Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive297

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/64.131.205.111[edit]

Could someone with a rollback tool please rollback this editor's canvassing? I'd appreciate it. Thanks. It appears this may be a banned user, given the block history. The Evil Spartan 19:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the note. I wonder if not canvassing using sockpuppetry was part of the agreement. In any case, the canvassing is still there. Twinkle doesn't work on the library computers, so some help would be nice. The Evil Spartan 21:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Urgent request - deletion of article needed per WP:BLP[edit]

I've already placed a notice at WP:BLP/N: Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Mark_Kruzan. The Mark_Kruzan page is clearly an attack article written by someone who is in a lawsuit against this person (said so directly on page, and confirmed on talk page by another editor). Article was even worse before someone removed the libel, and has already been deleted twice. Worse, I cannot edit it because the page is a protected title. The Evil Spartan 20:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone. Moreschi Talk 20:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure how it was protected, yet editable. It was added to the protected titles list immediately after deletion (18:09) but was recreated well after that. If I had to guess, I would say it was probably due to caching issues. It should now be completely protected from recreation. Mr.Z-man 20:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Jon Awbrey[edit]

Jon Awbrey (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is back - if indeed he ever truly went away (Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Jon Awbrey). Watchlisting Charles Peirce (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is probably worthwhile. Guy (Help!) 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

That damned user is back once again. Any comments? Greg Jones II 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Kamau Kambon[edit]

Resolved

I think a Wiki authority should look at Reggin1234's edits at the Kamau Kambon article. He makes what looks to me like threatening behavior to Kambon. Reggin1234 states where Kambon works and suggests that "it is simply a miracle that nobody has shown up at his (Kambon's) store, Blacknificent Books, and ended his miserable life." Griot 20:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. All racist images now deleted and his account indef blocked for pure vandalism. The Rambling Man 20:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Sheesh! Is there something in the water today? – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my god, I am not sure. Greg Jones II 20:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
All recent libel revisions by Reggin and an IP have been removed from the history. Mr.Z-man 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Y'all missed one: Image:Kamdon.jpg. Please nail it. The Evil Spartan 22:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:13, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

24.199.99.169[edit]

Editor 24.199.99.169 has removed comments (see contributions) including two sets from AfDs (here and here), suggesting that they all belong to a banned user.

The last set of removals is suspicious in that one anonymous user votes keep, the other delete, which may not be consistent with a single invididual. 24.199.99.169 appears to have made some investigations, one of which appears to result in a "no case".

Although it may be right to remove contributions from known sockpuppets, to remove those only on suspicion and without due process, seems to be the start of a slippery slope. Wikipedia welcomes anonymous editing, even Editing with Tor. This contribution is from a Tor Proxy to protect my anonymity 68.148.109.58 20:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Calling transclusion experts[edit]

I am calling for a transclusion expert.

There is a template, Template:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption, that another wikipedian thinks has text that violates WP:NPOV.

They placed an {{npov}} tag on the template -- which is kind of a problem

When the template is transcluded there is a box in the caption field on each article where it is transcluded. However, when one clicks on the button that tells interested readers where they can find the discussion about the POV concern they get the article's talk page, not the template's talk page.

I think the discussion of concerns as to whether the template has a POV problem should occur on the Template talk:Combatant Status Review Tribunal trailer image and caption -- not scattered all over all kind of the article's talk pages.

Would it be possible for someone to hack a special version of the {{npov}} tag that would direct the readers interested in the discussion to the template's talk page, rather than the talk pages of the individual articles? Sorry. I don't know if this is a little bit of work, or a lot.

If it is a lot of work can someone think of another alternative? Geo Swan 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why is this in a template in the first place? Slabs of text like this should not be presented in image captions, they should be in the article body somewhere. --bainer (talk) 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with bainer. Although I have subst'ed the {{npov}} template and modified it a bit to make it look a little less crappy in the meantime. ➪HiDrNick! 03:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Responsible use of tags? -- related to the above[edit]

  1. When someone places a tag owner, like an {{npov}} tag, what responsibility does someone have to initiate the discussion on the talk page that the tag promises interested readers?
  2. If someone places a tag like {{npov}} on an article, but they don't follow through, and go to the talk page to leave a specific explanation of their concern, is it appropriate to leave them a request on their perosnal talk page, asking them to return to the talk page of the article where they placed the tag, and explain themselves more fully?
  3. If an article has a tag sitting on it, that the person who placed seems to have abandoned, that may very well be out of date, when is it appropriate to simply remove the tag?

Cheers! Geo Swan 21:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The last is easy; check the history to find when the tag was first placed, check contribs since to see if area concerned addressed, if so... be bold! nb. NPOV doesn't "date" - so check that it really has been resolved! LessHeard vanU 21:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
It seems the tag was added today. I'll try to test a few fixes in my sandbox and see if I can comeup with anything that will correct the problem.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
{{TALKPAGENAME}} seems like the parameter that is messing everything up and no matter how that parameter is fooled around with, it will always link to the talk page of the currently displayed article. The only solutions I can come up with would be to make a new template where you have to type the talk page location or modify the existing one and make it a pain to have to type the location of the talk page for every article tagged. Making a new template might be more practical. Anybody else got anything so far?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Regarding Geo Swan's questions, it seems to me that the answer to all three questions is: Use common sense, and don't edit war over it. Od Mishehu 22:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
In regards to the first question, I would say that the person placing the tag has a responsibility to initiate the discussion, which of course would include explaining their reasons for placing it. If the person placing the tag provides no explanation after a reasonable period of time (at least a few hours, if not a day) than I would say it would be fine to remove it. Natalie 01:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't make more sense to place the tag on the top of the template or the article where disputed text exists? Transcluding templates like npov could cause problems if it was transcluded where no NPOV violations exist. — Moe ε 03:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Stalking[edit]

