Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive295

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Removed section[edit]

(JzG’s response on a removed section)

Sounds like we deleted some self-promotion and maybe blacklisted a link that was being spammed. We've had this before at the spam blacklist and on OTRS, where people assert that not allowing them to advertise or link on Wikipedia is harming their business. The consensus view is that they can think again, since there is no expressed or implied right to use the resources of the Wikimedia Foundation to promote your business, organisation or other interest. However, there may be some courtesy blanking required if the complainant can identify the places where he feels his organisation is being denigrated. Guy (Help!) 12:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

A courtesy blanking would be prudent. What's more disturbing is the readiness to dismiss that comment as trolling. Mr. Lundgren is obviously not aware of WP:NLT, but it seems rude to simply censor any communication without at least offering an explanation. If anyone from the concerned organization is reading this, please be aware that this is a specialized forum for non-editorial maintenance tasks. Users/admins will not engage in any legal dialog on this page. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is the case of the now-blocked User who supposedly tried to start a legal case with User:Durin with the organization (blanked above), which caused Durin to leave Wikipedia. Questions arose as the standing of the above organization to even hear an in-Wikipedia case, and various Users' searches for the organization and its standing came up with nothing concrete. See [1]. Corvus cornix 16:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Corvus got it almost perfectly, groups that try and take legal action against a contributor are not welcome here, whatever they have to say. If they have issues they can take it up with the foundation, but the minute they start coming here, they get blocked and whatever they've added gets removed. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Request feedback[edit]

Similar to the perennial proposals for standardizing on either American or British English, or for standardizing on AD/BC or CE/BCE, there is now a proposal to mandate "gender-neutral" language in all of Wikipedia. Since debate is getting rather heated ("How dare people use sexist language" - "How dare people endorse grammatical errors" etc), it may help if some experienced users give their opinion, either at User talk:Tony1/Gender-neutral language (draft), or Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style. >Radiant< 14:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I panicked for a second before realising you meant "all of Wikipedia's articles". I can't believe singular "they" upsets so many people. Neil  15:51, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Radiant, I know this issue has generated a conflict between you and Tony1, but with respect to the gender-neutrality proposal, it's best to separate that and present the issue as neutrally as possible. The manual of style is a guideline; it doesn't "mandate". And unlike the issue, for example, of standardizing to British/American English, the practice of not substituting masculine pronouns where gender is indeterminate and another option can easily be used (as in the examples on Tony's draft) is standard in news and many other world organizations, and Wikipedia would only be catching up if we enacted this guideline. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm also wondering what is the administrative action required here, and why this is posted here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I suspect that "...experienced users..." was the focus, all admins having a minimum of 5,000 10,000 15,0... many x lots edits when sysopped. LessHeard vanU 20:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Votec[edit]

This user is making few hundreds of changes in article Jasenovac concentration camp during last 3 days (so that in history of article is possible to see only his versions). First day I have revert his POV changes and on discussion page it has been writen my reasons for revert.

In his answers he has made personal attacks on me with words that I am holocaust denier (4 times), that only "sick-minded or genuine retards" persons do not understand importance of Stepinac words, screaming again that I am "GUARDIAN OF THE HOLOCAUST DENIAL" and playing with my user name (with his playing I am becoming little river). In the end I believe that here is enough information so that this user can be blocked for long time. Sorry for taking so much place on this page. --Rjecina 20:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Shorter version --Rjecina 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Help with Copy-vio notice[edit]

Hi, not sure if this is the right place to ask. The article South Crofty has been replaced with a notice about a suspected copy-vio for several weeks now since 21 August, and the notice says the article must not be edited until an admin has dealt with it. I have produced a version of the article on a temporary page (as instructed by the copy-vio notice) which I believe does not contain the suspect material, and have noted that on the article's talk page as per the instructions. How do I get an admin to look at the article to approve replacing it? Thanks in advance. DuncanHill 20:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is listed on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. However, that page has a backlog. I deleted the copyvio and moved the temp article. Garion96 (talk) 21:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you :) DuncanHill 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Backlog[edit]

A backlog has formed on Category:Rescaled fairuse images more than 7 days old of more than 350+ images. Can administrators pop in and clear a little up before it gets bigger? — Moe ε 21:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit war with an IP on Port scanner article[edit]

Resolved

Unknown user under the IP 84.194.78.230 tries to promote a port scanner called "NetTools", which is probably his own production and is irrelevant for the WP. Additionally he tries to keep a big list of "Online Port Scanners", who can be found using every search engine like Google, if you type simply "Port scanner". In my opinion WP is not a link portal, therefore I always remove those advertisement links. There is an edit war between me and the IP. I would like to ask the administration for help to keep Wikipedia clean.--Gerold 21:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gerold Hennig (talkcontribs)

Wow, for a new user, you certainly hit the ground running! In future, if you don't want people to comment on your contribs, try posting a link to a diff or an article so people have somewhere else to start looking. The history of Port scanner seems to consist mainly of edit warring over linkspam external links. Perhaps semi-protection? Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 23:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Article semi-protected, those in conflict given cool down period to review WP:3RR. OcatecirT 00:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:213.178.224.164[edit]

213.178.224.164 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) is another User:CoCoWaWa sockpuppet. Corvus cornix 22:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. -- John Reaves 22:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Joe Szwaja & Jean Godden - campaign manager BLP and outing war[edit]

Need admin help on these pages, ASAP:

On these pages, editors Mikesmash, Landsfarthereast, and a Peruvian editor who hops IPs in the 201.0.0.0 range are harassing each other and attempting to out each other. Mikesmash had posted evidence that Landsfarthereast was Godden's campaign manager, and now the Peruvian and Landsfarthereast are trying to out Mikesmash as her opponent's campaign manager. Add in gems such as this by User:Landsfarthereast:

because he is a woman beater, mike, and that hits close to home. maybe shattering a place in a woman's face is no big deal to you, but it disgusts me. so much for you being a progressive. i guess you're only a progressive when it's convenient. when it comes to calling out domestic violence, you're nothing but an apologist.
i've known a number of good friends whose lives have been tremendously affected by dv, and it is not something to gloss over. his son, who was 7 at the time of this incident, will live with this for the the rest of his life. shame on you for diminishing its importance. it is also something that TOTALLY DISQUALIFIES anyone from ever holding public office.

It sounds like they may well be the campaign managers, I do not know. I found the Peru IP hyper-aggressively doing blankings on the Joe Szwaja article, and RV'd once, which then led all these people to move their fist fight onto my talk page. There are accusations of libel as well scattered about, so they're into legal threats now. Help. I tried the other day to calm things slightly be rewriting one of the pages in a sourced neutral tone, which worked until they all just started up again today. • Lawrence Cohen 22:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Those comments should be removed as BLP violations. Corvus cornix 22:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd prefer others/admins to do this and watchlist the pages. I'd rather detach from this mess completely, that's why I posted here. Thanks. • Lawrence Cohen 22:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the Peruvian IP user has now become User:Bevinbell‎. I notified each of them about this post. • Lawrence Cohen 22:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus and I have been involved in this issue (as admins, not as editors). See 1, 2, 3 Raymond Arritt 22:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not the Szwaja campaign manager. I provided evidance that Landsfarthereast is Carlo Davis, the Godden campaign manager, through his blog, listing Davis' AIM name as "Landsfarthereast". Too much of a coincidence for me. I called the Szwaja campaign. His campaign manager's name is Young Han. Not me. Mikesmash 22:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Crazy moves/redirects[edit]

Resolved

Just looked at the contribs for Hu1lee (talk · contribs), and there are many, many inappropriate redirects and moves. It is obviously vandalism (moving user pages to the pages of nonexistent users, creating Turkish wet dream of Europe that redirects to Panturkism, etc). Can somebody please block and undo all of the malicious actions? Thanks, The Behnam 00:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, the user in question also admitted to being a sock of a banned user [2]. That's enough for a block as it is. The Behnam 00:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I think we fixed everything.--Chaser - T 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Why , why , why , would you allow an idiot like me - to have access to edit ???????????? I'm sorry to all . It will not happen again (by me) .[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Nothing to see here...move along. — Scientizzle 01:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Resolved: no administrator action is required here...we ain't changin' the way wiki works.

I haven't been to this site for awhile and I came on today and looked up info , on Dave evans (AC/DC's first lead singer) saw the word "edit" . And like a stupid little kid , kind of shocked - a little excited (I just turned 40 !!!!!!!!!!!!), I started changing stuff and deleting it , all the time thinking something is wrong on the site !!!! Why is it letting me do this ? Then I went back to try to fix it , and I couldn't . Now I don't know what to do . How can I replace the stuff that I deleted ? I feel terrible that someone took the time to put up the info - and I deleted it without knowing , what I was doing !!! Why does Wikipedia allow this ? I don't think it should be this way . Everyone should have to sign up and read the terms - before they can change other peoples hard work . Can you help me fix it ? Or should I let it go ? Thanks for your time , Shannon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmjdjm (talkcontribs) 00:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a wiki. Damage can be repaired easily with just a few clicks if you know how. Don't worry about mistakes. Welcome. :) –Gunslinger47 00:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You may wish to read the introduction, if you would like to edit. Prodego talk 00:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Um guys...you are being trolled. That was that editor's first edit. The history of Dave Evans shows no edits at all since August 27th. IrishGuy talk 00:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, perhaps they made their edits anonymously then signed up to find out where to ask for help. Welcome. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor clearly states: I came on today. There are no edits to that article for this month, let alone today. IrishGuy talk 00:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, come on. The last blanking edit to that article was like six weeks ago (July 16). Troll, troll, troll. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Maybe he didn't hit "save". --Masamage 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I don't see the point in this type of apologetic trolling if it is indeed meant to disrupt. Even if it is a troll, there is no need to bite the bait and assume it is anything other than a sincere user. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It is possible the edit was not saved, a different page was edited, the list goes on and on. Best to assume that this is a real request, right? What is the point of leaving that comment otherwise? It is a pretty bad way to troll. Prodego talk 01:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
And a good way to troll would be what? Any statement that triggers a silly discussion like this is perfect trolling. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

