the time they spend on the project. Such behaviour as removing what is really a brief commentary from a user page is extraordinarily puertile if not infantile, especially given that there wasn't even an attempt to discuss the issue. I do not suffer fools gladly, and I am begining to sense many fools on Wikipedia. (OK, tag this for incivility, I really don't care, I come from a long line of folks who find telling it as it is preferable to blowing smoke up someones ass, or acting contrite when no contrition is merited)
Quadell, Dave, Kenosis, OM, MastCell and Josh, I thank you for your comments and your support, and I certainly second Dave's opinion on restoring said banner forthwith. •Jim62sch• 20:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain why you feel a polemical statement should be included on your user page? — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on. It's an expression of opinion about a current event, in fact an opinion that is shared by a large fraction of the public worldwide and even in the U.S. It's not like he said "death to the [Zionist|Mohammedan|American|Luxembourgish] scum" or something like that. Conservatives can have quotes from Ayn Rand, User:El_C can have a pic of his hero, and so on. As for benefit to the encyclopedia I find these noninflammatory disclosures of viewpoint help to give some personality to anonymous editors; they're useful as expressions of where an editor is coming from. Raymond Arritt 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't find the statement on Jim's page offensive (and I'm probably one of the users who would theoretically be offended by it, according to those who would like to remove it). The fight over removal/retention is more disruptive than the statement, IMHO. Videmus Omnia Talk 23:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I still don't think the issue is offensiveness. Unarguable polemical statements like "Convicted murderers should face justice!" if written in a large font at the top of the page are inappropriate as well. — Carl (CBM · talk) 23:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Are sermons by Sun Myung Moon appropriate? ...... dave souza, talk 00:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
this does not strike me as likely to give offense to anyone reasonable--the existence of different views on the matter is well understood. It's minor. Removing it without discussion seems WP:POINT and, frankly, deliberately aggressive. DGG (talk) 01:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a polemical statement, but I'm personally not offended by it, but I question the good faith of anyone who says we need more human beings dead, despite wherever their from. Maybe I was reading that the wrong way, I'm not sure. At first glance it appeared the read that more Americans should die, to compensate for the large number of Iraqi's dead, but on a second glance it might mean that too many people have died. Either way, it's a polemical statement, nothing worth the edit war. — Moe ε 01:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since there appears to be some confusion, let me explain: the banner is a statement on the futility and sadness of war, especially one of choice, and speaks to the fact that 4 years and almost 4 months after the war was officially declared over, there are still brave men and women and innocent civilians being killed. These are sacrifices that need to be remembered, not swept under a rug. Yes, I disagree with the war (hence VO's point that he could be one of the people who could theoretically be offended) but I do support the soldiers, sailors, airmen, etc., who are just doing their duty and serving their country (hence the reason (I guess) that VO isn't offended). Everytime I hear of another death I am both angered and saddened.
Now, on my talk page I mentioned the irony of the use of the word polemical given its etymology. For those of you who don't know, polemical derives from the Greek πόλεμος (polemos), war. •Jim62sch• 09:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, thank you for giving that explanation. Despite it's tragic irony, it's a polemical statement. Nonetheless, edit warring over this silly thing is unproductive (refering to those removing it). — Moe ε 10:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Hell, a lot of user boxes are polemical (not that I really want to raise that damned issue from the dead). Had I written a long rant on my page, I could see folks getting upset. That I was able, in a few words, to (for the most part) get my point across should be no biggie, and removing it without discussion was far more uncivil than anything I've ever written (yes, I do have my moments). This whole process has been silly and could have been avoided via discussion. •Jim62sch• 10:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

He could just as easily have put a little userbox that says "this user opposes the war in Iraq" and then had a separate banner listing the very same facts of the war dead. Someone has too much time on their hands, or is a Bush die-hard, to be fretting over this. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Betacommand (talk · contribs), presumably BetacommandBot[edit]

Is now tagging user subpages for deletion en mass, for no particular reason-- 21:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is very bizarre, I'll try to contact him on his talk page. This is really weird.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:58, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah Im nuking userspace cruft. βcommand 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Three of those user sub pages are backup copies of archival templates for the reference desk-- 22:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And most admins are loathe to speedy things like sandbox pages in userspace, anyways. --Haemo 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The edit rate looks too slow to be a bot. Videmus Omnia Talk 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I just reverted the tagging because I honestly wasn't sure. But are all those mostly clutter? Some are sandboxes.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Betacommand, these pages appear harmless. I suggest that tagging this type of pages, even if the tags were earned (which is very debatable at best), really is not a high priority. Newyorkbrad 22:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Im what Im doing is tagging nonsense pages, and PRODing per policy. these pages havent been edited in months, these are pages created by users who have since left the project. Most of these pages havent been edited in over a year. βcommand 22:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
At least 3 are currently being used as templates for the reference desk, and belong to a user who has edited as recently as within the last few weeks.-- 22:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Policy aside, what is the benefit to Wikipedia to deleting these pages? -Chunky Rice 22:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

If they're prods, anyone who objects can certainly remove it, but I too fail to see any urgency in this. Unless it's an attack page or something of the sort, dormant userspace pages don't really do any harm. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree - it looks to me as though this will be far more work than worthwhile, and could cause more harm than good. KillerChihuahua?!? 01:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Especially since this is not even saving Wikipedia disk space, since we keep all deleted article revisions, and new revisions are being created because of the prod tags! Cleaning up harmless pages in userspace is pretty close to the end of the useful tasks possible to do on Wikipedia; Betacommand, I'd encourage you to go and find something that's a little bit more urgent a problem, and/or less likely to annoy someone. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 07:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles being disruptive[edit]

First off: this user comments in many pop culture articles AFD debates (many of which I strongly feel he hasn't even seen the article of). His comments such as "keep per.." are a constant in AFDs, even though people have told him several times to stop doing that. Plus his other random AFD keep comments such as "it has good images, so keep it" aren't very useful. People have told him about policies: yet he doesn't think he should have to read them (or simply doesn't want to follow them). Another reason for keep he's given is something along the lines of "my students find it useful, so keep the article". Secondly: he has had various issues with video game images. He claims it's alright to just take a picture of a video game box, and then stick it wherever even if it's not correct (or free use and so on). People have told him numerous times about this: yet he continues to upload images that are incorrect. Also he's claimed to take a break from AFDs: yet he still continues to actively comment in just about any "fictional" or "pop culture" article that is nominated. Making false promises, doesn't help things out. I suggest someone needs to mentor him, or he needs to be watched closely. Other than those issues, he doesn't seem to be a trouble maker or vandal (from what I see at least). RobJ1981 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I find this post incredibly unfair and perhaps retaliatory, because I have participated in some AfDs that RobJ1981 created ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12]) and that many other users have indicated their intentions to "keep" as well. Moreover, you'll notice that other editors also post "keep per X" kinds of posts as well. Finally, as regards that particular criticism, please also remember that Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions is "not a policy or guideline and editors are not bound by its advice." In some of these discussions, few editors outside of User:Otto4711 and a couple others actively push for deletions. I have greatly reduced my participation in AfDs (check my edits for today, for example, and you'll see maybe 50 or so "welcome" and other article improvement edits for every AfD I've participated in. Someone (RobJ1981) who keeps nominating articles for deletion that a good number of fellow editors think should be kept might also benefit from re-reading policies. I replied to EVERY post RobJ1981 made on my talk page, but he continues to post there apparently ignoring my replies and efforts to discuss with him. Rob made this post at 21:53, 30 August 2007. I replied at 22:06, 30 August 2007]. As my edit history shows, after reading and replying to Rob's post, I have NOT participated in any additional AfDs. Yet, all of a sudden, I go to my talk page to see this post!? Why would you bring me here when a) I responded to your initial post and b) did not and have not posted in any AfDs since the last one I did which was at least a couple of hours before he even made the 21:53 post? You posted a comment. I replied and I have not posted in any AfDs since and even those I did earlier was while working with my mentor to learn how to contribute successfully in those discussions. Your behavior in this regard seems like a personal attack based on ideological grounds. Rob even suggested I get a mentor in his most recent post, which obviously ignores the fact that I do have a mentor in administrator Chaser, whom I have discussed many edits with on my talk page as any quick glance of my talk page would show. In fact Chaser is CURRENTLY mentoring me regarding AfDs! I do not "continue" to upload images that are considered inappropriate. Please look at my images and when I uploaded them in regards to any comments. I have replied to any posts about images on my pages and am happy to discuss and learn about what is acceptable. Rob, you are assuming bad faith out of your disagreements with me over popular culture articles, and are not accurately reflecting my efforts to work with my mentor (Chaser) to see how to better participate in AfDs or to try different ways of acceptable image use. Take for example the Reel Fishing images. After being cautioned about the close up image, being removed, I instead tried a further away not as good quality picture that did not just focus on the covers. I similarly instead of the close up of the Lethal Enforcers game cases, tried one of the game cartridge and light guns. Please check my image log history. After Image:Lethal Enforcers for SNES and PS.jpg and Image:All three Reel Fishing games.jpg were deleted, the ONLY two images I uploaded afterwards were the lower quality ones that did not highlight game box art: Image:Reel fishing games with special controller.jpg and Image:Lethal Enforcers and justifiers for SNES.jpg. In other words, I received input on images, and I worked to adjust the images to better follow policy. I would be happy to discuss whether or not these photos are instead better and these are the ONLY two photos I uploaded after the three were deleted a few hours back. For what it is worth, I have just asked an admin if the two new images are more along the lines of what would be acceptable and am awaiting his response. Please accurately reflect what is happening. Should I criticize you for constantly nominating "in popular culture" articles that a sizable percentage of the community obviously want kept? I am happy to cut back my time at AfDs even more than I have and to wait and see what an experienced editor thinks of the two new photos I uploaded today, but calling good faith edits undertaken in a civil manner "disruptive" is insulting and uncalled for, especially when I have sought mentorship and am trying (and learning) a variety of different ways to edit constructively on this site. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 23:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worthy and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself one arguing frequently for inclusion, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and I told him so, on and off wiki. Over time I think his comments have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive and bitter, and once more I find GRC supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, as do some of the people taking the other position. But the debates have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using essentially the same arguments for all articles, often identically the exact same words on dozens of articles, without necessarily showing the understanding of the difference between acceptable articles and unimportant subjects. When this user first came to WP, I thought many of his AfD comments showed insufficient thought, supporting the inclusion of both worth and patently unworthy articles, and, being myself generally an inclusionist, I thought such a pattern totally unhelpful, and the sort of thing that does not aid rational inclusion of what is appropriate, and I said so. Over time I think they have gradually become somewhat more thoughtful. The discussions on popular culture have been exceptionally divisive, and I find GRC often supporting the same articles I do. I myself give very extended analyses at times, almost as long as some of the people taking the other position. The arguments have however become somewhat repetitive, with the people urging deletion using often the same words for dozens of articles, and it is understandable that those on the other side might do the same. I try to resist the temptation, and the necessary custom-fitted replies have been taking over an hour a day. I do not expect everyone to have the same degree of intensity abut this as I. But I do wish he'd give fuller explanations that would help convince people more effectively. I've told him so several times. I too do not think "my students find it useful" a good argument. I've seen lots of bad arguments from both sides in thse and most other AfDs. If we brought everyone who said Idontlikeit, or metoo to AN/I, we'd turn into Deletion Review part Two. .... Possibly this will be discounted because we often support the same articles, but then the previous comment should be discounted for always opposing on many articles. As for images, I have not been following those discussions. DGG (talk) 00:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dear DGG, I appreciate your fair and constructive feedback. I am holding off uploading any new images until I hear from User:Golbez and I hadn't even posted in any AfDs for at least two hours before Rob made this post to my talk page, which I replied to and after which I have not posted anything in any AfDs in the first place. I will discuss AfDs further with Chaser and since you seem to be quite experienced with them as well, I will take your good faith advice to heart should I ever participate in any more in the future. I also wish that Rob's comments on my few postings in AfDs lately would have better reflected the diverse way in which I handle myself as I did here when I even provided some links that I thought could be helpful or here when I linked to essays that I thought made appropriate arguments applicable to that discussion. Again, though, I am awaiting image feedback from Golbez and AfD strategy feedback from Chaser. Maybe a useful idea would be for someone to suggest a random AfD for me to participate in and to practice making a solo argument and then received feedback from my mentor on what to improve on? Finally, I strongly agree with what DGG has said about the divisiveness of the in popular culture AfDs. I've noticed the same users nominating these and the same ones almost immediately posting similarly worded "delete" rationals in practically all of them. Perhaps the community should set up a special page for a discussion on these kinds of things as we obviously don't have consensus in the AfDs and I think a lot of us are either nominating articles just because they're "in popular culture" and wanting to keep them as well. I fear that both sides are pushing POINT a lot as well and so maybe a separate policy discussion needs to take place? Just some ideas and thanks again for the feedback, DGG. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