Resolved

User:Kalive, an editor since January 2007, has removed the welcome template 7 days earlier and said "stop stalking me creep" (diff). I need help with this problem. Greg Jones II 22:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

The comment was just a tad incivil but nothing that requires administrative attention. Is there something more serious to the matter that's concerning you?¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:29, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I need some help on some issues. When he/she put that message up and removed the welcome template, it was making me feel a little bit upset. Greg Jones II 22:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry this is not a serious enough issue that requires administrative attention. Though it was not very friendly of them to write a message like that, this is no cause for much discussion or disciplinary action. I was going to leave a small note about the civility policy on his page but it seems you already did that yourself just a few moments ago. So this matter is more or less resolved.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I have restored that message. If it is removed, put it back in, okay? Greg Jones II 22:48, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have reverted yourself. Probably a good idea, all things considered. If someone thinks you're a creep and a stalker, they just have a perception problem, that's all. – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
You're right about that. Greg Jones II 01:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Rock Lee vs IP[edit]

Resolved

Hi. I'm having a bit of a problem with IP24.170.243.24 (talk · contribs). He's committed himself to vandalizing. Brianga first came accross his unconstructive edits on Rock Lee's article and reverted two; Our IP friend made another two apparently good-faith edits following that, which I reverted because they were redundant. Since then, he has made two more bad-faith edits on Rock Lee's article. When I went to place a warning message on his talk page, I noticed he already had one for vandalism on Son Goku (Dragon Ball); this was earned from four bad-faith edits. Aside from the two good-faith edits previously mentioned, this IP is a vandalism-only account which started editing today.

Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 23:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. next time, please report to WP:AIV (and you don't need as much detail for obvious vandalism. Also, since IPs are not accounts, they cannot be vandalism-only accounts. Mr.Z-man 23:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, and sorry for the mistakes. The only noticeboard I was previously familiar with was WP:AN/3RR. I'll keep that in mind next time. Regards, You Can't Review Me!!! 23:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Suspicion of image copyright violations[edit]

Resolved

I'm not sure how to handle this.

User talk:Ravenfan4ever uploaded 3 images Image:05356.jpg, Image:Raven04ky0.jpg‎ and Image:Raven03xu7.jpg. In each of these the user asserted ownership of the image and gave permission for use in Wikipedia. The first image of the three has extended image data that indicates the copyright is held by http://www.wireimage.com/ so the assertion of ownership of the image by the user is not supported by the actual image data. I have tagged the image for deletion as a blatant copyright violation. I suspect the other 2 images are also not owned by the user but have no proof. The veracity of the user is suspect based on the first image. The images look like they were taken by a pro photographer. --NrDg 23:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

No wonder that they (the pictures) could be in suspicion of WP:COPYVIO. Any comments or objections? Greg Jones II 23:44, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I would say ask the user on their page what the circumstances are, explain that unless they personally clicked the button on the camera, they should not upload the photo under those terms. Ask if they really took the photo. If the user does not answer or answers in a questionable way, delete the images. --B 23:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Doh! That ought to do the trick. Greg Jones II 23:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the help. I decided to effectively do what Greg suggested but used the WP:PUI procedure to accomplish it. Looks to give proper notice to user and is a formal procedure. --NrDg 00:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Mission accomplished. Greg Jones II 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD disruption[edit]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Digwuren (talkcontribs) at 22:20, September 9, 2007 (UTC)

Digwuren (talk · contribs) attempts to disrupt the TfD of the template whose deletion he seems to oppose by tweaking the wording of the nomination for deletion submitted by the nominator (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 September 9#Template:POV Russia.)

He claims WP:NPA entitles him to delete most of the nominator's explanation while the wording of nomination accurately reflects the problem of the template and its creator. Digwuren then revert-wars over his redacting of other users' comments. [1] [2] [3]

Could someone explain to him the policy about editing other user's comments and watch further developments of this TfD? Thanks. --Irpen 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The policy against editing comments made by others is very subversivent to the policies against assuming bad faith and calling people racist. -Amarkov moo! 22:03, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
If you disagree that the template is racist, your comment is welcome at the survey. --Irpen 22:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
And the rationale behind allowing you to assume the template was created in bad faith would be...? -Amarkov moo! 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Just read what the template says. --Irpen 22:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, sometimes it pays to investigate the matter before rushing to comment. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If there is a problem with the template then that should be dealt with soberly as Wikipedians, and not by making personal attacks. A personal attack in a deletion nomination is still a personal attack, and should be avoided. --Tony Sidaway 12:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There is no attack Tony, as several editors pointed out above. Did you even read the discussion? --Irpen

Irpen persisting in using a deletion board for personal attacks[edit]

Moved from WP:AN.--Chaser - T 23:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, who is currently involved in a sterile, yet lasting arbitration case, is now seen using the Wikipedia:Templates for deletion noticeboard for personal attacks. I first stroke out the offending parts, later removed them under WP:RPA, but he kept reinstating them:

I'm normally not too sensitive about slightly offending comments and can accept good humour, but this case is neither. A TfD nomination that spends most of its content on commenting an editor rather than the nomination, and, indeed, contains but one word that can be reasonably considered discussing content, not personality, is something exceptional. Accordingly, I humbly request that the administrators take all proper and necessary measures to end this uncivility. Digwuren 21:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The thread should be merged with Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#TfD disruption --Irpen 22:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
    • You've removed it repeatedly "under" WP:RPA? Digwuren, WP:RPA has no authority. It's not policy and not a guideline. It's an essay, and a highly contested one. Please take a look at its talkpage, and at the first lines of the essay, which explain this. I quote: "It has often been abused by malefactors, and may not have community consensus... It should, at most, be interpreted strictly and used sparingly." If you apply it you may find yourself "held accountable for questionable uses." "Questionable" is a mild term for removing and edit-warring over another user's comment on an issue you're involved in. Stop it. Bishonen | talk 23:47, 9 September 2007 (UTC).
  • For the record, I'm not in any way involved in this template. I don't care much about it, but I do care about a soliloquy of insults masquerading as a TfD nomination. Digwuren 23:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Echoing what Bishonen said, edit warring over the removal of personal attacks is not a good way to go. If it's undone once, then let it be. Generally unless it's blatant enough as someone saying 'fuck you', it's a good idea to not touch it. Cowman109Talk 23:55, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

As I recall, the indefinite block for Digwuren was lifted due to promises of good behaviour, but the conduct seemed to have scarcely changed. El_C 00:42, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

  • It's my first time removing personal attacks. If you look closely at the article's history, you see I proposed a series of approaches as to how the removal should go, in attempt to find compromise. And for the record, I've never been indefinitely blocked. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Why would RPA even apply to those statements? I don't see a single personal attack anywhere in them. SWATJester Denny Crane. 00:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the original wording: "WP:POINTy inflammatory bad-faith template for article tagging with racist overtones created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates (see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)"
Let's consider every part separately.
  • "WP:POINTy" can be considered a description of the template in question. This is the only such word, by the way.
  • "inflammatory bad-faith template" is an assertion on not on the template, but on the user. It claims that the user is deliberately, in bad faith, causing flames. This does not belong into any serious discussion unless it can be backed down by appropriate evidence, which is clearly not the case here.
  • "for article tagging with racist overtones" is an assertion of racist intent regarding the user. Again, nothing about the article; only an insult towards Suva, who, by any reasonable standard, can't be considered racist.
  • "created by the user with history of creation such disruptive templates" should be obvious.
  • And finally, "(see Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Notpropaganda.)" is interesting, because it refers to another TfD by Irpen where he deliberately used such wording, only to be then pointed out it was not only insulting but also not backed with any facts. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He is allowed to claim a template contains "racist overtones," you have no right to censor him. If you edit his comments, or the comments of anyone else again, I, myself, will block you, and you'll be forced to participate in RFAR/Digwuren from your talk page, with the aid of an clerk. El_C 21:37, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


It often amazes me the lengths to which those who complain, and even soapbox, about censorship, are willing to go to silence others. It stops now, Digwuren. El_C 00:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
There are times and places for political discourse. There are even places for insulting. Some people pay good money to be able to call in to folks who claim to be scantily clad females, only to hear insults. But the TfD board is not a place for insults, and you can't reasonably calls attempts to retain civility on that board "censorship". Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Note that I've asked the unblocking admin for a brief followup (i.e. of whether Digwuren has been living up to the terms of the unblock). El_C 01:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Deskana's report would be appreciated here. As far as I can see, Digwuren is on a never-ending revert-warring spree. It does not appear likely that he was unblocked in order to indulge in this sort of behaviour. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Behavior of Diwurgen, Irpen, and other related issues is now under review by ArbCom. I suggest archiving this thread, there is nothing we can add. Diwurgen, please remember that ANI is not a complains thread and concentrate on your ArbCom case.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Piotrus, could you please refrain from adding inflammatory comments whenever Irpen's name is mentioned? That would be highly appreciated. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My behavior is under the review by ArbCom? Interesting. I did not know that but fine. I welcome the review of ArbCom if there is any. Judging by the familiar faces popping up at once whenever I post, I am always under some sort of a "review" anyway. Too bad some editors don't have anything better to do but commenting on most each of my edit. --Irpen 02:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
My today's wikitime has been spent on populating Soviet occupation, reading several articles for Pullapää crisis and reviewing a WP:GA candidate. What have you done today, besides insulting people? Digwuren 02:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Just for the record: your "Soviet occupation" essays should be prodded immediately. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, let's do that: Article proposed for deletion because: Ghirla doesn't like it and thinks that the article sucks. Suva 12:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Support archiving for ArbCom to decide. ThuranX 02:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to elaborate what needs to be decided upon? I corroborate that, when I was involved in deleting two articles started by Digwuren and Co several months ago, there was a flurry of sterile edit-warring over removal of my comments (including the entire rationale for deletion) with references to WP:RFA. As a result, the deletion process was derailed. I believe Digwuren deserves a stern warning for having crossed the line of disruption. --Ghirla-трёп- 12:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
For ArbCom to decide what? I started this thread to ask some to take a look and stop the ongoing disruption of TfD. If this is done, there is nothing to "decide". Just watch this TfD, that's all. For the record, I have no objection to ArbCom getting involved in this nonsense too if this board is not enough. --Irpen 02:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
AC looking into this or that is not a free pass for disruption and I will not sit idle if it continues. El_C 02:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, this disruptive block shopping by Irpen needs to be examined by Arbcom. Martintg 05:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Block shopping? Did I ask to block anyone? All I asked is that Digwuren be told in no unclear terms to stop editing my comments. The message seems to have got through since he now left them alone. You are welcome to try to get ArbCom involved of course in this too. --Irpen 05:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I find your double standard disturbing. Digwuren 17:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Generally removal of comments are bad approach, if those are not obvious vandalism, ethnically based harassment etc. Can't find such in Irpens comments. In other hand we have an example then administrator's user:Piotrus talk page was converted to attack-harassment page, pointed to specific contributors [8]. Nor administrator Piotrus, nor anybody else removed those ethnically based harassment made by Halibutt. Second point, to name Irepn's messages on this board as disruptive block shopping as Martintg did, is misleading and unjust, say at least. As there are no hints about block request. M.K. 12:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Obviously the solution for this is for Irpen to avoid making inflammatory statements of this sort. --12:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tony Sidaway (talkcontribs)
    • Your comment, Tony, makes me wonder whether you even saw the page in question. Uninformed snide remarks are unhelpful. --Irpen