A lot of misinformation[edit]

71.254.52.213 is changing a lot of things, he might be running some sort of bot. Either way, he's been at it for almost two hours. This is an example of his work: [3]. Some edits look fine but I think those are just disguised better. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 00:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Almost an edit every 2 minutes! Maybe not quite a Vandalbot, but definitely someone with an itchy Special:Random finger or something similar. Arky ¡Hablar! 01:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I've checked out the contribs. There seems to be quite a bit of sneaky vandalism in there. Arky ¡Hablar! 01:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Irishguy reverted most of it, and I got a couple. And now, the question remains. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I reverted the obvious cases of vandalism. Someone may want to look over the other edits. IrishGuy talk 01:11, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Atulsnischal and WP:MULTI[edit]

User:Atulsnishcal had previously been advised about this, yet he persistently pastes same, unrelated content to various article and project talk pages. For example, he is now adding a "How to edit articles and add references" guide to the following:

This is not an isolated incident, the user has consistently done such mass-scale talk page flooding before. --Ragib 00:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ragib has been stalking the articles I edit on wikipedia systematically since the past many months since my interaction with him on Bengal Monitor page, I request he be given a severe warning against stalking WP:STALKING, I have made complains before

Thankyou Atulsnischal 01:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Atul, please do not make unfounded allegations here. Am I undoing your every edit? Then, it's not stalking by any means. Also, I have virtually been away from Wikipedia in the last month.
But in any case, the diffs above show a clear ignorance of talk page etiquette. Given that the user is not a newbie, such behavior, when repeated, is just plain disruption. Thank you. --Ragib 01:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Last week he posted an entire conversation held on his talkpage to several different article talkpages and noticeboards under the heading "Hornplease is censoring Wikipedia". This was after I told him about wp:multi twice. Also, he copied a page going through an AfD to various other article talkpages. He has been around for a year. Hornplease 02:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


Another editor and I (who have had had no other interaction/dispute with Atulsnischal (talk · contribs)), politely told him a couple of days back that he should stop spamming multiple talk pages and project notice boards, and instead post his comments on the appropriate forum. However, Atul simply blanked the message we left and has continued with posting lengthy, irrelevant and misformatted "How-to"s on multiple page. I trust that the user is acting in good faith (and I am not just AGFing), but he really needs to learn to:

  1. Limit his posts to relevant subjects and relevant pages.
  2. Stop posting 50 words long bolded headers that make both the talk page, and particularly the table-of contents unreadable. See examples here, here, here and here

I don't think this is a blockable offense yet, but it would be good if some more editors/admins help get the message across. Abecedare 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Ironically, my reporting of this user's flooding behavior here unleashed the latest round of flooding from him. He has pasted the comments from above (including my comments) to his and my talk pages:

--Ragib 02:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not blanked any page just put it in my Talk Page archives.

Atulsnischal 02:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I find it really hard to believe in Atul's good faith, as he is continuously flooding various talk pages. Here again are some of his latest flood-posts:

And he's adamant to have his "How-to-edit" manual in a large number of Project pages: (no matter how unrelated it is!!)

(Note this related edit is interesting ... )

I request an uninvolved admin to make Atul stop his flooding. For some reason, he tends to take any advice coming from me as "Against him", and reacts to it. So, advice or admin action from an uninvolved admin would be much appreciated here. He's not a newbie, so ignorance of WP rules is no excuse for him. Thanks. --Ragib 04:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease is systematically censoring articles about Hinduism and removing mention of atrocities committed by muslims against hindus[edit]

Resolved: Content dispute. No administrative intervention needed.

He has been systematically deleting mass text from related wikipedia articles

and additionally he has continuously taken to stalking me WP:STALKING, please warn him too for both above and specially censoring wikipedia with his biased and bogus policy arguments for doing so

Thanks Atulsnischal 03:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute. You don't need admins to play nanny for you — and quite frankly, your accusations of "stalking" appear largely unfounded. --Haemo 03:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please take a look at the dispute resolution process. This is a dispute over content, and no administrative tasks needs to be performed. --DarkFalls talk 06:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyrighted material[edit]

I would like to request advice and perhaps also assistance in a case of a copyright violation. User:Squash Racket copy&pasted a sentence from Britannica into a lead of Wikipedia's article[4], leaving a funny threat in the edit summary ("once more you remove important referenced material, we will talk to an administrator"). After I removed the sentence[5] and explained the reasons on the talk page[6], Squash Racket reinserted the sentence with only a slight change of wording, from "By the terms of the treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants" to "By the terms of this treaty, Hungary was shorn of at least two-thirds of its former territory and two-thirds of its inhabitants".[7] I am not sure if this change of one word is substantial enough, so I would appreciate if someone with more experience can evaluate it. Just in case the article is still violating copyright, could you also fix it? Squash Racket has removed all my previous messages from his/her talk page and is not extremely polite towards me, so my further engagement could be arguably perceived as a hostile act by him/her. Tankred 02:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I brought ONE SENTENCE from Britannica, it's been already changed in a number of ways not only by me, User:Tankred once again fell short of assuming good faith while not being shy about personal attacks himself.
Still the sentence is crucial in understanding the whole article and should stay in the lead in its present form. Squash Racket 03:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It's important to avoid copyright problems. I would like to point out that even if it was explained to User:Squash Racket the reasons why this cannot be used there, he/she continued to use it and the conversation with User:Squash Racket is quite impossible because of his/her continues accusations and a very hostile attitude. I would ask Squash Racket to try to have a more positive attitude and to try to collaborate with the other users instead of atacking them. --R O A M A T A A | msg  04:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
OK, then I'll repeat: I brought ONE SENTENCE from Britannica, it's been already changed in a number of ways not only by me, so no more copyright problems.
Please Roamataa assume good faith and try to collaborate with other users instead of attacking them. Squash Racket 05:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Please be aware that Wikipedia does not accept copyright material. However, in this case, I am highly doubtful one sentence could cause a massive havoc about copyright regulations. Please calm down, it's not a big issue and can be solved easily. Just alter the text in some way (change wording, structure) and the issue will be resolved. --DarkFalls talk 06:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Njyoder (talk · contribs) continues personal attacks[edit]

This editor continues to make personal attacks in the course of this discussion. he's been twice reminded about NPA and CIVIL, and has a long history of being blocked for this very thing. His latest [8]. You can see the paypal talk page in the sections previous for several more examples.--Crossmr 15:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Fixed the template in the heading. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
He continues his personal attacks with edit summaries like this: [9].--Crossmr 12:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
He's also editing disruptively by making edits like this [10], and additional personal attacks as such [11].--Crossmr 12:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I think this user is disruptive, too - although I think it is down to being argumentative. I'm not familiar with this case and it does look confusing - but his block log seems empty. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Something wrong with your link: [12]. He has 8 blocks--Crossmr 14:10, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
According to the summaries there may have been a previous arbcom case against this individual for this behaviour. While these were awhile ago, he's made very little edits in that time. Which just goes more towards showing a continuation of previous behaviour.--Crossmr 14:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, his previous arbcom case was about this exact type of behaviour it seems its not limited to just gender issues [13].--Crossmr 14:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I should probably address these blocks. There are only 7 if you exclude the block that was removed due to conflict of interst. ePlease try reading what they were blocking me for--basically I was forbidden from criticizing any admin actions. Several of them were clear conflicts of interest. Note how it was basically the same the one admin doing it, who held a grudge against me. One of the blocks was even reversed by another admin because they thought they were deliberately distorting the meaning of what I was saying to be an insult and that it was a clear conflict of interest. Another was for an alleged legal threat by the same admin involved in a conflict of interest. I was blocked for criticizing him for abusing his power by one of his friends (David). One of the admins involved even threatened to block me for creating a straw poll about policy. Notably, one of them, snowspinner/phil sandifer, has had various RFCs against him and several arbcom cases involving abuse of admin powers that had nothing to do with me (although those were rejected because he knows the arbs involved much to the chagrin of users who thought it was clear favortism). -Nathan J. Yoder 06:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