(I'm Roi's mentor/adopter.) I'm not sure what kind of administrative action Rob expects regarding AFD comments. We don't usually take action against editors for poor arguments at AFD even if the arguments are against deletion policy (which applies to articles, not editors). As Rob said, "Many of [Roi's] 'keep per whoever' AFD comments aren't even going to go noticed by the person that closes the debate." We similarly weigh arguments and give policy higher value at DRV. As to the images, I agree those are a problem, one that I brought up with Roi yesterday. Now I'm off to resolve that issue.--Chaser - T 02:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback; I will, as always, abide by your advice. Best, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 02:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
It's true that Le Grand Roi used to be disruptive - it's also true that he's obtained mentorship, sought advice, and made significant progress. If there's a complaint to be made about his behavior now, please base it upon diffs of his recent actions. DurovaCharge! 04:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, I appreciate your feedback and guidance over the past couple of months. I am, of course, about outraged to see this discussion here for the various reasons I included in my posts above and have been having a pleasant email discussion with Chaser regarding AfDs, which as you'll see from my edit history are an incredibly small fraction of my contributions as of late. You'll also notice from my talk page that Chaser and I are actively seeking feedback on how to tag images. I find this thread to have been posted in incredibly bad faith when it concerns matters that my mentor and I are in the process of reviewing and when they are a relatively minor aspect of my contributions as of late. Again, I thank you for your response and am as always appreciative of any constructive comments you have. Also, I have participated in the RfA of an individual that you nominated. I have only participated in a few of these thus far and would appreciate any feedback if my posting there is "good" or "appropriate", i.e. if that is the way to go in those discussions. Thanks! Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 04:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well my advice to you has always been to tread lightly at AFD. Likewise, I ask other editors to cite recent diffs if they see problems: Le Grand Roi has been attempting to do what I ask of any formerly banned editor - make a productive return. We've always known he's an inclusionist. If he's learned to keep that within the realms of policy-compliant inclusionism then there isn't a problem. DurovaCharge! 14:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dear Durova, I have consulted with two admins regarding how to phrase my AfD posts in the future and after receiving their feedback last night and this morning, I have participated in this discussion. You'll note that I use references and a much more elaborate argument. I hope that this approach is better and I look forward to continuing to improve. --Le Grand Roi des CitrouillesTally-ho! 14:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Persistent wikistalking and insults from User:Fahrenheit451 (pt.2)[edit]

This was brought up here a few days ago and User:Fahrenheit451 was warned here to cease his aggressive and insulting behavior, but it's still continuing. See here. First he accuses me yet again of being in the cofs (Church of Scientology) then states (apropos of absolutely nothing) "We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender." (he now refers to me as "WPD" after being ordered to stop calling me "Trixi".)

Further, he followed up a warning I gave to a tendentious editor with this comment linking to a frankly paranoid and bizarre screed about OSA Agents working undercover at Wikipedia, and the edit summary "defense against the badgering". This sort of paranoid vendetta from someone I don't even know and who doesn't know me at all is really beginning to freak me out. wikipediatrix 03:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Update: In revenge, he's now placed a complaint below that my complaint here is false, even though he himself is linking to the very diff that shows him calling my religious affiliation, my motives for editing Wikipedia, and even more bizarrely, my gender into question for no apparent reason, as well as having the nerve to call another editor "uncivil" for defending me against his insults. This is increasingly frightening and disturbing. I want this person to stop making insults and insinuations at me and about me, directly and indirectly.wikipediatrix 03:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

JzG deleted the rant wikipediatrix refers to as a bad use of userspace. ThuranX 14:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Wikipediatrix false reports on AN/I[edit]

Wikipediatrix harassed and badgered a user with a very uncivil comment. My comments were to the user who I have edited with and did not address her. Her post above is nothing short of a violation of WP:NPA.--Fahrenheit451 03:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is the thread from the false accusations WPD made in the first paragraph of the posting here:[13]--Fahrenheit451 03:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I comment that WPD's "update" is more of the same attempt to create problems for me with false accusations.--Fahrenheit451 04:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I propose that WPD and I have a mediation. Hopefully, this will settle the ongoing animosity.--Fahrenheit451 04:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

However, in the citation above, you wrote: « We have no evidence of WPD's affiliations or gender. » Wikipediatrix has very clearly stated that she is a woman and not a Scientologist. Please remember WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. Your unsubstantiated insinuations are of no interest on WP. --Mathsci 07:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What part of