Repeated Personal Attacks report and article semi-block request[edit]

I would like to report User:PIO for his repeated attacks against both me as well as Users No.13 and Kubura. The complication (I hope someone can resolve) arises here: the user in question is apparently experiencing "technical difficulties" so he uses an IP, however he signs his edits (with PIO), and it is unmistakeably obvious (due to the identical, rather shaky grammar as well as my experiences with the user) that this is indeed the person he claims to be.
The best example's of his attacks are here (in Italian, but still obvious), and here. I have warned him repeatedly, both on his IP and registered talkpages, he, of course, deleted all the warnings. The user is also suspected of sockpuppetry, and apparently thinks he can get away with murder if it is done in the Italian language.

Another matter, the extremely controversial article, Istrian exodus, has been in the past prudently shielded against unregistered users by Admins. This protection apparently expired recently and the article has become a verotable battleground of edit-warring. I request that the semi-block be returned so that this infinate conflict can finally end. DIREKTOR 18:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As best I can tell he's suggesting that several other editors "need to see a psychiatrist," which isn't in keeping with the atmosphere we're trying to promote here. Your own comments leave much to be desired as well[9]. Raymond Arritt 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of that, however, this user has infringed upon even the low standards of decency that are kept in the unending edit war between Croatian and Italian users. In his post on Giovanni Giove's talkpage he also calls me (and others) an idiot and "mentally disturbed", he also incessantly calls me communist. I do not mean to be pretentious, but if these are not textbook personal attacks, I do not know what is. I believe at least some action is warranted. DIREKTOR 08:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox chat-room in bottom margine...[edit]

While exploring WP Sandbox yesterday I discovered the picture of a nude woman with some commentary. After requeting deletion I continued to the word game, then returned to Sandbox. This time there was commentary about the picture and possibly about its removal, which was quickly erased as soon as I added a comment. The point is: the comments appeared in the bottom margin of the page, NOT in the text box! When I attempted to report the problem on the Sandbox discussion page the material was very speedily deleted, nor could I find any record of it in the History.

Since then I tried to find someone to report the incident to, but coming from WV I asked for a Custodian; Tourskin refered me to Adminostrators. Please advise. Thank you, Shir-El too 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Content added to the sandbox appears below the "block" of instructions. The edits you mention are still in the history (here, for instance). As for the picture, it has encyclopedic value, and Wikipedia is not censored. That's probably why your edits were reverted—featuring a nude subject is not really a valid reason for deleting an image; if it is used for vandalism or disparaging to the subject, that's another story. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:28, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you; will try not to jump the gun again (could it be called 'Newbie Blues'? ;-) Shir-El too 13:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Subpage madness[edit]

Some (if not all) of the subpages created by User:Efansay need to go. I wasn't sure which, so I'm bringing it up here. As a note: this user has very few edits to the encyclopedia (and has been told about it). RobJ1981 06:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ethnic Germans[edit]

I have added a number of cite-taggs and other request for references to this article, however certain users keep removing them without any summary, or offensive remarks. One user complained that the reasons for the cite taggs should be further explained on the talkpage. Which I then did. Yet they still get removed. I would like the version with the cite tags restored and that the article be protected (semi or full) untill references are provided, or that the users removing the taggs be explained that they are harming the trustworthyness of wikipedia.Rex 13:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

A little background. Rex Germanus move-warred at the article in the past (without seeking consensus on the talk page) and was reverted by several distrinct editors. He then proceeded to add 40(!) cite tags on the article (along with more unilateral modifications) and when this massive adding of tags was reverted he reverted in turn using summaries like "naturally I revert. In fact, one more of these actions and I'll report you. I'm fedd up with this childish behaviour. If you want remove a tagg, ADD A SOURCE FOR IT!" and "revert to last version by rex. Fact taggs readded. See talk for details. Remove them again, and I'll call in the admins.". And call in the admins, he did. And I failed to find any offensive remarks direct at Rex in the recent history, though I feel his behaviour, in turn, is a bit tedious. As for the request for protection... see m:The Wrong Version 84.145.229.194 14:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Naturally the remark on 40 citetaggs is a lie, and a bad one too. Though the information in the article is so unsourced and flawed my guess it would have been easy to actually do it. The move discussion (as it was discussed) is irrelavant, as is your remark on the 'wrong version'. It not about my version, its about a version with information that can be checked. In fact my version is identical to yours, with the only difference being that mine warns readers that the information is not sourced. Learn how wikipedia works, then lecture others.Rex 15:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Feel free to count them, Rex, before you call me a liar. 40 Tags were added. 84.145.229.194 16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, 40 cite taggs were not added. Still a lot though. With which one(s) did you disagree anonymous? I can't seem to find your objections on the talkpage. Rex 16:09, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
PS. An admin just restored virtually all my cite taggs.Cheers!Rex 16:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:86.154.196.171 [edit]

Resolved

Would someone block this idiot and semi-protect AIV for a while? He's an obvious sock. The Evil Spartan 18:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP has already been given an involuntary three hour break... The Rambling Man 18:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm only seeing vandalism on AIV from the one IP address, so I think any protection is unecessary as yet. Natalie 18:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User picks up his vandalism right after week long block ends[edit]

A week ago User: Daddy Kindsoul was blocked for continuingly reverting the NOFX page, violating his revert parole.[10]

Today the block expired and he went to the NOFX page to make the same revert again.[11]

Now I know I should assume good faith, but considering the number of times he has been warned to go to the talk page before he reverts, I think this can be categorised as vandalism, as he clearly knows better.