This is an abuse of AN/I. Ultimately, this is a content dispute and he's using me accusing him of acting in bad faith and lying (which he most definitely has and you can read it yourself to see where I pointed out it) as an excuse to get support on a content dispute. Remember, this is a guy who violated 3RR on one of the articles, even though he claims to fervently abide by policies (he never even apologized or conceded that it was wrong to do). He's even carried his grudge further--following me into other talk pages just to disagree with me and add nothing to the discussion (including in WP:V andWP:RS) where I made considerable effort to write an essay for other people there and obstinately stated he didn't need to add to the debate and instead it was acceptable to just repeat that he thinks I'm wrong over and over. The arcom case against me was for personal attacks in part, but mostly it was about a content dispute, although arb isn't allow to rule on that so one arbcom member added a bunch of other random charges without providing evidence for them. People generally assume that because it was decided against me that they don't need to check it to see how true the claims are. -Nathan J. Yoder 03:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Your current behaviour and unending personal attacks and disruptive editing are all the evidence anyone needs as to whether your behaviour continues. You were reminded on your talk page that forums were unacceptable citations by another editor and yet you continue to edit war by reinserting text on the paypal article which clearly does not have citation. The burden of evidence is on you since you want to restore the material and you're failing to do so. Your arbcom case was very clearly decided against you and you're continuing that behaviour here.--Crossmr 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
You selectively ignored what I said. You, yourself, are repeatedly accusing me of soapboxing and pov pushing, so don't act so innocent. You are turning this into a content dispute, which is inapproprite for AN/I--it's a bad faith accusation. You just commented on my essay on WP:RS yet again just to repeat how wrong you think I am, without contributing anything new and also bringing in this outside dispute (which has nothing to do with the wp:rs talk page) to accuse me of soapboxing and trying to get support there. If you were being honest, you'd take note that the person who commented on my talk page disagreed with you too that my edits were disruptive and even stated that the forum was notable.
YOU violated 3RR, not me, so who is the one making disruptive edits? "Edits I disagree with" is not "disruptive edits." That makes this . You're poisoning the well (I expect you to ignore this). My arbcom case was decided against me, and I acknowledged that, and I sp ecifically made the point that people aren't bothering to read through allt he claims to decide how true it is. Good job being honest and addressing what I actuallyy said, though. -Nathan J. Yoder 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact even after being told again that forums are unacceptable sources [14]. You continue to edit in the face of policy and consensus by reverting material without the proper citation. [15]. If you are trying to draw a conclusion about whether or not a criticism is common you need a reliable source (e.g. a newspaper article) to say "This type of criticism about paypal is common". If you try to support your argument with an unreliable source (like a forum) and draw a conclusion on your own about the commonness of the criticism, you're violating WP:NOR. Even assembling a bunch of reliable sources which state a given criticism, you're still violating WP:NOR by drawing a conclusion which a reliable source doesn't draw for you. You don't have to revert more than 3 times in a 24 hour period to violate 3RR, maybe you need to not only read the policy again, but read the comment left on the complaint you made.--Crossmr 04:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
And in addition you admit to violating policy [16], yet continue to do so.--Crossmr 04:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Why are you ignoring the points that they made stating that you were wrong? You keep ignoring when other people point out when you're wrong, but try to rub it in my face when they agree with you. At best that's hyperbole and at worst that's a lie--I certainly never admitted that. I never admitted to violating policy. Considering WP:RS is a guideline, it would be hard to violate a policy and furthermore, arguing an exception (which is explicitly allowed) would also not be a violation of policy. Again, you're using AN/I to argue content, oh well. You are making a straw man argument, I was using the forums to determine notability of paypalsucks and the criticism therein, for the purpose of including it--I never stated that I'd include a statement saying they were common. WHat is wrong with "the people of paypalsucks.com have said...." or even just including a link to paypalsucks.com. It is absolutely necessary, by your own admission, to determine commonality of viewpoints to determine due weight. That's what I'm doing--assessing it to determine whether or not to include paypalsucks can be included, which doesn't require saying how common those criticisms are. And remember, you've already stated that it's necessary o assess commonality for NPOV--you can't backpedal. BTW, one of the reliable sources actually does say that many people hold a certain criticism, but you rejected that on the basis that the author allegedly doesn't consider it notable, which is irrelevant. Point ot the specific part of 3RR that supports you not violating it, but I think you'll refuse to do so. The comment left on the 3RR was simply that they decided not to block you, not stating that you didn't violate it. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
they also stated that they felt you were edit warring to in violation of 3RR even though you didn't go over 3 edits, or did you chose to ignore that?--Crossmr 05:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Who stated that and where? Are you trying to twist someone's word again? I don't recall anyone accusing me of violating 3RR. In fact, I recall that guy said that I'm not technically violating it. Can't you admit that you violated it? Please be honest. Since you started this ridiculous grudge-fest against me and are violating WP:NOT (bureaucracy section) by starting this arbcom case, I think I'll stop commenting in this place to you for a while, unless something unexpected comes up, especially considering I have made an extreme attempt to address everything you've said, and you've responded by running in circles instead of giving thoughtful responses. -Nathan J. Yoder 05:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor who commented agreed you were edit warring, but misinterpreted WP:3RR as he said because the reporter is also edit warring, even if not technically breaking 3RR however 3RR states you don't HAVE to commit 4 reverts in a 24 hour period to be considered breaking 3RR. But its moot since you decided to violate it last night when editing intellitxt.--Crossmr 13:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

He also continues to edit war in the face of policy and even though a third editor has stepped in multiple times to attempt to clarify appropriate sources for him [17]. Here he asks for a hard consensus that it be required that the individual be an expert, yet WP:V has be referenced to him multiple times. Though in this case he feels WP:V shouldn't apply to his edits and only WP:RS should for some reason apply to them. All edits to wikipedia have to conform to WP:V. Here a compromise is even suggested by a third editor[18], but instead of taking that compromise and discussing it, he continues to edit war [19], [20].--Crossmr 05:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not a moot point if you tried to lie to make me look bad. Yes, in other words he didn't say I volated 3RR, so what you said was a lie. I can't believe you are refusing to concede that he never said it even after quoting him NOT SAYING IT. Go ahead, point to the part of 3RR where you don't need 3 edits to do this, I asked you and you still refused to provide it. Yes, I did violate it last night, but by accident because I miscounted edits and I won't do it again. See? I can acknowledge it, why can't you acknowledge yours? -Nathan J. Yoder 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Sure thing, from WP:3RR The rule does not convey an entitlement to revert three times each day, nor does it endorse reverting as an editing technique; rather, the rule is an "electric fence".[1] Editors may still be blocked even if they have not made more than three reverts in any given 24 hour period, if their behavior is clearly disruptive. The fact that you admit to counting edits to make sure your get your 3 to try and push unacceptable sources in to an article very clearly shows you're violating the spirit of that policy.--Crossmr 06:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you ignore CGD saying my edits weren't disruptive? Interesting, however, nothing supports me violating it. You are a part of the edit war too, so then you'd be guilty of the same, if it were true. I count edits so I don't violate it, so does everyone else who does multiple reverts on a page within 24 hours--including you or are you going to lie and say you haven't counted edits? I don't admit to trying to push unacceptable sources in the slightest, but you're free to lie if you wish. It seems that whenever you make statements like this, I question them repeatedly and only after me asking you many times, you SCRAMBLE to find something to support yourself and then state that I "admitted" something, with your evidence being some deep, hidden implication in something I said. You have repeatedly violated WP:CIVIL. Remember when you claimed I was trying to WP:OWN an article after I issued a polite request to you? The hypocrisy of you even trying to assess the spirit of a rule, when you've already indicated that you're strongly opposed to any descriptive interpretations, is enormous. I can't believe you accuse me of being uncivil when you're here trying to ferociously pursue me me (you've been directly recruiting people to agree with you), you repeatedly accuse me of POV pushing, soap boxing, acting in bad faith (when I've PROVEN that you have), ignoring people after I directly replied and counter-argued, admitting things I never admitted, violating rules I didn't violate (e.g. 3RR accusation, OWN), you've harassed and followed me, etc...
I don't get it. Do you in all honesty believe that you've been acting in a civil manner? Do you honestly believe that these accusations, based on me admitting something when I never did? I guess all I can do is laugh it off, because you're getting so uncivil and out of hand while accusing me of the same...being oblivious to this. -Nathan J. Yoder 08:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Did you miss where he specifically addressed one edit and said he didn't see what was disruptive about that? He didn't address all of your edits. However someone else did, in fact two other people, someone in this very discussion and someone on the 3RR noticeboard, who felt you're edit warring and being disruptive. When a dispute is at an impasse, its quite common to bring in outside opinion, WP:DR. If you notice coolcaeser found the paypal article on his own. So did the two people who responded to your RfC that you dismissed because they didn't stick around and debate it. You very clearly told me that if I didn't debate in the manner you wanted, I shouldn't be involved in the discussion. that's a clear violation of WP:OWN. Whether you slap please on the front or not. You already admitted you violated WP:3RR whether it was "by accident" or otherwise, you violated it. In terms of violating it otherwise, it very clearly states you don't have to go over 3 edits in a day to violate, and two people have already held the opinion that you're edit warring and being disruptive, so yes there is plenty to support your violating it.--Crossmr 13:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Overstock.com/WordBomb/Judd Bagley[edit]

I've just blocked 65.116.112.0/21, which is an IP range (a) owned by Overstock.com (b) widely used by them for spamming, COI editing and attempted intimidation of administrators dealing with them. I strongly suggest against unblocking this range under any circumstances; requested unblocks should probably be run past the ArbCom, who are very aware of Bagley/Overstock's odious work, before acting - David Gerard 13:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I copied your message to Category:Requests for unblock, to advertise it a bit. -- lucasbfr talk 16:00, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
The spam problem will get plenty of attention on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam --Hu12 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I only get one IP (65.116.112.6 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)) from that range that has edited the project. Tagged it accordingly--Hu12 16:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
David Gerard is a checkuser so if he says that range has been used abusively, he probably knows what he is talking about. Thatcher131 16:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And I've verified the finding. There are worse things than spammers. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
You mean like Suppressive Persons or Unpersons? That seems to be how that guy is regarded by the WikiClique, resulting in actions being taken against anything to do with him without permitting anything resembling discussion or debate... you know, the sort in which there is more than one side allowed to present their case? *Dan T.* 17:35, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Bagley's case is that he's been stalking people with quite some viciousness for commercial gain. He even got writeups in the NYT and NY Post, so I can state he's an odious stalking arsehole with Reliable Sources! I urge you to start reading up - he's really at a new and exciting level of odiousness - David Gerard 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd suggest, Dan, that you research before knee-jerk reacting. Informed opposition tends to be given a lot more respect than reflexive opposition. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
What I've seen is that there's a big pissing contest that's been going on for years between the guy at Overstock and a guy at Wikipedia, with some other people involved too, and the whole thing has generally proceeded with the maturity level of junior high school, and the dignity level of monkeys flinging feces at one another, and has generated much more heat than light. Each side postures about being knights in shining armor saving the world from dastardly evil-doers, and likes to slant the playing field so that only their side gets to be heard. Frankly, Wikipedia would be better off rid of everybody in this dispute, regardless of which side they're on. *Dan T.* 23:20, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
And I'm supposed to get balanced information on the dispute, in order to be well informed, how? On Wikipedia, where the topic seems to be taboo, and barely mentioned in polite company, and a lot of the relevant stuff has been reverted, deleted, or maybe even oversighted, and pretty much everybody from the POV opposing the clique here is banned? On the infamous "attack sites", where you can see lots of relevant info, but it's probably mostly bullshit? Perhaps in the New York Post (mentioned above in this thread), which from what I've seen of it (a co-worker of mine is an avid reader of it and brings it to work every day) is a sleazy tabloid not all that much above the National Enquirer in the area of providing objective journalism? *Dan T.* 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not going to do your homework for you in this case. And obviously I have no power to stop any admin undoing the block should they seriously consider it unrighteous. However, I do suggest that, in the case of receiving an apparently reasonable unblock request, they forward it to the arbitration committee rather than undoing it themselves - David Gerard 15:39, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The link however does seem to be a problem--Hu12 16:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I used virgil's wikiscanner, however reliable that is. LOL. --Hu12 17:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I got the IP range by doing a whois on an IP used by a pile of obvious overstock.com socks - David Gerard 18:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Here's the arin output:
>whois -h whois.arin.net overstock.com