"What part of "do not use abbreviations of the editors username", and "do not use them in a familiar manner" are you having difficulty understanding? ... LessHeard vanU 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)"

are you still having difficulty with? The editors name is wikipediatrix. You have been requested by both wikipediatrix and myself to not use abbreviations. LessHeard vanU 09:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(struck per below. LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
I am not a party to this discussion, but I'm curious what policy you're citing? There's nothing in NPA about it, and I've been called BB a number of times without incident. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 10:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
WP:CIVIL and WP:HARASS. Fahrenhiet451 has been requested not to use abbreviations of wikipediatrix's username by the editor following instances when she considered he used them in an inappropriately familiar manner which she found to be unsettling. When I warned Fahrenheit451 regarding the harassment I specifically requested he keep his language formal, including using the concerned editors full username. LessHeard vanU 10:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I see. Ironically, your misspelling of his own username runs the risk of turning up the heat. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 11:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh, my typo's are generally to be found in the most inappropriate places... ;~) Sorted, cheers. LessHeard vanU 11:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't really object to being called "WPD", although that may confuse other editors in the course of discussions - I do object to being called "Trixi", I do object to him calling it "badgering" when I ask another editor not to edit-war and to start using talk pages and edit summaries, I do object to his insinuations about my gender, I do object to being accused of being a Scientologist, I do object to being accused of being in the OSA. I'm not interested in going thru any drawn-out mediation rigamarole, I just want Fahrenheit451 to stop saying these things. Am I way off base for expecting that? wikipediatrix 13:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
(I have struck my earlier comment per yours above. I would, however, suggest that in requesting Farenheit451 - and I've just noticed I've been transposing the "ie" - adopt a formal tone in your discussions that he doesn't use abbreviations; both for clarity and to stop precedent.LessHeard vanU 14:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC))
"Way off base"? no. Likely to get it? dubious. he ought to back off, but if he didn't the first time, and he's not the second time, as this section he opened proves, it's unlikely he's going to change soon. that said, I'd like to hear from him again in this section, regarding the discussion that's ongoing. ThuranX 14:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have requested a mediation on an scientology-related article that has had a loong history of hostile edit-warring. WPD is one of the editors of that article. My aim is to get all the editors there in a mediated discussion to work out whatever differences we need to. WPD is welcome to participate and, I think, would benefit by the discussion. I project that a successful mediation on this particular article will improve editor relations for all article of that genre. Now to respond to some of the points above: I really got that WPD dislikes "trixi" and no longer use it. Curiously, another editor has called her "trix" and I saw no protest. I am often refered to as F451 and could care less. In the above thread, LessHeard vanU has called me Farenheit451 and Fahrenhiet451, both of which are mispellings. I am not offended. On this wiki, I have known one editor who represented themself as a male, and another who represented themself as a female. We made telephone contact later and I found that they were the opposite gender of their wiki personas. So, unless I know someone here in real life, I don't believe or disbelieve what they may claim about themselves. That has nothing to do with WP:AGF as malice is not presumed. That is simply healthy skepticism. Assuming my use of he/she is an act of belligerence is not appropriate. Employing a formal tone is a constructive suggestion, but I encourage wikipediatrix (I typed it out) to mediate at this point to clear up basic misunderstandings, even if she views it as "rigamarole". --Fahrenheit451 15:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange conduct by user Jasonstrayer[edit]

User:Jasonstrayer created Prisoner Dilemna Enhanced. User:BURNyA for obvious reasons tagged it db-nonsense, and so I deleted it. His reactions are in User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Deletion Of The Prisoner Dilemma Enhanced : Abuse Of Power, Report To Higher Power etseq. In note the two slightly different user names: both seem to be very new accounts: sockpuppeting? Anthony Appleyard 04:48, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. These accounts are obviously held by the same person, but I doubt the second one was created in an attempt to dupe anyone or abuse multiple accounts. It could be that Strayer lost the password to one of the accounts and had to create a new one. As for the deleted article and repeated pleading, why not just provide the deleted text and tell him to work on it off-wiki? ˉˉanetode╦╩ 08:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As for his request... I would recommend granting it. Restore the page and move it into his user space... then delete it in a few weeks. That should give him plenty of time to get his text saved somewhere else and do whatever it is he wants to do with it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

RMS Titanic[edit]

Resolved: maybe? Thatcher131 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The entire page of RMS Titanic. I believe to PROBABLY be(Im not sure with this history of an article thing, I've only been around as a big funtioning member of Wiki. for 4 months) User:Wildhartlivie. Check it out please. Im not accusing him, yet.Philippe Auguste 05:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I for the life of me can't figure out why nothing is showing up on the page. I've tried restoring the text, but I can't get it to show up. I think it's something in the embedded warning at the beginning. Some help, would be appreciated. AniMate 05:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Fixed it.  east.718 at 05:38, August 31, 2007 

Um... it still isn't showing up. AniMate 05:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Viewing old revisions of the page, it's all blank. I'll look through the templates that transclude onto the page and see if one of those was messed up. WODUP 05:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know how (the diff shows no diff.), but it looks okay now. WODUP 05:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Well done. AniMate 05:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I get the blank page too, it'll show me diffs indicating changes but a blank page all the same. Anynobody 06:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

What the hell? Anyone workout what the problem is? ViridaeTalk 06:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

its the hidden text. i think its gotta go. it useful, but its hurting the article. nattang 06:20, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Never mind...there's not hidden text and its still gone. nattang 06:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's fixed... :-D nattang 06:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't view it, but now I can. Either it's fixed or the problem comes and goes. --Bongwarrior 06:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Gone again... --Bongwarrior 06:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't see it either, so I've removed the resolved banner. AniMate 06:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears to be intermittent. I saw the page normally not ten minutes ago. (I was looking at its logs and wondering why the article looked blank when its most current revision (10:52 PM PST today) showed a change). Could it be a bug with the article? -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)Conflicted four times
The source now shows nothing where the content should be. My version was also fine after a purge, but now it's broken.  east.718 at 06:34, August 31, 2007 
I can frigging see it in its entirety! The frag?! -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Intermittent viewing. I don't have to change anything, just keep hitting the preview button. . .sometimes it shows up, sometimes it doesn't (exact same text each time). R. Baley 06:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC) addendum: same thing happens with version (05:46, 29 August 2007 Morhange) signed again R. Baley 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Main article page is working for me, but some of the recent versions show up as blank and then show up as the full article next time I look at them which is quite bizarre. Of all the pages to have a curse on it. Any tech-wise folks know what's up?--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not using the history tab. I'm looking at the actual article page, and it's still here for me! This has to be a bug. -Jéské (v^_^v Kacheek!) 06:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm seeing it as well. The question is will anyone be able to see the article if someone tries to edit it again. AniMate 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Dropped a line at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Occasional blank page at RMS Titanic. It's not a HTML bug because nothing is being rendered. {{otheruses4}} might be commenting out the entire pages but other pages with this template still work, so it's probably a server bug or something. x42bn6 Talk Mess 07:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • It seems to work with decimal coordinates. Of course, it points to a blank spot in the ocean, so there are no relevant maps or aerial photos making the excercise rather pointless. Thatcher131 12:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Philip(inthe short term I guess) SCREWED UP. I went to far ahead of my and made it sound like I was accussing him. Boy am I an idiot. Oh shame. To User:Wildhartlivie I am very sorry. And take back what I said earlier. I am VERY, very, very, very, sorry. If theres anything I can do to make it up to you, let me know. Sorry.Philippe Auguste 16:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Deleted interwiki[edit]

Unregistered user, User: has deleted the interwiki on five articles, although that interwiki linked to existing articles on Vandalizing edits were this [14], [15], [16], [17] and [18], all on the same day, 28 Aug 2007., in a short period of time, of eight minutes. That gives the idea that he edited Wikipedia for the sole reason of vandalising. Here's a list of his edits Special:Contributions/ Kamarad Walter 07:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems like a run-of-the-mill POV warrior to me. I've reverted him for now, but didn't leave him a warning.  east.718 at 07:28, August 31, 2007 

Admin User:Hu12 accusing me of 'personal attacks against policy'[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Taken to WP:MFD#User:Italiavivi -- Avi 16:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

If an editor is to be accused of "personal attacks," one would think it would be required of them to insult or disparage a person. I would like clarification here -- if I criticize Wikipedia policy, is an administrator within his rights to characterize me as engaging in "personal attacks"? Can I really not use my userpage to criticize policy (or what I perceive to have been the uneven application of policy), as User:Hu12 suggests?

This is not the first time Hu12 has come into conflict with me. Ever since a disagreement over an AfD and the removal of some links, Hu12 has been especially aggressive toward me to he point of biting my head off. He has suggested that I "enjoy conflict," but then follows me around and creates conflicts such as the listed MfD. I honestly question if Hu12 has completely abandoned WP:AGF in his interactions with me, and is trying drive me off the project or something. Italiavivi 14:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

While I don't think that it falls under a "personal attack" per se, I would agree that the text is rather disruptive; to me, at least, it looks like you are using it as a soapbox to attack policy, which, as Hu12 said, is forbidden. Veinor (talk to me) 15:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
If it falls under personal attack per anything, se or otherwise, I invite you to point out how. I must have missed where criticizing policy is userspace is forbidden. Italiavivi 15:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it is forbidden, however the content of your userspace is there at the consent of the community, so the MfD is the valid way to go if someone disagrees strongly with the content. Also there are some other issues raised in the MfD. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I do not believe that user space works that way. Policy-abiding content is allowed to exist in User space regardless of community favor for or against it. Wikipedia articles and policies are certainly crafted through consensus, but the community cannot arbitrarily remove policy-abiding content on a page-by-page basis at a democratic whim. Italiavivi 15:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I am basing that off of WP:USER which says "If the community lets you know that they would rather you delete some content from your user space, you should consider doing so — such content is only permitted with the consent of the community." ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think a personal attack does require a person. Taking a contrary point of view on policy is not in itself a personal attack. I may be missing some small thing, but I don't see it. There are however other issues being brought up in the MfD which may have more basis. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Wait. Attcking policy is against policy? Which policy is that? Corvus cornix 16:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Questioning the policy against attacking policy is also against policy. I'm sorry. In all seriousness, why not handle this at the WP:MfD? There doesn't seem to be anything here requiring admin intervention. MastCell Talk 16:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this is an issue for MfD, not here. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 16:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.