I'm not sure what his revert parole conditions are, but he may well have violated them again. Hoponpop69 23:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

More like intentional disruption, not vandalism, but that's splitting hairs. Guess he needs a parole extension, contact the RFAR folks. ThuranX 01:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hoponpop is been dishonest. As you can see from the diff no vandalism has been purportrated, just the additional of information with vertified sources; which he happens to keep blanking (See, WP:VANDAL) with his IP (see, WP:SOCK). Hoponpop has already been blocked by an admin this week for his abusive behaviour towards me (vile personal attacks in edit summaries), yet he continues to throw out personal attacks here.. clearly hasn't learned his lesson. - The Daddy 11:01, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Is that you, Michael? Corvus cornix 16:05, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you are so sure I am a vandal and a sockpupptet, go ahead and file a report.Hoponpop69 22:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't need to, its already been proven that you use IP's like 68.114.92.198 and others to attack articles and harass.[12] And spread more insults, you have even been accused of spreading racism while using one of your sock IP's.[13] I come here to work on articles, not to play silly little games with "people" like you. The fact that you were blocked for calling me an "asshole" should give you a hint that maybe you should move onto doing something constructive. - The Daddy 01:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

insulting disruptions from RookZERO[edit]

User:RookZERO, who has just returned from a weeklong block, is immediately diving right back into his continual non-stop edit-warring on many Scientology-related articles at once, including Scientology and democracy and David Miscavige, a perennial WP:BLP problem. He does almost zero talk page posting, and his edit summaries are still almost uniformly insulting despite warnings from multiple editors to knock it off. A glance at edit summaries on his contribs page shows a long-term pattern of calling anyone who disagrees with him a "cult vandal":

  • "Member of a known cult vandalize the article, by deleting well cited and directly relavent information which does not suit the cult POV" [14] (he is referring to me here, which I find grossly offensive)
  • "restored cited material deleted by cult vandal" [15]
  • "restored categories deleted by cult vandal" [16]
  • "your repeated deletions of cited material that does not fit the cult POV" [17]
  • "restored article defaced by cult vandalism" [18]
  • "classical "censorship by vandal" - deleting relevent links for no reason beyond that they don't suit the cult POV" [19]

This relentless and obnoxious belligerence that Scientology is definitively a "cult" and that anyone who reverts his edits must be part of that "cult", makes him impossible to reason with and work with (literally, because he rarely discusses edits outside of his summaries). The Scientology articles are problematic enough without this person's ongoing disruption. wikipediatrix 19:51, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have indef blocked as a SPA. I would welcome admin review, as I would some other admins help with requests on Scientology related matters. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure that SPA is totally accurate; user appears to also be interested in martial arts, where he makes much more reasonable edits. However, he doesn't seem to have learned to control his feelings about Scientology during his block. -FisherQueen (Talk) 21:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Yup, I agree I was hasty with the SPA accusation and apologized for it on their talkpage. I also commented that if they were to agree either not edit Scientology or to get consensus for their proposed edits before doing so that the tariff could be reduced. I would still like a review of the tariff anyway. LessHeard vanU 21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm far less concerned about whether he's a SPA as I am about editwarring with no real explanation, insulting and libelous comments like calling another editor a "member of a known cult" and crying "censorship" when his edits are reverted by multiple editors. wikipediatrix 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm concerned that I do things properly. I believe I was right to block indefinitely for the continuing disruption, right to suggest that if the editor were to stop the disruptive editing then the block could be lifted or reduced, and right to request review of my actions.
Blocks are preventative. If the user agrees not to edit disruptively and gets unblocked then Wikipedia wins. Indefinite is a potentially long time, and most everyone deserves a chance. LessHeard vanU 21:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Being one of the editors who was unfairly at the receiving end of his slanderous accusations, you might understand why it makes little or no difference to me whether he shapes up in the future or not. His hateful and slanderous accusations already made will still remain in print, on the internet, in the Wikipedia system and all its mirrors for all time now, and in this sense he wins and gaming the system wins, not Wikipedia. The long-recurring pattern of blocks for his behavior also suggests that any action would indeed be preventative at this point, not punitive. wikipediatrix 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
I am a sysop on Wikipedia, not for wikipediatrix. I act for what I understand to be best for WP, which involves stopping attacks on the edits and characters of WP editors and attempting to resolve disputes, and to encourage good editing.
As mentioned, I would be grateful if other admins were also to review complaints in respect of Scientology related matters. LessHeard vanU 20:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Strongly disagree with the SPA block. A quick glance at RookZERO's edit history proves that he is not an SPA. That said, wikipediatrix is right to be concerned about his problematic behavior. I really don't like to think of AN/I as indefblock-on-demand for established users, this situation requires a more delicate approach like WP:DR or WP:CSN. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I concur, upon review, that this is not a SPA account - but it is one that is disruptive with regard to articles relating to a particular subject matter. As it is I have explained to RookZERO that it was his immediate resumption of editing in the same manner that incurred his previous block that provided me with the reason for an indefinite tariff. It is understood that indefinite does not mean forever, but if anyone wants (me) to amend the tariff now then I am happy for it to happen. However, I don't want an editor to be able to wait out a block and then resume the same practices as before - it doesn't gain Wikipedia. I would like to see some progress in getting the editor to understand why their conduct was unacceptable, and why any repeat will not be tolerated. LessHeard vanU 20:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this editor could be a candidate for a topic ban if he/she agrees to enter formal mentorship. And with respect to Wikipediatrix, a good number of editors have one or two hot buttons that they're better off avoiding. If I'd put my energies into 9/11 or World Trade Center I doubt I would have gotten sysopped. DurovaCharge! 03:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Death threat[edit]