[Querying whois.arin.net] [whois.arin.net] Overstock.com (OVERST) OVERSTOCK.COM (OVERS-2) Overstock.com (AS25655) OSTK-COM 25655 Overstock.com USW-OVERSTOCK-3 (NET-216-160-9-16-1) 216.160.9.16 - 216.160.9.23 OVERSTOCK.COM Q0909-65-116-112-0 (NET-65-116-112-0-1) 65.116.112.0 - 65.116.119.255 Overstock.com SNGLDG-OVERSTOCK-NET-1 (NET-68-142-145-176-1) 68.142.145.176 - 68.142.145.191

  1. ARIN WHOIS database, last updated 2007-09-03 19:10
  2. Enter ? for additional hints on searching ARIN's WHOIS database.

They have been very naughty. A good case for localy (en. only) blacklisting the url. The links realy don't have a place on the project outside Overstock.com's article. --Hu12 22:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't run across Overstock.com's nasty Wikipedia work; I've only read about it in the newspapers and blogs.[21] When it becomes that famous, IP range blocking is a good start. And when the IP range block is noted in a blog,[22] there probably is more work to do. -- Jreferee (Talk) 15:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above posts, "Overstock.com's nasty Wikipedia work" will soon have achieved sufficient notability for its own article. When I grow up, I want to fight spam. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 21:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Might want to look at The So-Called Blogger (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) would appear to be related to [23]--Hu12 06:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Matt Crypto[edit]

I have found that this administrator frequently will revert changes made by an editor even if they had every right to make the change. This has happened to me, but looking over his talk page, I am not the only one. He is abusing his admisistrative privelages by acting as a dictator, and not listening to people's opinions. Often, he will rule against a clear concensus by claiming that Wikipedia is not a democracy. While I agree that Wikipedia is not a democracy, one of the pillars is supposed to be collaboration and consencus. This administrator frequently throws that out the window. I would be happy to respond to any inquiries or questions you have, and hope that you can do something about this. Thank you.--TyGuy92 01:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you cite some examples in the form of diffs? Thanks. Picaroon (t) 01:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like the locus of the dispute is Push up, which TyGuy92 is incorrectly attempting to redirect to Push Up (which itself is a redirect to Push up) Raul654 01:32, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
The reason it is incorrectly linking is because I make the changes which Matt incorrectly reverted back by doing a sloppy job. Also, the "push up" dispute was just my bit, if you look over his discussion page you see other incidents where he has been unfair. Just by skimming over his page you should start to see a pattern. In one occurence that later ended with an agreement by the two partiies, he reverted "humor" to "humour". Also, he has been accused of doctoring comments made by others. Also, in this exchange you will see that he has been abusing his administrative powers seemingly just for the hell of it: here. If you need further information, I would be glad to give it.--TyGuy92 01:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
TyGuy, you were performing a cut and paste move, which violates the license under which Wikipedia is copyrighted, because it splits the history. Matt Crypto was reverting your improper move as he should have, and I imagine the reason it seemed sloppy was due to you two editing at the same time. However, I can see no evidence that he bothered to inform you that cut & paste moves are inappropriate, which is somewhat disappointing, as this is a common error. Natalie 03:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
"He is abusing his admisistrative privelages by acting as a dictator, and not listening to people's opinions" - the administrator tools do not include a tab which says "act like a dictator and ignore everyone else". I seem to be repeating myself a lot recently on this, and here goes again: an administrator can only be considered to be 'abusing' their administrative privileges if they block or unblock a user inappropriately, delete, undelete or publish deleted content inappropriately, protect, unprotect or edit a protected page (including MediaWiki) inappropriately, or use administrator rollback inappropriately. Incivility, personal attacks, ignoring other users, etc. is not absuing their administrative privileges. Daniel 07:55, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Given the matter that initiated this entry (Talk:Press up), I think it is worthwhile to duplicate my comment placed on that talk page here, which was prompted by some statements made by TyGuy92 about what he was about to do:

I draw your attention to WP:NOT#Wikipedia is not a democracy. Additionally, the comments about the variety of English used by the first author may well apply here (see WP:MOS#National varieties of English. Further moves could be viewed by some as being potentially disruptive because they would seem to be part of an edit-war if you persist in re-establishing the page-moves before allowing more information to be gathered to reach a consensus. The correct way forward is not to announce that you will be making the move again, and that you are advising people to discuss it with you via email, but to encourage anyone to discuss it on here in public in order that as many viewpoints can be expressed and to allow any consensus for a move to thereby emerge (a consensus may not emerge, in which case, the original version stays.) WP:CANVAS may also prove informative during this process. I wrote this message is made to help you avoid pitfalls that would help no one in these circumstances.

Thank you.  DDStretch  (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can see, Matt Crypto's reversion of the page move (and his earlier intervention in the humour/humor debate) is in accordance with WP:ENGVAR, which states that if an article is written in a certain national variety of English, it should stick with that form. Also, I can't find any use of admin-specific powers by Matt Crypto at all in the page history, never mind abusive ones. Lurker (said · done) 16:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That viewpoint is essentially the same as mine—I can see no reason why Matt Crypto is accused of abuse of admin powers. But, I have seen some uncivil comments by TyGuy92, which I removed from Talk:Press up today as I considered that they were uncivil, irrelevant, and were potentially inflammatory. ( diff here.)  DDStretch  (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Raasgat - possible sockpuppet of User:Paul venter[edit]

I've been discussing some controversial edits by User:Raasgat with that editor regarding headings. Upon further investigation into the edits of this user found similar patters with a User:Paul venter, who was once blocked for copyright violations and personal attacks. I wasn't sure what to do or where to report this, but here are some links:

Since I've been so involved in the discussion with User:Raasgat I'd appreciate some help determining the correct course of action here. Thanks! --Rkitko (talk) 16:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

  • For what it's worth, another likely sockpuppet appeared in the DRV of a Paul venter article: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 17. Roxithro (talk · contribs). --W.marsh 19:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the info. diff sure looks like the editing pattern of all three. Any thoughts on what to do? Should I try to get a checkuser or place this discussion at the appropriate place for suspected sockpuppets? Cheers, --Rkitko (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Venter was never indef blocked, he could edit with that account now if he wanted to, as far as I know. Is he actually violating WP:SOCK? They're really so similar there's no need for a checkuser... but I'm not sure there's anything blockable here? --W.marsh 21:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure. I'm not too familiar with WP:SOCK, but in my opinion he was approaching WP:OWN and WP:POINT with some of his edits regarding style issues (and quasi-personal attacks, but nothing too obvious to warrant action beyond a warning). I haven't checked his articles for copyvio, since that seemed to be a problem for the Paul venter user account. He did, however, edit the same articles the Venter user account had to re-establish his preferred style on articles that had since been edited by others to comply with guidelines. The issue is moot, though, as it seems he's backed off on editing. A real shame since the articles he had been creating were of value. He just hated to see infoboxes and what he considered bad style on his articles. I do wonder if he'll create another account, though, to circumvent discussion. --Rkitko (talk) 23:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps... "Avoiding scrutiny from other editors"? Those who were tracking the Venter user account missed the almost two months of activity on the Raasgat account. Raasgat had indicated he might not continue editing, but new contributions appeared today that consist of mostly edit warring over grammar (diff) and style issues (diff). Contributions that have substance are good, but all the others are combative attempts to institute style preferences. --Rkitko (talk) 15:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Also, I'm apparently a "clueless chum" (not the worst thing I've been called...) diff after I placed an image in a taxobox against this user's wish diff, which he then attempted to change in this botched edit which only duplicated the image. --Rkitko (talk) 15:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have a feeling that this was also the editor in question, since the IP reverted all the style issues Raasgat has confirmed to abhor. --Rkitko (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User : 194.144.111.210[edit]

User:194.144.111.210 has repeatedly reverted edits on the list of thrash metal bands. User reverts the removal of a groove metal band Devildriver from the list. Here is the diff of his latest edit [24]. The user has been blocked previously [25]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weltanschaunng (talkcontribs) 16:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please report at WP:AIV ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 16:40, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I did that before I reported it here (me being new to the admin process). It is being ignored there, I guess. Can you do something about it? Weltanschaunng 16:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem at AIV is that, while the edits may not be great, they are really not strictly "vandalism". It's also not particularly current, with only a single edit today, over 4 hours ago. I've seen the report there for a while, and decided to let some other admin handle it. If other admins are doing the same, that may end up being why it is sitting there unanswered. - TexasAndroid 17:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well after i reverted his edit, he reverted my edit again, stating that 'Encyclopaedia Metallum [www.metal-archives.com] is not a credible source, while he himself provides no credible source to support his claim. Here is a diff of the last edit [26].