Could someone please explain to Goethean (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) how these contributions: [19][20][21][22][23] to what is otherwise a civil discussion are in violation of AGF, CIV, NPA, and treading into WP:HARASS? He clearly intends to continue to rub the CU thing in my face whenever he sees an opportunity, even though I removed any reference to that web site from my user page a while back. (See last diff, where he drags it out of my user page edit history, after he was encouraged by Gamaliel to be a little more respectful). I would request the deletion of my user page and then recreate it to avoid these incidents, but then he would likely start posting diffs out of the history of my RfA. I no longer wish to associate with that website on-wiki. I have made very few contributions there in the past months, and have committed most of my online time to Wikipedia. I shouldn't have to tolerate these constant cheap shots. - Crockspot 15:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC) - User notified of this incident report. - Crockspot 15:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at AfD[edit]

I've nommed an article, some guy doesn't like it so he keeps doing this- [24][25][26]. Help! Bravedog 17:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't really look like vandalism. It looks more like a bad faith nomination. Maybe you shouldn't nominate the articles of obviously notable people for deletion. --OnoremDil 17:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not a civil user either [27], afding Jimmy Wales is not in good faith and the afd was closed as a rapid keep. Not the first time this user hasd done this. I explained to them that we cant be wasting editors time on an afd on a narticle that wont have a chance of being deleetd, SqueakBox 17:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
AFD was speedy closed.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat[edit]

Resolved: Already blocked. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Diff link - Not merely a "legal threat" but a notice of pending litigation. Please indefinitely block. --Iamunknown 18:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Block of Bouncehoper by Violetriga[edit]

Violetriga (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) just blocked Bouncehoper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) for three minutes because of "edit warring". These two are engaged in a long-standing dispute over the usage of "sophomore" in various articles, and as evident from their contributions, they have both engaged in mass revert warring over this issue (and Violetriga abused her admin rollback tool). Administrators shouldn't block editors with whom they are in dispute. And this block was for three minutes, which makes it look punitive, rather than preventative. Melsaran (talk) 20:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

We discussed and agreed a WikiProject guideline at WP:MUSTARD. Bouncehoper systematically went through my contributions and undid all my edits despite that agreement. The block was a very short one to finally get him to discuss it rather than continuing the edit war and came after numerous messages asking him to stop on his talk page. It worked and we are now trying to discuss it. violet/riga (t) 20:42, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it only worked to scare the crap outta me. Was that the idea?
And as Violetriga has glossed over, I was making an effort to discuss, when she/he came onto my talk page and started getting crazy. I was only reverting their stuff because they were deeming it an "Americanism" and not bothering to link it, which would have been more beneficial than just deleting it and calling it something it's not.
Bouncehoper 20:54, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If he was blindly reverting he should certainly have been blocked briefly if that was the only way to get him to engage in discussion. It might have been a good idea to avoid even the appearance of personal involvement, by bringing the systematic reverts to the attention of other administrators who could discuss and take whatever action was considered necessary in the circumstances. --Tony Sidaway 20:56, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Agreed that

it would probably have been better to have an uninvolved admin to step in, but as it was happening at a fast pace I thought it appropriate to do it myself. violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

They were both blindly reverting across something like 30 articles today, and the same yesterday and last week. (90 or more reverts, but never 4 in one day, of course.) Blocking someone you are edit warring with is forbidden, even just to get their attention. Use of rollback in an edit war over content is forbidden. Edit warring over something as petty as the use of the word "sophomore" to indicate someone's second album shows poor judgement for an administrator. This is really inappropriate behavior for an admin. Thatcher131 20:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you'll find that it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party. A block would be inappropriate if it were lengthy - this wasn't. Using rollback was acceptable, I feel, because my edit would only have served the same function and what he was doing was against our behaviour guideline (wikistalking). violet/riga (t) 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
If as Thatcher131 says you were both reverting one another across multiple articles, well it's probably just a stroke of luck for you that nobody stepped in and blocked you both. That's very disruptive behavior, if Thatcher131 has it right, and saying "it hasn't gotten anywhere near 3RR by either party" is missing the point. If the reverts happened often enough for someone to say "yesterday and last week" then that's too much warring. --Tony Sidaway 03:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I would avoid making generalizations here. 4 reverts in 24 hours is still a razor wire. Additionally, revert warring is also not allowed, true enough. But defining revert warring can only be done case by case. There are plenty of scenarios when Tony's example above ("yesterday and last week") does not constitute revert warring at all. It takes article-writing to be able to judge this reasonably (perhaps a suggestion?). --Irpen 03:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Wikistalking means "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor". Checking someone's contribs for the purpose of mass revert warring because you know that they do edits you disagree with is inappropriate behaviour, but not Wikistalking. As you both were engaged in that same dispute, you shouldn't have blocked him. You should have left the decision to another administrator (and I doubt that a block was justified, by the way). And yes, you didn't go anywhere near 3RR, but mass-reverting each other over tons of articles is disruptive as well. 3RR is not an entitlement, edit warring can still be disruptive when you don't violate it. Melsaran (talk) 21:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
What Bouncehoper did was to follow me around the wiki, edit the same articles as me, with the intent of causing annoyance. He wikistalked. The block was not a punishment but an attempt to stop the edit war that he was creating - if I had blocked for longer then it would be a very different story. violet/riga (t) 21:16, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
It was most likely not with the intent of causing annoyance, but because he was engaged in an editing dispute with you. I do in no way endorse his actions, nor do I endorse yours, but a block isn't the way to handle it. Melsaran (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I can live with the rollback (I freely confess I've used rollback in "content disputes" when others have reverted already and the user's points have been debunked on the talk page: that is, when it's trolling): I can live with the block, too - but edit warring over something so petty? I mean, for that, both users probably should be blocked for 24 hours or so, if only for outstanding silliness - am I serious? Maybe :) Come on, people, this is not save-the-wiki stuff - no one needs to edit war, it can wait a day or so. Moreschi Talk 21:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I hadn't been on for a few days, and decided to check my watchlist today. Suddenly, I get all this stuff from Violetriga. What the crap?

I'm sorry about the reverting action; if it's going to cause such a headache, I just won't bother. But I originally reverted a few days ago, because Violet had not bothered to link anything as discussed.

I think we've finally come to the point that Violet's been hoping for, in that, I honestly don't give a sh*t anymore about the stupid word. This all started with trying to prove a point about the use of it, and Violet's taken much further than I had ever imagined. Screw the word; I've got more important things in my life to worry about than what someone is doing to things I've edited on Wiki.
If you feel the need to block us, whatever. I'll pop off for a day, come back, and probably have forgotten. Just as long as Violet doesn't harass me anymore, I'm fine. I'm sick of this crap, and I want. it. done.
(and lol, y'all, I'm a chick.)
Bouncehoper 21:51, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Rare, noble woman! Thou hast gained a sense of proportion, and art all the better for it. Perhaps we can all disengage - forgive and forget? Moreschi Talk 21:57, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry that you feel bad about all of this, though I can't understand the claims of harrassment. I believe it all stems from a misunderstanding of what we agreed as, to me, it clearly states that we should avoid the word where possible. As explained my edits were going along with that and I haven't touched the ones that are already linked. If you think we need a better wording then we should discuss it at WP:MUSTARD. violet/riga (t) 22:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I see in the current MOS(?) it says "...should be avoided where possible and linked to its definition at wiktionary:sophomore when used." I see that compromise as kind of "leave it where it is, and avoid using it further." At least, so far as editors are aware of this guideline. It seems to me the least change necessary would be to link instances where's it's currently in use (and unlinked), not remove them. In fact, I'm honestly not sure why it would go the other way. I'm quite confused here. --InkSplotch 22:17, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
MOS says a lot of silly things; this is one of them. Where? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:20, 29 August 2007 (UTC)It's from WP:MUSTARD. For other hasty readers, this is strictly the use for albums. It's jargon, and it may be worth removing it as jargon, but revert-warring in a class of articles where many readers will understand it? Why? Septentrionalis PMAnderson 14:28, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
The use of the word has been much discussed with many people saying that we shouldn't use it. The current wording is a compromise and says that we should avoid it where possible. The articles I edited benefited from the change and, since "sophomore" wasn't linked in any of them it was appropriate to change it per this compromise. violet/riga (t) 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC
But it wasn't many people. It was just a few, and mostly everyone saw we were going at it, and just wanted it done. 'Sophomore' wouldn't have been linked in any of them because none of the original uses of the word were linked. Of course there would be no link if that decision had just been made. It was going to take awhile to link them anyways. You can't just say that there's no link, when beforehand there was no need of it.
Bouncehoper 16:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Violetriga was correct to remove these instances of the word "sophomore." In fact, I believe that it's illogical to grandfather the linked instances, and that they (excepting any direct quotes) should be removed too. It makes far more sense to simply use the word "second" than to use a word requiring a dictionary link for many readers to understand.
I also believe, however, that Violetriga's use of the administrative rollback function and three-minute block of Bouncehoper were extremely inappropriate. —David Levy 23:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've no opinion on the content dispute itself (and plan to militantly remain that way). My confusion just stemmed from previous experience seeing style conflicts float over to AN/I. Compromise can be hard to come by, and when some elements are left "in-between" like that it's usually seemed to me to be less contentious to grandfather them in versus deleting things. Just an impression, for which I have no real facts. I'll just say it's obvious both sides are passionate about the project, which is great, but nothing is so urgent about this dispute that everyone can't step back and flesh out the compromise y'all worked so hard for in the first place. --InkSplotch 02:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Violetriga's block (de minimis or otherwise) while engaged in a dispute with the blocked user was not appropriate. Please don't do anything like this again. Newyorkbrad 03:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in my typical position of agreeing with Newyorkbrad. I don't care what the justification, blocking a user with whom you are engaged in a content dispute is inappropriate. - Philippe | Talk 03:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure you can even call it a content dispute. It would be natural for anyone to have the some position on the matter as Violetriga, and still come to the conclusion of blocking the user. How many times has a blocking admin agreed with "the other side" when they blocked someone, but just didn't say anything about it? Does it make it any better then?
Lets say this, a user thinks that all articles should have the first word in the article in red print, and starts to do this to tons of articles, and doesn't stop when asked to. Could you not say that it is a content dispute with those that don't think the first word should be in red print? The nature of this dispute is being ignored in this thread. -- Ned Scott 03:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I see a user being disruptive and being blocked for three minutes. Maybe if the situation wasn't obvious, I could understand Violetriga stepping back and letting someone else handle it, but this is painfully straight forward, dispute or no dispute. -- Ned Scott 03:15, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