The anon ip Special:Contributions/69.19.14.38 has just been blocked for vandalism for 24 hours.block log Personally i think he should have a longer block due to the death threat shown per this diff. I think this was a quite serious threat and should be dealt with before he returns. Thanks. Woodym555 20:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree! This isn't just 24-hour block material, this is super serious. wikipediatrix 20:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No wonder the IP did a death threat and it is a serious problem!! Greg Jones II 20:32, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
This appears to be related to a now-blocked registered user who was vandalizing and trolling earlier. I think we need a checkuser to see if there are any more registered accounts out of this IP. Newyorkbrad 20:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Brad, who do you think it was? Georgewilliamherbert 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I indef-blocked. (That's what we do just for legal threats, and this was much worse.) Yeah, it looked as credible as an online death threat can be. I'm 99% sure he was blowing smoke, but that's no excuse. – Quadell (talk) (random) 20:36, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I tagged the talk page with the indefblockedip tag and explained a bit. You guys only beat me to the indef block by about 30 sec. Georgewilliamherbert 20:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
Its a dynamic IP, we probably should not be blocking it indef. I shortened the block to one month. I won't complain if someone wants to extend it though. Mr.Z-man 20:43, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
He's asked to be unblocked, claiming his password was stolen. Er, since when has one needed a password to edit anonymously? Can't sleep, clown will eat me referred him to the unblock mailing list, but I doubt he'll get satisfaction there. -- llywrch 20:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Codyfinke6[edit]

Hello, This is a repost, The user Codyfink6 is making these edits again, this time on the Wendy's article. Could some on please take the time to block him? The complaints are piling up on his talk page. I do not believe he is a sock puppet, but he causing issues that are disrupting several articles. - Jerem43 05:37, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't udnerstand why this User has not been blocked. Could someone please explain? Corvus cornix 15:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a note, since my original post on the 7th: According to his contribution page, he has made approximately 8 edits, only one of which was productive and not reverted. There is one article that he has created that has been tagged for speedy deletion as non-notable and one that was deleted for the same reason. Again he has been requested to verify all edits and ignored the requests. - Jerem43 02:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Original post[edit]

I made a request earlier this week that this user be blocked (again) as that he is consistently making disruptive/unproductive edits and/or creating articles that are non-notable (I cannot find the archive of it). He has been requested to stop by myself and at least 10 other editors or administrators, yet he ignores our requests and continues to do so.

He has created at least nine non-notable articles that met the criteria for speedy deletion, two of which he tried to recreate several times. Several articles that he did create, he was asked to modify so that they met the criteria of a notable article, yet he did not and another editor had to. When he does create an article, it is usually just a sentence or two long, does not cite any sources and he fails to place a {{stub}} designation.

Here are some articles he has made disruptive/unproductive edits to:

  • Burger King products - keeps putting incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • List of CBS slogans - created an article that was basically a duplicate of the main article;
  • CBS Records - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • Dice Game (pricing game) - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
  • Farmer Jack - deleted a section of the article without stating reasons why, was requested to do so and did not. The edits to the article were were reverted and cited for vandalism on it as a result;
  • WLS-TV - put incorrect or conflicting data in;
  • WNYW - keeps modifying their slogans with incorrect data.

Mr. Finke will not respond to any posts on his talk page, so this has been very frustrating to many editors who have tried to engage him in a productive dialog to help him understand what he has been doing violates the policies of Wikipedia. He has already been blocked once and I believe that he needs to be blocked again, for at least 30 days if possible. This will hopefully get the point across that he has been causing harm to this community.

Jerem43 16:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

This sounds strongly like User:MascotGuy. Corvus cornix 17:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Has this user made any constructive edits? If it's not something from the sock drawer (as suggested by Corvus) maybe it's time for a WP:CSN? --Rocksanddirt 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am afraid that any sanctions against him would be ignored as that he does not read his talk page. ---Jerem43 19:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Then why not just block him like all of his other sockpuppets? Corvus cornix 20:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I am not so sure this guy is a sock puppet, but he is being disruptive. Could an administrator please put a block on him for a 30 day period, as the first one seemed to be completely ignored. - Jerem43 02:08, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user keeps deleting screenshots[edit]

In the articles ArmA:_Armed_Assault an anonymous user (72.188.213.190, 70.118.89.204, 70.118.90.29) keeps deleting a legit screenshot with the argument that it's not "web-resolution". He even keeps reverting the copyright and fair-use rationale that is supplied with the image.