As you can see he is persistent in adding 'devildriver' to the list, without providing sources. 

Weltanschaunng 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil Sandifer/Rambutan[edit]

Phil Sandifer and Rambutan are engaged in a long-standing dispute about lots of petty things. Phil just blocked Rambutan for the umpteenth time while at the same time engaged in an editing dispute with him, as evident from this, this, this etc. I do not endorse Rambutan's actions, but Phil shouldn't block a user whom he (admittedly) had lots of negative interactions with. Melsaran (talk) 19:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Phil provided a reasoning for the block here. Melsaran (talk) 19:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't get along with Rambutan, but even I have to speak up. Phil clearly has a grudge against Rambutan, I've seen a lot of baiting (on Phil's side), clearly he wishes to block him [Rambutan]. I'm still trying to figure out the problem this time, it appears to be about some "swatch" that overlays a page? Matthew 19:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
(edit conf)Amongst other things apparently, yes, and blocks the copyright information, as well as messing up the user buttons on smaller browsers which could make it impossible for other users to get in touch with him. Really though, he's being warned for messing with other people's talk page comments, then he attempts to totally remove and hide his block notice, and then leaving an unblock notice that seems to want the reviewing admin to think the previous one had given no reason for blocking outside his block summary. Not to mention saying he thought he was working in IRC consensus, I was on the IRC channel at the time he was talking about it, and the opinions were OVERWHELMINGLY that it was inappropriate for a user page and did nothing to help further the encyclopedia --lucid 19:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Since I wrote the above message, the user has readded the above message, but hidden any fact that it is a block message from the header or the box, in addition to trying to hide the message itself --lucid 19:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed - I think hiding the block explanation and then requesting an unblock perfectly encapsulates the problem here. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It was a banner that blocked out the link to the text of the GFDL, and thus violated the GFDL. An honest mistake, I'm sure. But that he repeatedly restored the template even after being told the problem is not and cannot be anything but disruption. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
As for the accusation of baiting, I object most strenuously to the idea that warning people about policy violations is baiting. This "damned if you do, damned if you don't" approach benefits only trolls and rules-lawyers. This matter is simple - Rambutan has been repeatedly disruptive. Rambutan has been warned. Rambutan continued. Rambutan got blocked. It's a simple, straightforward story. Phil Sandifer 19:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I honestly feel the only person being disruptive is you. I've seen nothing to convince me that you aren't intentionally going out of your way to annoy this user. You're bullying him — just not in the usual sense of the word. Matthew 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
In general, glancing at the contributions of a user with a past pattern of disruption has not been considered bullying or stalking, and warning about disruptive behavior has not generally been treated as bullying or disruption. If I've made frivolous or undue warnings, initiated conflicts with him, or otherwise done anything to elicit a response, by all means point it out. But for the most part, I feel strongly that I have done nothing that is not a routine administrative task. Phil Sandifer 19:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
This is not a useful application of "long-standing dispute." My only dispute with Rambutan has been enforcing 3RR and disruption policies - I have never had an editing conflict with him. It is not (and cannot be) a COI to have previously enforced policy - in fact, the idea that there is some continuity in policy enforcement from first warning to lengthy block requires some consistency in who deals with it. That Rambutan has gone out of his way to try to create a COI by fast-nominating articles for deletion does not create a meaningful COI.
Furthermore, Rambutan is disruptive - he misleadingly edits talk pages, removes warnings from his page, and knowingly restores content that is disruptive. He misidentifies edits as vandalism, he excessively polices pages using automated rollback tools to rollback non-vandalism edits, he does not use the talk page to discuss his removals. He has been warned about all of this, he persists in doing it. That is to say, the block not only does not violate COI, it is a good idea. Phil Sandifer 19:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Removing warnings from one's talk page is allowed (but not really nice), and using automated rollback tools (not admin rollback) in content disputes isn't really harmful as long as he provides a reason in the edit summary and doesn't use it to mass-revert; the result is the same as when he had done the edit manually. And you should have left the decision to block or not to another administrator. Melsaran (talk) 19:24, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Could you show me your rule that prohibits him from removing comments from his user talk page? Could you also show me a rule that prohibits him from using a javascript tool to revert with a reason. Simply it seems he would be using it out of convenience. Matthew 19:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Using tools that mimic the administrative rollback tools in ways that violate the rules for those tools is pretty much a no-brainer, I should imagine. And while he is welcome to remove comments from his user talk page, removing warnings is frowned upon. In all cases, though, the relevant policy is "don't disrupt Wikipedia." If you're behaving beligerantly and in a way that makes it difficult for people to communicate appropriately with you about that, you're violating that policy, which is a very flexible one. Phil Sandifer 19:30, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I do not frown upon my warnings been removed from userspace. Such deletions are not permanent and can always be looked up in the histories of the respective pages. Edit-warring over restoration of such notices however, specially on the talk pages of other users can be considered disruptive, and sometimes be considered as baiting. — Nearly Headless Nick {C} 17:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I would note that, in addition to hiding my block text before requesting an unblock. Rambutan has simply removed User:Majorly's declining of the block to ask again. This, needless to say, is also disruptive. Phil Sandifer 19:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, he restored the block text in a visible but default-collapsed box within 6 minutes of deleting it, and only 2 minutes after the unblock request. It wasn't a permanent text deletion. Georgewilliamherbert 21:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
He also changed the text so that there was no way an admin would know that there were block reasons there. Phil Sandifer 21:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
It said "From Phil Sandifer", subtitled "Take a peep if it interests you". He didn't change what you wrote, inside the collapsed box. I would hope that an admin would look to see what was there before doing an unblock, if you were the listed blocking admin. I'm not disagreeing it was disruptive (nor that his earlier stuff was... PRODing Science ???) but this particular bit wasn't that bad. Georgewilliamherbert 21:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I fully support Phil's actions here. When I have even one run-in with a disruptive user, you can bet I put that user on my watchlist and keep an eye on them from then on. That is not stalking, baiting, what have you. If they disrupt again, I'm even more vigilant about their actions. Seems pretty cut and dry to me. --Spike Wilbury talk 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Rambutan has been persistently disruptive, combining this with querulous and unreasonable behavior when blocked. Phil acted correctly here. --Tony Sidaway 11:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

POV pushing on Tim Lahaye[edit]

Itake (talk · contribs) recently popped up on Tim LaHaye, a leader of the Christian right in America, and insisted on removing the entire criticism section because "it has no references" and it apparently violated WP:NPOV and WP:NOR (so says his edit summary, anyway). To highlight his cherrypicking of policies, citing BLP, I removed everything else in the article that was unreferenced that Itake had conveniently ignored in his eagerness to enforce BLP on the criticism section. Itake has responded by trying to remove the only cited sentences on the article, ones that I had added about a month previously stating LaHaye's son is gay. I am starting to get rather tired of Itake's blatant POV pushing and mischaracterisation (from his comments on the talkpage he seems to think I'm a left winger who hates Tim Lahaye, when I'm really just unimpressed with his obvious POV removals and the only reason LaHaye was on my watchlist was because I was making sure the sentences I added didn't get taken out by people such as... well, Itake). If someone could warn him or do something, I would be grateful. I'm happy for the article to be restored to its previous state, I just want whatever incarnation it takes to not be skewed to any partisan liking. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 08:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I think your responce there is bordering on a WP:POINT violation. Od Mishehu 08:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed with the above. Retributive partial blanking was not the best choice of reactions. Kyaa the Catlord 09:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Somehow, I don't think even the most imaginative reading of WP:POINT can produce "enforcing WP:BLP in its entirety on an article is disruptive and should not be done". Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 12:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That's why its called "gaming the system". You're abusing "the system" to illustrate your point. Kyaa the Catlord 13:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If WP:BLP weren't involved, I don't think the above blanking by Dev920 would need to be considered as a WP:POINT violation. However, BLP quite specifically says that unsourced critical information about living people must be removed from articles. WP:3RR contains an exclusion clause for this type of edit. Removal of non-critical information, even if unsourced, does not have the same level of importance. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 14:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Let's face it, WP:BLP is fundamentally a lawsuit-avoidance protocol. People aren't going threaten to sue over saying something good about them, whether sourced or not. Raymond Arritt 14:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
BLP aside, every piece of information needs to be referenced to an independent reliable source if challenged. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism by 80.231.198.xxx[edit]

This range has vandalized a number of articles over the past hour -- see [27] as a for-instance. Somehow all this vandalism has gone unnoticed, but I'm cleaning it up currently -- but I think a range block may be in order? This looks very deliberate. Gscshoyru 14:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I anon blocked the 80.231.198.0/24 range for 1 hour, to calm it down. It's my first range block so don't hesitate to unblock if I made a mistake. -- lucasbfr talk 14:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
From the whois, it appears the range could have been made even smaller. 80.231.198.64/28 perhaps. If it continues after an hour, I'd try that smaller range for a longer duration. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Samantha Brady-Roberts[edit]

There's something going on on this article such that this article, Sami Brady, and Samantha Roberts Roberts are in a redirect loop, though the talk page works (I think). I fixed one redirect, but got into the loop somewhere else as a result. I'd guess this is edit-warring, so can an admin clean up the redirects and lock pagemoves so the article is visible and the dispute can be resolved? MSJapan 15:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like double redirects. Admins are not needed to fix those. It seems to have been caused by someone recently performing a couple page moves. If you think an edit war (or move war) is actually going on, try WP:RFPP, but I don't see one now. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Dishonest behavior during RFC[edit]

While reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Italiavivi I noticed that one of the parties certifying the action (USER:Ryan Postlethwaite)and who had previously been involved in some sort of dispute with the "defendant" had acted as if he were an uninvolved party, posting an Outside View (complete with endorsements). When I made a comment questioning the appropriateness of an "Outside View" from an editor previously involved with the situation, the editor removed my comment. I restored my question, and USER:Ryan Postlethwaite again removed it. I do not have a position regarding the RFC, I only question how fair of an RFC this will be with such blatantly dishonest conduct coming from one of the persons bringing the case. Disclosure: I have no previous involvement with USER:Ryan Postlethwaite, and have only seen USER:Italiavivi (defendant) around a few articles I haunt (no prior relationship). I have no idea whom to tell about my concerns of this conduct -- I'm not going to get involved in an edit war on an RFC (especially one in which I have no comment), but I believe that relegating my questioning of this conduct to the RFC talk page means it will be overlooked by the majority of people reviewing the RFC (and thus the conduct will also be overlooked). /Blaxthos 15:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally, anyone who feels they have something to say can add a view. Also, we need to be careful of suggesting that having any previous conflicts with another editor forever taints one's status with respect to that editor. If Ryan says he's not an involved party in the RFC, let him say that. There's nothing you've said here that requires admin attention, so you may want to bring this issue up at the RFC, if you think it's relevant. Friday (talk) 15:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
How exactly would I do that, other than the RFC talk page (which is, as I say, generally overlooked). /Blaxthos 15:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
If you feel you have something relevant to say, feel free to add a view of your own. Friday (talk) 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The RFC page is for comments about the subject of dispute only. Comments about the comments, such as Blaxthos's comment, belong on the Talk page of the RFC. That's what it's for. Ryan endorsed the RFC and added his view. If your only problem is that his view appears below the "Outside Views" heading instead of above it, I'm sure he won't object if you move it. Meanwhile I notice that you didn't see fit to notify Ryan on his talk page that you'd opened a complaint against him here; you don't think he'd want to know? -- Zsero 15:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I should clarify that the second time I removed your comment, I put it straight on the talk page and answered there, as it had no relevance to the conduct of Italiavivi. Could you please tell me how my conduct has been blatantly dishonest? I put my view down on Italiavivi's conduct, if people don't agree with that, they don't have to endorse it and can add their own view of the users behaviour. It's one of the key things to RfC's - all users should get their views accross to stop conflicts arising in the future. I should also note, that my involvement in the dispute is very minor, I simply gave him a civility warning a few months ago. In future, I would appreciate it if you could alert me if you plan to go to an admin board to discuss my conduct rather than go behind my back. Ryan Postlethwaite 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Removing tags placed on non free images with no fair use rationale[edit]

Resolved

User:Chaosdevil101 has uploaded 3 non free image with no fair use rationales. See Image:Pro Evolution Soccer 2008.JPG, Image:FIFA 08 PS3.jpg and Image:Pro Evolution Soccer 2008.JPG, which the user claims that the user made himself and uploaded it under a free licence. I tagged Image:Pro Evo 2008.JPG twice, see [28] and [29]. However both times the user has removed the tag, see [30]. The user seems to have treied to disguise the revert by reverting my edit, then reverting his own and then reverting again, removing the tag. The second time, it is likely that the user used a sockpuppet to remove the tag [31]. The user also made an attack on a user page, see [32]. For the user's overall contributions, please see [33]. Could an admin pelase take a look. Thanks. Tbo 157talk 16:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted to your revision on Image:Pro Evo 2008.JPG and informed him that editing game covers in MS Paint does not give him the right to release them into the public domain. You can report him to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism if he removes your tags again without adding a rationale. Picaroon (t) 16:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Linkspamming by new editor??[edit]

Not sure if this is the right place to report this, but I'm a bit disturbed by the treatment of a newly registered editor, User:aaa intern, by several other editors, including at least one admin. This editor has been blocked from editing (just 7 minutes after a first warning!) for adding links that other editors have acknowledged improve the articles. See discussions here, here, and here. The editor may or may not be involved in linkspamming, but it seems that Wikipedia policies of Wikipedia:Assume Good Faith and Wikipedia:Please don't bite the newcomers are scarcely in evidence. It seems to me that such aggressive enforcement of anti-spamming policies will ultimately do more harm than good. Moreover, User:Hu12's block of aaa intern has apparently had the unintended side effect of blocking at least one other registered user. MrDarwin 00:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Some discussion is located Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#http:.2F.2Fwww.aaa.si.edu
Aaa intern (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log)
Contributions to wikipedia from that account consist soley of adding external links to an organization the account is associated with. The account seems to be a WP:SPA Role account which is a violation of Help:Username#Sharing_accounts. "Role accounts for the purposes of conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia are strongly discouraged and will be blocked for violations of the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines." The block does not affect User:Aaa intern's ability to edit or discuss on his/her own account talk page. No discussion, nor unblock request has come from this account, however the only discussion seems to be from MrDarwin. Account was blocked for 24 hours, I have now indefinatly blocked it as a spam only account and per ubove policy, which now should no longer affect any one sharing IP 160.111.254.11, any subsequent addresses they attempt to edit from or preventing new account creation. It appears there was an Autoblock, ID: 613575 attached to the account, this should no longer be an issue as it has been corrected.--Hu12 01:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
If the intern wishes to register a new account, and agrees to follow all policies, I expect they could do something productive. Instead of adding COI links to articles, the intern could leave notes on the relevant talk pages suggesting these references/links and explaining why they'd be appropriate. The Smithsonian's online collection may be worth linking to, but this should be decided by editors independent of the Smithsonian. - Jehochman Talk 01:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
From an actual examination of the links that were added by aaa intern, I'm hard-pressed to see that these edits were made for the purpose of "conducting public relations or marketing via the encyclopedia". Moreover, I fail to see how aaa intern violated Help:Username#Sharing_accounts; as far as I or anybody else knows, these edits were made by a single person, editing under a single user name.
I'm also bothered by the implication that editors will be prevented from editing articles in which he or she has any particular knowledge or expertise. For the sake of improving Wikipedia and making it the best that it can be, I hope that these policies will be re-examined and leavened with a modicum of common sense. MrDarwin 02:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I've verified that the user was adding links to Smithsonian Institution archives materials on specific artists to articles on those artists. It seems to me, to say the least, highly questionable that the only possible purpose of adding links to Smithsonian Institution materials to articles on (often very obscure) artists is solely the marketing and public relations of the Smithsonian Institution. Therefore, it seems to me that it is by no means certain that WP:COI WP:SPAM, which requires such a purpose to justify an indefinite block, has occurred. I believe WP:COI in fact specifically permits interested parties to make an edit that would be clearly appropriate if done by a non-interested party, and this would seem to be such a case. Moreover, WP:COI is a guideline, not a policy, and relevant materials in Smithsonian Institution archives would seem to be sufficiently relevant to the articles involved that discretion in applying the guideline seems appropriate. I have advised the user that a block can be appealed. I would recommend that the user be unblocked, or at least not indef-blocked. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC). Clarified --Shirahadasha 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but the username violates WP:U and needs to be changed. There's not so much value in adding links to articles. Google works pretty well if somebody wants to find something. I think this sets a bad example for others if we allow it. I'd rather have the intern use the article talk pages. - Jehochman Talk 02:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I have unblocked the user. If I am further overridden I will not act again on this matter, but believe that WP:SPAM simply hasn't been met since the material is not promotional in nature, is specific, relevant, and useful to the articles it was added to. I also believe that this material would be accepted by a non-interested editor if added by an ordinary user, hence WP:COI does not require interfering. I will ask the user to voluntarily refrain from adding links to the Smithsonian Institution for the time being and discuss the issue. One can question whether articles should have links at all, but the link policy permits it. Best, --Shirahadasha 02:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Fundementally, spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love. Even commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites(any) for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote it, are not. my 2 1/2 cents. For now, let see how this pans out. Contributions relating to COI need to made on the article talk pages. We all want the best for the project. Lets hope this doesn't set a bad example ;)--Hu12 03:17, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
For those who are interested, there have been several lengthy debates about spamming behavior by representatives of libraries, archives, what-have-you, but no consensus so far. We really need to develop a policy on this. See the discussion here and the previous discussion linked from it. There's a thread on how it's possible to be non-profit but still have a vested interest in driving traffic to your site. Katr67 03:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the deleted Archives of American Art links should be restored. User:Hu12 might suggest this to User:Aaa intern. Thanks - hopefully alls well that ends well Modernist 04:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I suspect User:Aaa intern is unfamiliar with policies here and needs some help learning the guidelines. Modernist 12:07, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it is clear that everyone involved in this situation has acted in good faith according to his or her understanding of the situation and what is best for the project. Nonetheless, the net effect was a very serious WP:BITE violation against a good-faith new editor with valuable information to offer, and I hope this sort of thing can be handled very differently in the future. Newyorkbrad 12:22, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure mass reversion by Modernist of the links added by Aaa intern and deleted by Hu12 is the answer. The Spam policy is clear, even if Hu12's actions were a bit bitey. Katr67 20:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I've restored the links. The Archives of American Art should be communicated with by you guys. Ty - Modernist 20:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
I also am not sure if the mass reversion by User:Modernist is a good answer. I hope that we all do understand, that we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm. You say that the mass linkadditions of good, on topic links is OK (even with a conflict of interest, then what witholds a museum to add en-masse external links to a number of pages. Apparently that is all OK, even without discussion. So all car-musea can add their link to the external links sections of all pages about cars .. and all these pages can be turned into linkfarms (etc. etc.). WP:SPAMHOLE is that way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Modernists revisions seem to be independent of consensus and is one that contradicts Wikipedia policy. Perhaps we should demote policies and guidelines in place preventing such behavior to essays? Perhaps We should rethink the entire purpose of wikipedia and allow sites like Overstock.com/WordBomb/Judd Bagley pursue their own adgenda by allowing mass additions to their various products to each article that is related to shoes, shirts and electronics. Surely this would ad value to the reader. "I went to wikipedia and saved 10% on an Ipod"...LOL... seriously. Overstock.com and aaa.si may be fundamentally different, however the behavior we are condoning is the same. Aaa intern has made no attempts to communicate in any of the multitude of discussions that have taken place. Bite or not, the Duck test needs also considered.--Hu12 05:40, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Modernist is an established editor with significant contributions to art-related articles and there is no indication he has a COI here, so he is entitled to make an editorial decision that these links have added value and should be kept. This is open to challenge as with any editorial decision. A good solution has already been found in an identical situation with User:VAwebteam (from V&A Museum), namely to set up a mini-project so that they could work with other editors to assess each proposed EL. This was very successful and they were fully co-operative. See their user and talk pages for more details. Obviously when a major institution participates in wikipedia, we don't want to chew them out. That said, we can't allow mass unsupervised insertion of links either. Careful dialogue is the way forward in such cases. See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Visual arts/Infoart articles, where an editor, Infoart, associated with the Saatchi Gallery had created over 150 articles on artists associated with that gallery. Rather than mass speedy deletes, a team of editors worked with him and attended to each article, with the final result of the addition of much useful content to the project. Tyrenius 13:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
The Archives of American art is an important source of valuable and valid information for visual arts articles. I actually thought there was a mixed opinion about the links with four or five editors including an administrator or two in favor of restoring the links. I acted with the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:UCS, if I restored the links too hastily - (it was a lot of work) I apologize if I offended anyone, that was not my intention. I think the links add value and valuable information to the encyclopedia. Modernist 13:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If the Archives of American art is so important of a source for visual arts articles, then why not endorse it as such at Wikipedia:WikiProject Visual arts. Perhaps the proper approach should be incorporating a template approved by the project in to articles. Modernist said himself, "there have been several lengthy debates about spamming behavior by representatives of libraries, archives, what-have-you, but no consensus so far. We really need to develop a policy on this", there is a policy, its located @ WP:NOT#LINK. The External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked, which is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines. I fail to understand how actions of an obvious WP:SPA spam account who has not participated in any of these discussions, has no edits outside of spamming links(77 in less than two hours, 116 in total) to his own organization, have support for his behavior by established editors. I can undrstand if there was participation/clarification by Aaa intern, however the silence is deffening, telling and quite indicitive in pattern and action of the thousands of spam accounts seeking traffic from wikipedia we see @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam. As it stands should we allow Icewarp ltd (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) (a new user) to freely conduct public relations and marketing via the encyclopedia also?. I appreciate Tyrenius' examples they are very helpful and I know how much work goes into cleanup, Modernist, its work, alot of work.--Hu12 16:16, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it was me who mentioned the other discussions. I realize we have a policy, but this comes up so often, that the policy needs to contain a very clear librarian clause. Katr67 16:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with User:Modernist. The links enrich the articles by connecting them to an unimpeachable, public, institutional, non-commercial, and thoroughly accredited source. Regardless of the fact that the links may have been added by some automatic means, they should remain, as welcome and legitimate sources of information. MdArtLover 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd endorse Tyrenius's comments above. The V&A approach has worked, as the European Library one earlier really did not, because the COI user there was not prepared to do things the WP way. I'd add that modern, still in copyright, artists present special problems as it is often impossible to get the images needed onto WP because of copyright. So good external links are especially useful. Johnbod 19:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Funkynusayri[edit]