A narrow comment: 3 minute blocks are never unacceptable and contradict WP:BLOCK blatantly, WP:BLOCK#Recording in the block log. If a user is a habitual stalker and an edit-warrior he may have to be blocked all right but what happened serves exactly no purpose and causes aggravation. --Irpen 03:38, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, point taken, but for the sake of good faith, I'll assume it's more of a cool-down block than one just to write in the block log. I still stand by my other point (above), but ignoring all that, yeah, the block on its own wasn't the best idea to deescalate the situation. -- Ned Scott 03:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
And for what it's worth, I agree with Ned Scott that the nature of the dispute is relevant, but I'd still classify this one as an editing dispute in which the block should have been done by another admin or not at all. Still, probably enough said here, with the hope this won't recur. Newyorkbrad 04:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Nobody else mentioned it, but X marks the spot in policy: Wikipedia:Blocking policy#When blocking may not be used. Reverts, blocking for minutes, all that's not to the point, because you just don't do it as its against the rules. Easy to understand, hard to do. No excuses. Kind of hard to be fair if you're judge, jury, executioner and prosecuter all in one. You're all very civil, by the way, for not using the word s********c once, against anybody. Shows lots of restraint. TryCoolCareful 04:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

...what word?????? Bouncehoper 21:59, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Stop[edit]

I peeked at this again to see if things had calmed down before it rolled off the page. Peeking at vilotriga and Bouncehoper's contributions I see that not only has no further discussion occurred, it's started right back up again. Since their last posts here, Bouncehoper's up to around 4 or 5 "second->[[wiktionary:sophomore|sophomore]]" changes, and violetriga is up to twice that in "sophomore->second" changes, including reverts of Bouncehoper in a few cases. So, no one seems to be stalking anyone now, but you're still going off at cross purposes over something terribly insignificant. Can we please reach a compromise here before full scale edit waring starts or (mis)use of admin powers takes place again? Please? --InkSplotch 20:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This was posted to my talk page, possibly by somebody who thought I was an admin (should I be? didn't think I was ripe yet)[edit]

External Links on M.U.L.E. page violates Software Copyrights[edit]

This is complain for Wikipage on M.U.L.E. [[28]]

BLACKBEARD27K is linking to his personal Website. M.U.L.E. Software Download When that was deleted by the Admins, he is now (indirectly) linking to it via another personal Website.

(1) BLACKBEARD27K is offering, on the above Website, for download a pirated / modified / hacked version of the game M.U.L.E. without the permission of the original authors or publishers ATARI. This is a serious violation of copyright material.

(2) It is in violation of WP:EL as it is SPAM and he is trying to propagate his own web-site Forum here.

(3) Wikipedia is NOT a collection of links.

(4) Also, using common sense, no one should download any executable software from a very unreliable source (as above). Such software may contain trojans and keyloggers which steal your personal information (including Credit Card Nos & passwords)

This individual persists in reverting the deletions. I have deleted the offending link.

Hungrywolf 11:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

--Orange Mike 12:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Strange. The direct link was added in December 2005. It was removed a week ago. The link happens to appear within an article discussing the game, and Hungrywolf has already decided that it must be BLACKBEARD27K's site? Also...I think both might be over 3RR by now. --OnoremDil 13:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the same two editors have been warring at the Field Commander page also. --OnoremDil 13:16, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we should be overly concerned. Enforcing copyright law is not our job, it is the job of the copyright holder. There's nothing illegal about linking to a page that links to a page where you can download something illicit. I'm not saying we should go overboard and link to full versions on TouTube for all movies and BitTorrent links to full downloads for all software, but I don't see this issue being so important that it needs to be brought to WP:ANI. --Cyde Weys 13:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

By policy, we generally don't knowingly link to websites that violate copyrights. A site to illegally download a game would seem to be rather off limits, although I agree that it could probably be resolved without coming here. --B 22:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Our external links policy mentions about what to do about links with copyright offending materials, such as mp3's and video clips. But, it is a good idea to just avoid linking to pages which their only purpose is to download illicit goods. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Before anyone jumps into this, I have to say there's a history here. These two have been sniping at each other for weeks (they're bringing an outside feud onto Wiki). It has to do with an outside forum. The Evil Spartan 06:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I do previously know of the other editor from the field commander forum from his posts there, but never had any feud with him. He is falsely accusing me of being someone else.Blackbeard2k7 02:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen M.U.L.E. as abandonware. Are you sure Atari is the original publisher? SWATJester Denny Crane. 04:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually i had blocked and unblocked them both yesterday after asking hungrywolf to not add links to forums especially that he acknowledges that Field Commander is a "dear subject to him". In parallel, i asked Blackbeard to not post the link to the allegedly malicious software at M.U.L.E.

Today, an established user who has been among us since 2003 User:Darkwind commented at MULE talkpage that the burden of proof lies on Hungrywolf (to prove the software is malicious). Well, i would agree w/ Darkwind though i'd be more cautious and would personally avoid such guidance. But anyway, what is clear is that Hungrywolf followed Darkbeard from FC to MULE. They were edit warring about other stuff at FC (a link to a forum dear to Hungrywolf). This user first claimed that the MULE external link is a fan site and now he says it is malicious. Fair enough. I clearly see that it is just trolling. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The user Hungrywolf has been following me around and reverting my edits, without any regard for anyone elses opinions. I'm sorry for edit warring with him, but it has gotten out of hand now, and he is Cyberstalking me, claiming to other users on Wiki that he has my address and phone # and knows where I work, etc, etc. and offering to exchange this information with them. I would like to point out a few things here: 1. I did not add the direct link to the atari mule web site. 2. the direct web site contains abandonware and freeware, and does not violate any copyrights whatsoever, nor is the software malicious in any way. It is a zip file containing an emulator with kaillera client built in, and the rom and disk image for mule, with some batch files that automatically configure the emulator to play online. One doesn't need to own the wbe site to be able to discover these facts. 3. I linked an article by a reputable source (which I posted my proof of) which describes the ability to play the game online, which coincidentally is only available at that web site and so yes, the article does have a link to the web site. Ultimately it was agreed that even the link to the article should not be added explicitly, but rather as a comment and a reference. I respect everyones opinions and so I added it as a comment with a reference. However, as you acn see, Hungrywolf has recently removed my valid reference and replaced it with an invalid one. The actual source of the abandonware files is gamespy, but the article on gamespy does not indicate how the game can be played online. In addition, the user Hungrywolf has been warned about editing peoples talk pages before and removing peoples comments from discussion pages, but if you look at my talk page, you will see he recently reverted my own edits to my own talk page, with personal attacks in the edit summaries. Additionally (yes theres more), the user Hungrywolf has in fact violated 3RR on Field Commander, without being reprimanded. I don't believe the block should have been lifted on him. He probably now believes he can get away with whatever he wants. Does any of this change your opinions?Blackbeard2k7 22:14, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

problematic user; constant violation of NPOV[edit]

MoritzB (talk · contribs) has a long history of blatant POV-pushing and racist motivations. Please refer to his user talk page to get a good picture of how problematic he truly is, as is noted by so many other editors.[29] The latest offense comes from from the article on Dysgenics where he totally blanks out criticism pertaining to the alleged racist views of a particular researcher.[30]. The person edits almost entirely on race-based articles and virtually every edit is in support of a view that supports racism, where he definitely tries to push and give undue weight. Here he initiates an edit where, leading to a page block because he insisted on imposing the racist views of a Michael Levin into an article about "Afrocentrism" when the views were in no way relevant a it was not a critique of afrocentrism, not to mention that it is a fringe theory and discredited view.[31] He even defends this racist view and openly states his agreement with it, while literally fibbing and presenting the views as "mainstream", which is ridiculous.[32] On the article Race and Intelligence, the user again initiates an edit war which lead to a page block where he again, gives a fringe view from a noted racialist scientist undue weight[33], and to avoid 3rr, he was suspected as further reinforcing his view by using sock/meat puppets, which was even noted by the admin.[34]. Here, he is actually defending a blocked editor who was recently blocked for making egregious racist comments, and even justifies these comments.[35] I filed a case a while back in concern to wikistalking and pestering with tis type of racialist behavior, and personal attacks with racist overtones.[36], but I retracted it in hopes that he'd improve. As another example of what I consider undeniable pov-pushing on wikipedia, on the same page he pushes a fringe view from 1939 from another racialist scientist who is widely discredited [37], and another fringe theory which has been widely discredit by mainstream research and is on par with Alien visitation.[38]. As a part of wikistalk case a while back, he followed me to this article, merely to revert anything that I did and impose some new picture in the article with the person it was about being represented as a European-looking individual, when before hand he was represented on the page as African.[39]. He had no stake in this other than to promote his racial views imo since all of his edits were racially motivated. Here, he literally harasses User:Ramdrake merely because Ramdrake filed a case on him for sock/meat puppet.(his case), the cases he filed against Ramdrake in response (even though it was confirmed, it was out of spite and the admins made nothing of it really)[40][41] [42].