Can we do anything about this situation? --Frescard 14:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The resolution of that screenshot really does need to be reduced. WilyD 15:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think there's an exception to fair use policy for video games, even if what you are attemping to illustrate is the high resolution of the game. Although the anon should not be replacing the fair use rationale with the statement that there is no rationale. If s/he thinks the rationale is invalid, that should go to the talk page or some appropriate venue for discussion, rather than be edit warred over. I notice, though, that no one has attempted to engage this anonymous user in discussion at their talk page, which should be the first step. Natalie 15:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I uploaded a 300x250 pixel image at Image:Arma33.JPG that satisfies the low resolution requirement. WODUP 16:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately, at that size the whole point of the image gets lost...
But I've contacted the developer, and they will try to set up an image tag like Ubisoft, in order to allow any kind of screenshots. --Frescard 17:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Just a suggestion, but if you're trying to illustrate the resolution, how about cropping down to just a 500x500 small area of the screen? That would still show the level of detail and (while still technically a copyvio) might be less of a problemiridescent (talk to me!) 17:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well... is "web-resolution" defined anywhere? I looked, but without much success.
I would imagine that nowadays, with the majority running at least 1024x768 that that would fall into the definition, but it seems that some people feel different... --Frescard 19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I've always understood web resolution to mean the same size as it's displayed in the article, typically 180 pixels wide. —Cryptic 19:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
For things like album & book covers, I generally use between 300px & 500px - not everyone uses the default thumbnail settings, but I can't imagine anyone having it set higher than that. That's the size Amazon uses on sales blurb, so I treat it as a de facto web standardiridescent (talk to me!) 19:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
"Web-resolution" is largely dependent on the layout of a site and the lowest common screen resolution used by visitors. While there's no one standard, there is a clear differentiation between that and print resolution, which is drastically higher (a 300dpi 8x10" image translates to 2400x3000). Also, Wikipedia users may have different thumb size settings in Special:Preferences - all the way up to 300px width. Fair use images should be no larger than necessary, but the 300px max guidelines are arbitrary and meaningless (though favored by the image patrol posse). However I have difficulty imagining a fair use claim where a resolution larger than .3 megapixels is necessary. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 20:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Dacy69[edit]

User:Dacy69 (under supevision at [[20]]) despite a discussion is going on related to the neutrality of March Days, he deleted the POV tag and also deleted some sourced information related to the numbers of killed people [21]without asking why? Andranikpasha 16:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

The user has been blocked by Seraphimblade. Natalie 18:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It was 14 days ago [22]. Now he's unblocked!Andranikpasha 18:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you're right. I did not read that closely enough. Natalie 18:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do love this - two arbitration cases and still the Armenia wars will not cease. Very silly! Fortunately, however, the kind gentlemen of the Committee have given us the tools to fight back. We simply have to drag this area of the encyclopedia back under control, and if that means playing a tad rough, so be it. General comment. Moreschi Talk 18:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Blatant Obvious sock[edit]

Resolved

Pflanzgarten was blocked indefinitely several months ago for edits like this on the Jim Clark article. Now, today 217.247.30.91 made this alarmingly similar edit, and 84.177.127.124 made another very similar edit. I think they should be blocked indefinitely as obvious socks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davnel03 (talkcontribs) 17:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they look like IP socks, and I see this has been a problem in the past. I've issued a short-term (12-hour) block to the most recently used dynamic IP, which will just force him to switch. I've also semiprotected the target page, which should be more effective. MastCell Talk 19:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Aynabend[edit]

Resolved: Complainant blocked indefinitely by Moreschi; see below thread.

User:Aynabend (under supevision at [[23]]) despite a discussion is going on related to the Arran (Republic of Azerbaijan), added unrelevant information [24] with a semi-vandal marking "Arran and Garabagh are almost synonyms." Andranikpasha 18:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha (talk · contribs)[edit]

Earlier on this fellow was placed on supervised editing, revert limitation and civility supervision for disruptive editing. Since then he's done nothing but wrangle pettily on various noticeboards. I've blocked him indef as a disruption-only account. Moreschi Talk 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah good work, most probably a sock by his editing pattern anyway. Ryan Postlethwaite 19:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The world will probably continue to turn on its axis with one less nationalistic edit-warring single-purpose account in it. Er, good block - may just want to make sure it's logged on the Arbitration page. MastCell Talk 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Done. Moreschi Talk 19:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Good job guys, this user needed guidance not an indef block. In any case the world still spins. Justice prevails VartanM 19:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I doubt it. We've seen so many of his type before (we've probably seen him before, too: how many new editors are all over ANI after 2 weeks?) that we've come to realise single-purpose disruptive edit-warring wrangling accounts will not be changed. Moreschi Talk 19:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Andranikpasha is a genuine user. First off, he is, from email conversations, pretty much fluent in Eastern Armenian, Artaxiad can barely speak any Armenian and Fadix writes in Western Armenian. So he is not the sock of a banned user. If you are to ban him for unjustified reasons then also ban user:Ehud Lesar who every one of us knows is user:AdilBaguirov and who, unlike Andranik, keeps a nice account while his edit warrings are relied to other suicide accounts. I am ready to defend my claim that user:Ehud Lesar is banned user:AdilBaguirov and armed with many evidences before an AA3. Blocking indefinitely users while others have had two arbitrations as chances and still disrupt (Atabek) is unfair, which won't be the first time I witness here.

The reason why you see him so many times on ANI is because Grandmaster and Atabek abuse the process by provoking members by reporting them on every given occasion, Vartan was reported three times to the Arbcom enforcement by Atabek for insignificancies in a very short time, while Grandmaster submitted Andranik for checkusers more than once. While this abuse of process was documented during the last arbitration, case it was ignored by arbitrators like most of the other disruptions. Andranik was harassed and provoked the day he set foot on Wikipedia with multiple attempts to get him blocked. (whatever happened to the principle don't bait newbies?).

1) Report members as much as it is required 2) create the illusion that only disruption comes from them and finally 3) expect him to be blocked on the given next occasion. 4) And then have other administrators support the block to make it more official, endorsing by the occasion Grandmaster and Atabek abuses of process which has done nothing other than destabilising editors. - Fedayee 21:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

No, no - my question is, why was this user reporting everyone else to ANI? I care little if this user is a sock: the point is that he's a single-purpose account created purely, so it seems, to disrupt articles relating to Armenia with edit-warring and tendentious editing. We have quite enough of those without adding more to the mix. Moreschi Talk 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For now, I object to this block. The user may well improve sufficiently with mentoring. Any objections if I explore that (including unblocking)? El_C 21:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not volunteering myself, to be clear! (I don't really do mentoring) I meant, someone else! El_C 21:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If you can find someone responsible and willing to mentor, fine, but I would question whether we really need dedicate such time to SPAs here purely to fight on what's already our biggest battleground, even without this one. I don't really objec to close mentorship + restrictions, though. Moreschi Talk 21:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I hear that. I'll look into it, thanks. El_C 21:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Nice idea as i was going to say that the block is a bit exaggerated but i am just busy mentoring another user. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 02:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Moulton[edit]