User Funkynusayri is insistently using the n word on the talk page at Talk:Negroid#Disambiguations_page . I think his excessive use of the term is inappropriate. Furthermore he deliberately misspelling my username, I don't know why. Muntuwandi 21:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I've asked him to not call you "Mutu" anymore. As to use of the "n word", there's nothing inappropriate about this as long as he is not using it as an insult - it seems he's referring to the article nigger itself, and there's nothing wrong with calling an article by its name. Remember, Wikipedia isn't censored. Picaroon (t) 21:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
  • As I've already explained, I've referred to the article by the name "Nigger" itself every time I've used it. So I don't see the problem at all, unless the article itself gets changed to "N Word". I think this whole thing is extremely silly.

I quote, from here, in italics: [34]

Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo Wales himself? Are you sure about that? Anyway, there is an actual Nigger article, I don't see you complaining about that. If that isn't deleted, there's no reason to delete this one, if the justification is that it is almost as bad as having the "Nigger" article. Why use this article as a "proxy for the N word", when that word already has its own page? Your logic is quite flawed, reeks of desperacy. Funkynusayri 18:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Please Funkynusayri, try not to turn this page into a shock site, if you do I will have to report you. This is the intent that I was talking about. Yes Fourdee was blocked by Jimbo [35]. So for others interested in continuing being a wikipedians, should take note that wikipedia is not stormfront, a place for xenophobic bashing. It is a resource for education and an encyclopedia. Muntuwandi 18:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

What the heck are you talking about? "Shock site"? There is an article by the name Nigger here on Wikipedia. I'm referring to that. Funkynusayri 18:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Odd.

As for "Mutu", I called him that when we were still on good terms, and he didn't seem to mind at all back then. So I should stop saying it now just because he has ceased to like me? Also, I should maybe mention that he has manipulated my messages a couple of times, I don't know whether it is an offense or not, but it is highly annoying and inappropriate, far worse than my "offenses", if I may utter my own opinion.

Watch: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegroid&diff=155883725&oldid=155882803

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ANegroid&diff=155767819&oldid=155753230

Funkynusayri 18:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The replacement of your loving nickname for him with his user name is appropriate, the censorship of "nigger" is not. I'll ask him to stop. Picaroon (t) 18:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • He himself has referred to me as simply "Funky" on numerous occasions (take a look at that same talk page, for example), I had no problem with that, so I smell hypocrisy. If I get threatened here for referring to him by a nickname, I have an equal right to complain about him doing the same. Funkynusayri 18:45, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
    Exactly, you have no problem with that nickname. If you desire him to stop calling you that, tell him so. Picaroon (t) 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's say that then, if he wants to keep calling me Funky, I'll keep calling him Mutu. Or well, let's see if he agrees with me just calling him "Muntu" from now on, he proposed that himself. Funkynusayri 19:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Scientology deleted[edit]

Resolved

Scientology was deleted, but the deletion logs show it should still exist. See all logs for Scientology and all logs for HAGGER???????????????????. Anyhow, can someone resurrect this? Thanks. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

All is ok. A vandal moved Scientology to the HAGGER??????.... page. It's been fixed. Flyguy649 talk contribs 03:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What does "HAGGER" mean, anyhow? Burntsauce 16:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Haggar is how Hagrid (in the Harry Potter Novels) is refered to by is 1/2 brother Grawp. --Rocksanddirt 19:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler[edit]