That is wiki bullying and trying to impose desired results, sneakily using every tool at his disposal to scrutinize an editor who was merely protecting against his constant and relentless pov violations. Most of what he tries to submit is very culturally sensitive stuff and offensive to many people, and I hardly ever see that type of info displayed in such a manner in any mainstream encyclopedias, so it is clear that what he's doing is in direct violation of wiki policy. I'm not sure what I'd like done, but by all means, one way or another, this needs to stop permanently, and this goes to all users who commit similar crimes.Taharqa 19:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

While the views aren't as blatantly racist as those of another recently indef-blocked editor (mostly because they are inserted using and espousing outdated but published views), there has been a very visible record of tendentious editing and POV/edit-warring which has proven disruptive on a number of articles (I can name: Race and intelligence, St. Maurice, White people, European people, Afrocentrism, Race, and I'm sure I'm forgetting a few still). This kind of behavior should deserve admin scrutiny, if it hasn't already attracted it.--Ramdrake 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Note that MoritzB has decided to switch his focus. Bye-bye edit wars on race-related articles but hello edit wars on homosexuality and pedophilia related articles. Technically, no 3RR or gross incivility and I don't think blocking him would do much good. Still, he's creating unnecessary tension and probably wasting a lot of time for the group of patient editors who are trying to explain WP:FRINGE to him. On the long term though, we can't have him start edit wars all over the place. It was on Michael Jackson a few weeks ago, on the race-related articles three days ago and now this. His defense after a recent block for edit warring was "I have been very careful not to violate the 3RR". Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
MoritzB is also canvassing regarding that issue [43] [44] [45]. I believe a block would be appropriate. Pascal.Tesson 03:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
As would I. Moritz has not made editing on race-related articles any easier - quite the opposite. But branching out into tendentious editing on pedophilia-related articles pretty much proves he's trolling us. Edit warring, incivility, canvassing - definitely needs a block. Picaroon (t) 03:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that a community block should be considered in this case. This user's POV pushing has quickly become a major disruption to numerous articles. --Strothra 04:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment. These criticisms are totally without merit. This attempt to ostracize an editor with unpopular political views is against everything a free encyclopedia should stand for. The recent article about dysgenics is a good example. I corrected a factual error and made a post to the talk page about it. [46] However, Taharqa and her friend reverted my edit without any good reason and now the article is again in a logical contradiction with the reference. [47] In other cases Taharqa simply misrepresents my opinions.MoritzB 04:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: "Totally without merit"? I think not. It is totally disruptive. This type of editing and talk page discussions is a pain by attempting to illustate a point by constant cherry picking and pushing certain POVs, WP:SYN, and a very obvious bigotry slant. This is not stormfront. Since his "buddy" editors, that were in his camp have been blocked, he's moved on to other controversial articles doing the same thing. This is very disruptive to Wikipedia, as Wikipedia is not a soap box as this editor seems to do often. It is very frustrating and time consuming dealing with this behavior. - Jeeny Talk 04:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it's pretty clear that your contributions are motivated by these unpopular political views, we do have a problem. Wikipedia is not a battleground, nor is it a soapbox: you just can't go around firing up every talk page you can find. Pascal.Tesson 04:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Not really. I am a conservative but it is obvious that even many Communists would endorse the edits I made. Friedrich Engels shared my views of homosexuality, Andrzej Wiercinski and other Polish and Soviet physical anthropologists agreed with my views of race which is perfectly mainstream. Even many left-wingers would say that it is reasonable that Michael Jackson's mugshot is included to the article.
Besides, the suggestion that I am from Stormfront is a terrible personal insult as I have indicated my philo-Semitism on numerous occasions.
MoritzB 04:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
But the article isn't about your personal viewpoints on homosexuality. And, while you may want to feel included by putting your viewpoints in the article, this is a general encyclopedia, not necessarily a place to network for like-minded folks. There are plenty of places all over the net where you, with your viewpoints, could be made to feel like a welcome part of a group. Please seek one of these communities out and enjoy yourself. KP Botany 05:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please look at my edit.
I made it in good faith and quoted a 2004 peer-reviewed scientific study. No original research or personal opinions.
MoritzB 05:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I did look at your edit. I'm also familiar with the study and subsequent research, and the researchers involved, and the journal, and other journals which published related research, including a 2006 article about this very article. I could, myself, appropriately use that article and subsequent research in various articles on Wikipedia. However, unlike you, I don't have a political agenda for Wikipedia articles, and, again, unlike you, I'm not particularly interested in the article on Homosexuality, certainly not interested enough in it and that one jounral publication and my own political agenda to connect dots in ways they don't connect, then use endless time trying to continue forcing it on folks. You've admitted your political agenda trumps acurate and neutral information. I believe you. KP Botany 05:18, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I don't have a political agenda here. However, some left-wing editors have inferred that I am a conservative and try to block me because they disagree with my opinions.
However, as I have pointed out before even many Communists could agree with my edits.
When I am constructing a new section I do so in steps adding information about scientific studies as soon as I find them. It is not helpful when others are deleting information instead of adding it. And if you note an editor immediately expressed support to my edits in the other article in question [48] and now reverted the article back to my version. [49] MoritzB 05:47, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, your comments lack credibility interlaced with all of your notations about your political viewpoints. If you want to deny you have a political agenda, you simply have to leave your political agenda out of conversations. As long as you fail to do this, people will see you for what you give them to see: your political agenda. KP Botany 03:03, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Engels' views of homosexuality are completely irrelevant. This thread is not about whether or not you are correct in believing that there's a causality between homosexuality and pedophilia. It's about whether you have read and understood WP:NOT, WP:NPOV, WP:FRINGE which have been cited to you time and again. Pretty much all of your edits on Wikipedia have lead to edit wars and your reaction is always that this is due to left-wingers' censorship. Perhaps it's time to consider the possibility that you're doing something wrong. I'm trying hard to assume you are indeed acting in good faith when you create an article like Negro problem or when you defend Fourdee or when you decide to switch to a new controversial topic once you've exhausted everyone's patience on one talk page or when you decide that [50] this is a really important thing to mention about Elbaite. But Picaroon's explanation that you're just having fun creating problems is more and more convincing. Either way, I don't think your presence on the project makes much sense. Pascal.Tesson 06:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah. I've just stumbled across this, having been working over on WP:RPP. The pedophilia article has now been fully protected due to edit-warring per request. Also, MoritzB and others have been final-warned for WP:3RR on the homosexuality and pedophilia articles - Alison 06:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
What exactly was the problem with the article about Negro Problem which was inter alia about the famous book of W. E. B. DuBois named the Negro problem and Gunnar Myrdal's book. Just a Google search is enough to establish the notability of the phrase. There is also an article about the Jewish Question which was a Nazi concept. The article should be restored. MoritzB 06:39, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The problem was this version which begins with The phrase 'Negro problem' has been used to refer to the problems caused by the presence of blacks in the New World, especially in the United States (which in essence establishes the fact that the presence of blacks is a problem) then follows up with a lenghty quote about the disastrous consequences of miscegenation. It also happens to be a fork of African American history and Race in the United States. Pascal.Tesson 06:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Then please make the appropriate changes. Do not delete an article which clearly satisfies WP:NOTE Also, I put there a longer quote about the desirability of miscegenation. It was a historical concept and historical views are also relevant. I also included the Marxist perspective. See:
MoritzB 07:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
No, I'm not going to "fix" a content fork. Pascal.Tesson 07:35, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


I am not sure where to go at this point to resolve the issues I am having with Hungrywolf (talk · contribs). The user has been making false accusations against me, reverting my edits, and ignoring all discussion and third opinions. This is going on for over a week already. He has gone so far as to revert edits I've made on my own talk page, now making personal attacks "Let everyone see what u are". I need some serious administrative intervention here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbeard2k7 (talkcontribs)

Blocked for 72h because of edit warring at your talkpage especially that he was blocked before and that he has got many other warnings from admins. You are also blocked for 48h because you just came from a 24 block edit warring yesterday. You were both edit warring at M.U.L.E. today as well. Do not edit war whatever is the case. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 06:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
The issue is not resolved. You lifted your 72h block against Hungrywolf, and he immediately continued to revert my edits, make false accusations against me, and is now Cyberstalking me, petitioning on other users talk pages claiming to have and offer personal information about me. I would not consider this resolved until the user is re-blocked for his obvious disruptive and uncivil behavior.Blackbeard2k7 16:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I left him a clear message at M.U.L.E talk page. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 21:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)



An extra eye on this article would be nice. I had to go back around 30 revisions just to bring this page back to the disambig page that it was. Semi-protection, if for a little while, might also serve to improve the situation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 08:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeesh. How did all that slip through? Agreed on the semiprotection, so, done. Neil  09:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I was just as surprised. It had been mutilated into a whole mess of an article with images and a section noting the "creators" of the page. Thanks for the SP. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 09:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Ugh! Same with the article red hair, which is a constant target of vandalism. I'm mystified as to why, though - Alison 12:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, you'd think Blonde would attract more vandalism. hbdragon88 20:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

IP Vandalism on this page[edit]

We have had a series of problems with an unknown editor which is using various IP's (usually in the 6's, though the last edit was in the 7 range) adding the following to the Talk:Miley Cyrus page (which is already protected)...