Resolved: User indefinitely blocked as self-admitted sock of FAAFA. SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley Sutler (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has recently been blocked for disrupting the project. He, once again, states that one of his goals on Wikipedia is to "out" people he considers right wing.[36][37] In the second link, he invites another editor to try homosexual sex. I really don't have a problem with gays, but that sort of language is in extremely poor taste. A recent ANI discussion showed that the community is running out of options for improving Bmedley's behavior (see here). I believe that Bmedley should be blocked for a lenghty period of time (perhaps indefinitely). Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:10, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussions about long-term resolutions should be had on Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard. -- Avi 05:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I came to the noticeboard to post regarding this edit of Bmedley [[38]] - Clearly taunting and he's been blocked for it before. I cant say I'm suprised to see he's been alerted on for other behavior already. Dman727 05:13, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
"Try it. You'll like it." That is really grossly inappropriate. Any language of that sort wherever it be heterosexual, homosexual, pansexual, or Furry is unacceptable. In a workplace that would be considered sexual harassment, and considering this user's habit of pushing it to the limit always there should be consequences. Seriously. --MichaelLinnear 05:30, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I found this sentence especially disgusting, he's bringing children into it and promoting pedophilia - "Its okay, (IMO) to have a wife and kids and enjoy some Gay sex now and then!"[[[[39]]] Dman727 05:36, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
No he's talking about closet cases who have a family to keep up the facade for whatever reason. I'm sure that's what he meant. --MichaelLinnear —Preceding unsigned comment added by MichaelLinnear (talkcontribs) 05:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC) where did the time stamp go? temporal shock for the fucking win
Michael, your right. I parsed that sentence wrong. At least I think that you are right. Even with the clarification, I really find these kind of posts appalling. Dman727 05:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
  • User:DHeyward is Wikistalking me He is following me around and (IMO) trying to provoke me. He showed up on an article I am active on for months Western_Hemisphere_Institute_for_Security_Cooperation that he had never edited, right after my block ednded, made a 'troll edit' and then erased my message to him aasking him not to troll the article. [40] The fact that he wont communicate about this issue which I posted to him in good faith and his troll edit to the article shows that he lacked good faith intentions on this article and is just trying to provoke me (IMO). There are millions of articles on Wiki. Could you ask him to leave me alone and find another article? IMO his only object is to haunt me and get me to bite. I have now decided to avoid certain articles like Larry Craig so I wont be provoked. I am staying away from Crockspots favorite articles as much as I can. And I have since my block! And now I go to an article that I have been editing for months and Dheyward Wikistalks me there and haunts me and provkes me. Please get him to stop and leave me be on that article. Thanks. Update That was a few days ago. Then I ask someone in the LBGT community to mentor me, and [[User:DHeyward] Wikistalks my edits again and teams up with one of his RW friends (who are all showing up now because they're a team (I won't say Cabal!) to talk about his Wikistalking. After my block I completely avoided any article any of them work on, and Dheyward followed me to bait me, as many say is their plan. Now they will all pile on. This organized RW harrassment from the same group of approx 6 editors must stop! Please, if they leave me alone, Like I tried to do them there will be no problems! smedleyΔbutler 05:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
You are all interested in the same topics, American foreign policy, politics, and everything involving the nebulous Allegations of state terrorism by the United States article. Why is it all a surprise when you meet each other? --MichaelLinnear 05:43, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Judging by your asking them to have gay sex, your attempt to leave them alone is unsuccessful. I would like to hear you defend your actions, instead of trying to change the subject to other editors (as you always do). Also, please quit reducing this to a "left vs. right" thing; it is not about political affiliation. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this user's name mentioned far to much here on AN/I in recent months. Unfortunately Bmeldey's actions have shown a habitual use of incivility, harassment, personal attacks, edit warring and disruption. I have decided that, considering past discussions on this issue (where the possibility of indef blocking was specifically brought up), it is reasonable to say that the community's patience has been "exhausted". The user has been talked to, by several users on several occasions about this conduct and still actively refuses to stop it. Hence I have decided to indefinitely block the user. I want to remind all of you that indefinitely blocked does not mean infinitely blocked. I specifically left a note on the block log saying that the user should be unblocked if he agrees to cease all such conduct and to abide by established wikipedia policy. Anyone can feel free to discuss my block below.--Jersey Devil 05:56, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your consclusions on Bmedley's behavior, and I support the block. Pablo Talk | Contributions 05:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I would have liked to have seen mentorship, which he agreed to yesterday, tried first. ←BenB4 05:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but I think the operating word for Bmedley was incorrigible. --MichaelLinnear 06:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Strong support of this block. I'd intended to comment (pre edit conflict), "I believe we're being trolled."Proabivouac 06:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
It appears that Bmedley Sutler has retired.[41] Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He is angry at this point which explains his most recent edits. I'm going to wait until he cools down a bit to listen to his response. I ask that people be respectful and not try to egg him on below this point.--Jersey Devil 06:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He responded, and once again has used his two favorite defenses (neither of which are legitimate): accusing his opposition of being "right wing" and changing the subject to other editors. Pablo Talk | Contributions 06:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I have to endorse Jersey's actions here. I've spoken up for him once or twice in the past, but the edits posted in this thread are unacceptable in pretty much any context. -Hit bull, win steak(Moo!) 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

As Bmedley Sutler has (almost certainly falsely) stated that English is not his first language,[42] I asked him what it was.[43] I reproduce his response in full:

"That is private. Don't try and 'out' me by asking these personal questions especially now that I have caught the USMIL and BUSHGOV in 100% proofed lies. Outing of this type is not allowable on Wiki, and I will follow up on it. I consider this a harrassment."[44]Proabivouac 07:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
That response is, of course, ridiculous considering that Bmedley Sutler has tried to out the supposed sexual orientation of several individuals, while maintaining that his first language is private. Pablo Talk | Contributions 07:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
When it gets to the point where good will and AGF cease being effective it is often time for something else. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 14:22, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

My God, that block log is genormous. After looking at the guy's talk page, I honestly think this should an infinite community ban. It's obvious others have had saintlike patience with him--enough is enough. Ban. Blueboy96 19:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

If he's retired, then we've done with him. Sexual harassment is totally unacceptable, and this user has shown no ability to improve his behavior, or even understand what is inappropriate about it. --19:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd be inclined to agree, but guys with his profile usually have a hamperful of smelly socks ... I was suggesting a ban as a preemptive measure. Judging by the fact that he's apparently a meatpuppet (at the very least) of a banned user, my hunch was right. Blueboy96 20:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In this edit summary, Bmedley admits that he is a sock of User:Fairness And Accuracy For All, who was banned for a year and recently had his ban reset. Perhaps an extension of FAAFA's block to indefinite would be appropriate. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:21, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

It's been obvious for some time that he's FAAFA; e.g.:
He'll be back either way, and, if history is any guide, we'll have to go through the entire process again. Perhaps he'll be able to sink a few more RfA's, maybe start an arbitration case, who knows?Proabivouac 20:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh yeah, indef indeed. Laughing in the community's face like that? He's banned himself, I think. Blueboy96 20:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Should any action be taken regarding his "sinking" of the RfA (User:Crockspot's, I assume)? It's kind of unfair that the RfA process was sabotaged by a meatpuppet who was finally "sunk" himself for, among other things, the very type of "outing" behavior that sunk the RfA. BmS's ad nauseum quoting of one flip comment from Conservative Underground as "proof" of Crockspot's homophobia really did a lot of damage; BmS even used that remark to accuse me of being gay, which I neither confirm nor deny, then turned around and say, "Well, Crockspot said it!" It doesn't seem right that such sabotage should go uncorrected, but I don't know that there's any way to correct it except to try the RfA again. Calbaer 22:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Well he has now pretty much admitted that he let the banned user FAFFA use his account for edits. By the way, about 50% of my edits were FAFFAs who would log into my user, he thought I might only last 1 week, and we went 2 months! Sinking that racist homophobes RFA is our proudest moment! Toodles [49] which leads me to say that though I was open to unblocking initially (had he made a commitment to change his ways) now the block will stay.--Jersey Devil 22:48, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm opening a discussion of FAFFA's fate at WP:CN ... just so it won't get lost here. Blueboy96 22:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the need. Bmedley is indef blocked. I believe FAAFA is banned already. If he comes back it will simply be an abusive sockpuppet, and we can just block him indefinitely. There's no real need for CN on Bmedley. SWATJester Denny Crane. 23:03, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
He's only banned for one year, but given what's been revealed today, I really think it ought to be ndef. Discussion is here.Blueboy96 23:05, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the anti-homosexual comment on his user talk, as well as redacted something that appeared to be an outing of an editor's real name (I didn't delete the edit because I wasn't sure). SWATJester Denny Crane. 22:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

point of order, the above redaction of the editors real name was actually not. See [50]. As it is, his user talk is blanked and redirected to his user page, so that's a moot point. SWATJester Denny Crane. 01:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Indefinite block of User:Gaby de wilde[edit]

After telling this user to desist soapboxing on the talk page for the 9/11 article, I retired to bed. Apparently, in the interim, he was blocked for harassment and sockpuppetry by another admin. Though I had nothing to do with this block, he has taken it upon himself to send me a number of harassing emails, despite my polite responses. Given that he has made no substantive contributions to the project, and he already has multiple blocks for harassment and personal attacks, I have therefore indefinitely blocked his account, and his email privileges, until such time as he decides to comport himself in a reasonable fashion. Since his talk page is protected for the duration of his previous block, I'm inviting external review by other admins. Unblock, or shorten duration, if you feel this was excessive. --Haemo 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I have also received a harrassing e-mail. Though I blocked him for one week, I support the indef block. Rklawton 17:26, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am somewhat involved - made previous blocks (for harassment, attacks) and the sockpuppetry block for using an IP to repost soapboxery. I would have blocked indef at another incidence of harassment, trolling, POV pushing, etc. The emails are just that. Mr.Z-man 17:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I am completely uninvolved, and I support the block for the reasons given. ((1 == 2) ? (('Stop') : ('Go')) 17:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup... if anything, probably overdue. Good block. MastCell Talk 17:59, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not an admin but I did have experience of trying to prevent Gaby from de-railing the 9/11 Talk page. I'm grateful for any reduction in disruption there. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 18:53, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

unjustified page reversion User:goethean[edit]

I posted a merge proposal for Quadrupel on 25 July. There was a discussion Talk:Brouwerij_de_Koningshoeven with the majority (3-1) in favour of the merge (as the one proposing the merge, I am including myself in the vote). Yesterday, user:goethean, voted against this merge, but instead of giving reasons against the merge, he made a personal attack against me and another user. Even assuming his vote was valid, the vote was still 3-2, so this morning, I completed the merge. This afternoon he reverted it. He has made personal attacks against me a number of times. Mikebe 17:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

In case anyone looks into this incident, I would like to make a few points. User:Mikebe has attempted to delete the article by fiat previously, and I told him to take it to articles for deletion. Apparently, he doesn't want to do so. So he proposed a merge, closed it, and then merged one well-referenced article (Quadrupel) into a footnote of another article, deleting most of the well-referenced material. I again suggest that if Mikebe wants to delete the article, he take it to articles for deletion. I would also add that his proposal to merge a beer type article into a brewery article is prima facie absurd. — goethean 19:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AlptaBot[edit]

In its effort to update fn/fnb templates, the bot is wreaking havoc on at least a few articles where the standard [51] template is used for source citations and fn/fnb is used for textual amplifications--often, for clarity and utility, within the body of the article, rather than as endnotes. The conversion performed by the bot confuses the numbering and layout. Here are the four examples I am tracking where the bot has repeatedly caused this problem (in order of severity): English plural, major film studio, Hollywood blacklist, and film noir.—DCGeist 18:08, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Bot blocked. You are correct in that the bot was causing harm on at least a few pages. Please start a dialog with the bot's owner on getting this straightened out. Any admin is welcome to unblock once the owner has dealt with the problems. - TexasAndroid 18:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I too have had problems with this bot, some seemingly different from DCGeist's, and some obviously the same. I've documented them more fully here on Alpta's talk page. In brief, the additional problem is that in articles where a single footnote is referenced several times, the numbering goes all awry. (