"I bet every inch of Miley Cyrus tastes like candy"

Is it possible the user is operating as a sockpuppet master? WAVY 10 12:37, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Revert, block, ignore... rinse and repeat as necessary. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 12:41, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Not that important, but I seem to remember that form of words " candy" coming up at a previous noticeboard. Sockpuppetry or returning vandal, I concur with WRE. LessHeard vanU 12:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've got you now. The only reason I brought it up here was that this was continuous vandalism. WAVY 10 13:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
EVula has blocked the address. They requested an unblock. Want to guess what the unblock reason was? LessHeard vanU 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
See comment in quotes for my guess. WAVY 10 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
You win a stick of candy. LessHeard vanU 14:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Another "fan" of Miley Cyrus has appeared. - (talk · contribs · WHOIS).
I'm assuming we don't need to issue any warnings before blocking as an obvious sock. --OnoremDil 20:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Nope. Block on sight. That's the only way to lick 'em! LessHeard vanU 23:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Someone's going to have to explain this whole Miley Cyrus obsession thing to me one day. Meanwhile, a quick Google search turns up the following:
Note the lack of contributions, etc. Might as well blow them up now. --Calton | Talk 00:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's see...two of the three are presumably Miley imposters. Definitely take those two (Cinder Maiden and Hannahmontana12) on. WAVY 10 01:22, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Dole Sart (talk · contribs) and Sole dart (talk · contribs)[edit]

It's a little too early, and I'm not thinking clearly enough to figure out exactly what's going on here...or if any Admin interaction is even necessary.
I noticed a strange undo while recent change patrolling. A couple of names seemed very similar.
Sole dart (talk · contribs) was created in June. Dole Sart (talk · contribs) was created in August.
Both seem to be SPA's related to Northwich Victoria F.C.. It appears most of their edit histories have been reverting each other, or each other's IP's, for the last month.
CVNF (talk · contribs), Ram4eva (talk · contribs), and Eir Witt (talk · contribs) may also be involved according to the sockpuppet tags being placed. --OnoremDil 12:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Dole and Sole are socks of Eir Witt, I'd wager. CVNF and ram4Eva look like editors Eir Witt decided to go after. ThuranX 13:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I am Dole Sart, a name deliberately like Sole Dart to draw attention to it. The pages I edit were evidently created by Eir Witt's puppets. As blocking him has no effect, I decided to irritate him. Admittedly the Northwich vics page has nothing wrong with it, but I don't see why a sock puppet should have pages for his convenience. The VICS page is incorrect as VICS is not an abbreviation of Northwich Victoria FC.

I am actually a regular editor who returned to Wikipedia earlier this year, having had a break sick of comments left on my page. Having seen how ram4Eva was treated I decided to keep an eye on the Northwich Victoria, Witton Albion, Jon McCarthy etc pages. By his own admission the vandal attacks other pages(see User:Tricky Victoria). Not wanting to suffer vandalism to my 'real' account, I created this account to protect myself. As you can see I do not edit elsewhere with it. He seems to think I am ram4Eva, maybe anybody who stands up to him gets called ram4Eva's sock puppet. Feel free to block this account and Sole Dart, but blocking him has no effect so the pages ought to be protected. My account has now achieved its aim. Dole Sart 15:32, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • "Irritation" is a form of harassment, and creating a secondary account for the sole purpose of irritating another user qualifies this account as an abusive sockpuppet. By Dole Sart's own admission, his account should be blocked indef. - Crockspot 20:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Right. And Dole Sart's edits are mostly accusing Sole Dart of being a sock puppet, including redirecting actual pages to Sock puppet (note, not Wikipedia:sock puppet, the actual article sock puppet). Dole Sart blocked indefinitely. Looking through Sole Dart's edits to find if they're worthwhile, but it's hard, since they really are mostly reverts of Dole Sart's edits. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Wow. That really is all that they did, revert each other. For days and days. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 21:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that was a waste of time. It's obvious he's an abusive sock puppet but he lives to vandalise another day. If wikipedia isn't able to protect itself against the likes of him, can you blame folk for creating additional accounts for reverting pages edited by abusive puppets. It's simple, create enough identies from different IPs and trash what ever you feel like. 23:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Once again, RJ CG (talk · contribs)[edit]

Could someone please explain once again to RJ CG whether it is appropriate to use edit summaries such as "I feel for fragile state of your brain, but either explain your reverts or seek professional help. WP isn't shrink office." [51] or comments like "sickness of your nightmares and is more of your problem" [52]? Sander Säde 15:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked for edit warring. Pascal.Tesson 02:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated Vandalism and page blanking[edit]

By IP]. Please block IP from further vandalism and account creation. See here Thanks Taprobanus 17:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

*COUGH* HalfShadow 17:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
blocked by another admin for one month.Rlevse 00:58, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT edits disrupting AfD[edit]

Burgas00 has twice edited this entry ([53],[54]) to make some sort of WP:POINT, which thus far has mislead at least one editor on the AfD. Considering his block log and history of disruption, I'm not quite sure of how to get him to stop this behaviour, much less of how to make him appreciate why it is wrong. Perhaps someone has an idea? TewfikTalk 18:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Come now, Tewfik, he's trying to edit the article to make it more accurately and honestly reflect its subject matter. Feel free to note at the AfD debate that the original nominated version didn't say this - put an addendum to my nomination of you like. But don't label everything that makes you mad as WP:POINT (the most worthless and overused epithet on the site after WP:SOAPBOX). Eleland 18:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Please read WP:POINT and WP:AGF - he's changing the text of the article under discussion at AfD to create a massive NPOV violation that will mislead editors, and thus get them to agree with his argument. TewfikTalk 18:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I've left a message on his talk page requesting that he refrain from editing the article any further until the AfD closes. In general, making highly controversial edits to an article under active discussion at AfD is a bad idea - there's no deadline, so if it's kept he can argue about it then. If he persists in editing the article, I think a block (until the AfD closes, at least) is appropriate. MastCell Talk 22:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


Could someone talk to about User:Pixelface [55]? I may be over reacting, but I think it's pretty out of line. Pete.Hurd 18:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I'd like to also point out that I've had civility and edit-warring issues with Pixelface on Reality film, where WJBScribe was needed to be called in as a mediator. --David Shankbone 18:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Well, that makes me feel a bit better actually. Part of my concern was the nagging suspicion that the verbal abuse was at least partly to do with the fact that the topic was related to LGBT studies. Pete.Hurd 18:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Takes two to edit war. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I assure you, Pete, that's way the f*** over the line. --Orange Mike 20:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    • The user's comment may be a bit unpleasant to the eyes, but it does seem to be just dry humor against the article up for deletion. I don't see anything really administrator-attention worthy unless he starts directing this language at other editors.. Cowman109Talk 20:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
      • I see no reason to suspend WP:CIV just because the topic of discussion contains a "naughty word". This is a term that I've documented being used in peer reviewed academic papers, and I see no reason why the notability of the topic cannot be discussed in a civil manner. Just because the topic broaches adult topics, that's no excuse to act like a bunch of juviniles, in fact quite the opposite. User:Pixelface's comments made liberal and gratuitous use of obscenity to dismiss a topic he seemed incapable of addressing on substantive grounds. Notwithstanding his [reply] to me on my talk page, I see absolutely nothing in this language which contributes to the project, or the environment in which it is constructed. In fact, his reply to me makes it quite clear that he thinks I have some sort of problem for defending the article. I don't see any debating here, I see insults. Pete.Hurd 20:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I LOL'd android79 21:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Hmmm, ok, maybe I'm over-reacting, umpteen !votes for deletion because the topic contains an obscenity, or offends the christian sensibilities of various editors, and I overlooked the fact that this one was supposed to be a joke. I forgot: wikipedia 10% encyclopedia, 90% children's playground. Pete.Hurd 21:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    For very small values of umpteen, anyway. android79 21:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    *laugh*, you are correct ;) Pete.Hurd 21:44, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
    Yeah, I found it funny. I'm not alone, but not everyone shares that sense of humor. Cool Hand Luke 21:43, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I believe everone understands the concern, however it doesn't appear to be malevolent. I too got a chuckle. I would focus on the constructive comments they are the ones that matter. --Hu12 21:45, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
And just in case anyone thinks it gets even funnier the third (or whatever) time the joke gets told, please by all means read on for Pixelface's totally sarcastic insulting "apology" [56]. Maybe it's time to work on an encyclopedia kids. Pete.Hurd 21:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Pixelface's last comment was certainly an over-the-top eye-rollin' screed, but Kolindigo's response was perfect. Let's all move on now. — Scientizzle 22:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of {{TotallyDisputed}} tag & attendant edit-war[edit]

For two days now an edit war has been waged over inclusion of a "neutrality & factual accuracy dispute" tag at Battle of Jenin; a group of "pro-Israeli" editors is saying... well, actually I'm not sure how they're justifying the removal. Anyway there's an ongoing dispute, and as WP:NPOV says, "Sometimes people have edit wars over the NPOV dispute tag, or have an extended debate about whether there is a NPOV dispute or not. In general, if you find yourself having an ongoing dispute about whether a dispute exists, there's a good chance one does, and you should therefore leave the NPOV tag up until there is a consensus that it should be removed."

I won't re-capitulate what has been an extensive and exhausting debate since at least early July, but suffice it to say that it's very, very clear that... the neutrality and factual accuracy of the article is disputed. In addition, at least one of the people removing the tag has had no involvement going back as far as March 2006; he simply showed up on 30 August and started removing the tag.

Since my postings on the talk page are having no effect, I would like an administrator to make clear that maintenance tags are not removed without consensus or something near it, and that continually removing tags will result in sanction. Eleland 00:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

see WP:RFPP Rlevse 01:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Repeated deletions of page[edit]

Protection is requested for the article: "Please Delete This Page". Editors have continuously deleted the article without regard for its noteworthy information. For unknown reasons an almost identicle article "Please Do Not Delete This Page" has remained unscathed. 00:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

We don't appear to have, or ever had, either of those pages. --Haemo 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Which is actually a quite beautiful example of irony. HalfShadow 02:30, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA: comments in the Question for the candidate section[edit]

Is it considered ok to comment in the questions for the candidate section on an answer the cadidate has given, without asking any further question? I moved the comment to the talk page and notified the other user, but was reverted. I'm not going to re-revert, but would welcome additional input. —AldeBaer 01:35, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with your change and disagree with the revert. I would suggest moving it to the "Discussion" section just above the "Support" section, and note it's a reply to QX. However, ditto the request for further input to ascertain consensus before re-reverting. Daniel 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, there's no really clear protocol, but that's not usually done. If a user doesn't like an answer, they can put it in their "oppose" reason is "discussion". I'd let the admin candidate cover it, though. --Haemo 01:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Ok, thank you both. —AldeBaer 01:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Incivil User[edit]

Resolved (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked before, and is currently blocked for 72 hours. However, these two edits to his talk page (1 and 2) are highly racist and uncivilized. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 03:09, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I protected the talk page so he and other unregistered or new users can't edit it for 24 hours. That should put him on hold for at least a little while. DarthGriz98 03:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that resolves it. New England Review Me!/Go Red Sox! 03:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Quadell, User:Jim62sch, User:KillerChihuahua, etc.[edit]

Greetings. I've run into some drama, and I'm looking for outside opinions and possibly assistance from other administrators. I've been an admin since 2004, and I'm frequently involved in the contentious area of image deletion debates. (I try to keep a cool head, but I'm not perfect.) I ran into what appeared to me to be incivility from User:Jim62sch, some of which was directed towards me. I left a note on his userpage,[57] asking him to be civil and refrain from personal attacks. I was under the false impression that Jim62sch was a new user -- he's actually been around for years -- and I left him the {{uw-npa2}} template. This was a mistake (don't template the regulars and all that), and he wasn't happy with the note, saying it "borders on admin abuse". User:Bishonen and User:KillerChihuahua (both administrators) asked me about this on my talk page, asking what I had seen as incivility on Jim62sch's part and looking for further clarification. I've answered them to the best of my ability, but there still seems to be quite a bit of bad blood stirred up. The unfolding saga is primarily at user talk:Quadell/Archive 34#NPA template. I'd like to invite comments on my behavior, as well as that of other administrators, to see what could have been done better, and what should be done from here. Thanks, – Quadell (talk) (random) 19:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing I really identify as tipping toward a personal attack may be this comment he made here. The only error in judgment I see on your part was placing the Npa template (but I do understand it can be accidental). Probably wasn't the best way to help the situation. I don't see much evidence of admin abuse or oversensitivity either but it would have been more constructive to leave a polite response to the "harsh" criticism rather than slapping an Npa. I believe you haven't done anything drastically incorrect though.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Comment: Perhaps you should also consider that although several people asked, Quadell declined to explain what he was talking about until today. No one knew what he was objecting to. When asked, he said "no one is going to dig up evidence" among other dismissive comments. I consider that at least as problematical as the template, and almost certainly more so. If I tell someone they've made a personal attack and they, and multiple others, ask "where? diff?" I promptly supply a diff and explanation. I don't understand not doing so. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I think that Quadell's is a legitimate concern. Some people want diffs to support any statement, and others think that a collection of diffs qualifies as "wikistalking" or "collecting evidence", and the malign those who collect such diffs. It is kind of a lose-lose situation. --Iamunknown 20:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Except that Jim asked for a diff. Quadell wouldn't give him one. KillerChihuahua?!? 20:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that it's inexcusable not to see this as a genuine request for information. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Did I say Quadell was right or wrong in this instance? No. I mentioned that his is a legitimate concern, identified a (imo) common contradiction, and noted that it creates a "lose-lose situation". You don't have to convince me, because I am commenting neither in favour or against anything... --Iamunknown 20:47, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Ah, point taken, my error. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure what further action is required at this point on Quadell's part. Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided. As I said on Quadell's talk page, it's turned into shrubbery-demanding at this point to keep pushing the issue. Videmus Omnia Talk 21:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
"Diffs, links, and explanations have all been provided." -- not by Quadell. Are we reading the same page? •Jim62sch• 21:14, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, he gave an explanation here. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Jim makes this edit, invoking Godwin's Law besides other niceties, and has the cheek of asking in the same breath where he was uncivil? And Quadell responds with this perfect sample of civility and self-restraint. I couldn't have blamed him if he had just dropped the conversation altogether at that point. Fut.Perf. 20:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
No, he asked where he'd made a personal attack meriting a template with a block warning. There is a difference. KillerChihuahua?!? 21:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Puppy, I don't like warning templates used on non-newbies, but Quadell expressed regret for that part of it, so I think that aspect of it ought to have been dropped immediately. It wasn't an egregious offence, anyway, just a little patronising. And Jim himself, as I pointed out on Quadell's page, left this "Welcome to Wikipedia" warning for Jimbo when he was annoyed with him (I know you said it was a joke, but there's a difference between a friendly little joke between people who are on good terms, and something like that which seemed deliberately inflammatory), and more recently, Jim left a template warning for Abu badali, with whom he was annoyed. So I think too much entirely has been made of the fact that Quadell left a template warning. It has to be the case either that Jim doesn't think there's a problem with using template (and so can't complain) or uses them himself with the intention of being insulting (in which case he has no right to complain). ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually, not Godwin's Law if we really want to get technical, and quite a propos and effective given that a mention of Pinochet's or Stalin's or Mao's or Pol Pots secret courts would not have meant diddly. Additionally, had you carefully read the whole post, rather than quotemining for one phrase, you'd have noticed that I was being sarcastic throughout, given my frustration as Quadell's inexplicable refusal to supply a diff when asked to do so by 4 editors (3 of them admins). Have we now banned sarcasm as well? •Jim62sch• 21:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that participation in "image deletion debates" has been increasingly interpreted as a free pass for intemperance, peremptory tone, and highly defiant replies to critical remarks? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds that those trying to impose increasingly onerous restrictions on the use of "fair use" images can be rather insensitive when having a go at particularly contentious articles, and play games of putting book cover images up for deletion when they're already being legitimately used to illustrate articles solely about the books in question? .. dave souza, talk 21:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't want to press the issue, but I want to make it clear that Quadell's record is not spotless. I don't have any problems with the acitivities of most "image patrollers", but Quadell's deletions often strike me as injudicious. One recent example is the speedy deletion of the chart from Spartocids, which was uploaded by one of the few authorities in the field with the notion that it was self-made. The uploader was too inexperienced to add a tag, although it was clear from the note that the chart was self-made. Quadell deleted it without a second thought, although it contains material which is hard to come by. It is fortunate that the uploader returned to Wikipedia to readd the image.[58] --Ghirla-трёп- 07:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no idea how many improperly-tagged or unsourced images there are on Wikipedia. It's sometimes almost depressing to look at the backlog awaiting deletion. I'm sure I have deleted images where the problem could have been fixed. You have another hundred to get through, you're getting very little help from other admins. You take a quick look to see that the correct tag really isn't there (since sometimes people add it and forget to remove the other tag). Then you delete and move on to the next ninety-nine. Since images can be undeleted, it's not a big deal. I'm pretty sure I've deleted images, and then undeleted them or offered to undelete them if the correct information was given. I can't imagine that Quadell would refuse to do the same. ElinorD (talk) 16:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
I have your talk page on my watchlist (as you may know), Quadell, so I noticed the conversation, read through it, and came here to comment. I agree that quite a lively (and somewhat dramatic) discussion is ongoing on your talk page! I have been relatively absent from IfD debates recently, so I examined the diffs, of which I was previously unaware.
They are not the worst seen, nor are they all-out personal attacks, but they are uncivil. By uncivil, I mean that they [Jim's comments] seem to me to be, "...personally targeted behaviour that causes an atmosphere of greater conflict and stress" (