I have indef blocked Moulton (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log). See his Rfc and the talk page, as well as his talk page. Multiple editors have tried to help Moulton and work with him, to no positive result - the result is usually Moulton insulting those trying to help him. It appears Moulton has confused Wikipedia with some kind of forum where OR and POV reign supreme. He uses the "martyr" card or makes personal attacks regularly. He not only hasn't learned a thing about how Wikipedia works, he has continued playing games with manipulation and misdirection, albeit so ineptly that he is driving away anyone who has made the attempt to help him. He's not here to assist in building an encyclopedia, and he's getting very much in the way of that aim with his disruptive tendentious proselytizing for his POV.

Per usual, if anyone wishes to unblock feel free. IMO giving him another chance will waste more time, but I have no objection if someone else wishes to waste that time. I'm done. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well done. I commented as an outside view at the RfC, or I'd have done this myself a few days ago. Persistent talk page disruption, and trolling in the purest sense of the word - that is, editing with the apparent primary objective of getting a rise out of people. Sadly, he was all too successful. A good block. MastCell Talk 19:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have no problem with this block. Checking over the RFC, accounts that are here solely to push original research (some of the stuff he wrote was outstandingly original!) are not welcome. As little time should be wasted over disruption-only accounts as possible. Moreschi Talk 19:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, I hate to see someone get blocked, but there was little else that could be accomplished. Good block and its a shame he wouldn't listen to what other editors had to say. Baegis 19:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sorry to have extended good faith towards him, but I'm not sorry to see the back of him either. The smart trolls are the worst. Sheffield Steeltalkersstalkers 20:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I commented at his RfC, although I did not have direct contact as others have. I think once he printed private emails (and who knows if or how they were edited by Moulton, which is why I think it's not appropriate), that was it. This is unfortunate, since he seems to be quite intelligent and well-read. But he didn't want to play by the rules. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with MastCell - it's a good block. I tried reasoning with Moulton several weeks ago, but gave up rather quickly. He just doesn't seem to be able to grasp the point of Wikipedia. Guettarda 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Abtract - disruption.[edit]

User:Abtract has edited WP:Lead section four times imposing his own view as to how articles should begin which goes against a long-standing consensus. His decision to edit this page was prompted by a number of users reverting his changes to United Kingdom, where he made the article begin with United Kingdom rather than United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I pointed out that the UK article was following the guideline at WP:Lead section, and so Abtract decided to change the guideline to suit his view. I also pointed out that very many articles followed the agreed consensus and gave the following examples United States, BBC, Tony Blair, Margaret Thatcher. Abtract then decided to edit just these articles to follow his preferred style. Abtract's edits with regard to the lead are but one aspect of his determination to change the UK article to his own way of thinking and to repeatedly ignore the consensus. Please see Talk:United Kingdom for the evidence. Jooler 20:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

That's clearly disruptive behavior, in my opinion. --Haemo 20:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm thoroughly unimpressed by almost every single incident of this type, where someone is cited a policy, gets conronted by consensus on a page, then runs to the policy to get his way. I've already addressed at Lead Section, that he's making end runs around consensus across numerous pages, and hopefully that will sort this out, but I doubt it will be that easy, and I concur, it's disruptive. ThuranX 20:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Very disruptive, indeed. GoodDay 22:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

11 reversions on United States

  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157133791&oldid=157109634
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157224515&oldid=157221207
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157226644&oldid=157225475
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157231654&oldid=157229558
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157233128&oldid=157232011
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157234670&oldid=157233580
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157237114&oldid=157236778
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157237655&oldid=157237434
  9. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157240830&oldid=157239367
  10. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157242208&oldid=157241659
  11. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States&diff=157244046&oldid=157243630
Jooler 22:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Given that you have provided a warning, this user may be blocked under Wikipedia's Three-revert rule. If he qualifies, you should bring this up on WP:AN/3. You Can't Review Me!!! 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Open proxies? Sockpuppets?[edit]

Two Ip accounts User:86.145.251.168 and User:84.67.181.45 are obviously the same person, one was blocked for 3RR and the other restarted the edit war, the other couple of articles each has edited are identical as well. How can one tell if these are open proxies? Carlossuarez46 21:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try reporting them over at WikiProject on open proxies. The users there will check them out. --snowolfD4 ( talk / @ ) 22:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Will do. Carlossuarez46 22:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not proxies, probably the same person, though, on a dynamic IP.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism at Arthur Rubin[edit]

I'm not sure whether this should be here or WP:COIN, but I just want to confirm that I can revert clear vandalism on an article about me, especially if it's from an anon and claims to be reverting edits made by me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what board this should go on, removing clear/undisputed/undeniable vandalism is absolutely an exception to WP:COI. So its quite alright of you to do so, no worries.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not that another voice is needed here, but I surely think PPG to be quite right. Joe 23:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely, reversion of obvious vandalism is appropriate by Wikipedia standards. The press and public can be harsh critics, though, so if you want to be avert potential off-wiki problems (which are beyond our control) then some alternative solutions are:
  • WP:AIV - vandalism in progress noticeboard
  • WP:BLPN - biographies of living persons noticeboard
  • WP:RPP - requests for page protection (if the same vandal strikes several times)
Best wishes, DurovaCharge! 01:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Sanity[edit]

I have blocked User:Abtract for disruption on United States. I don't know about blocking the other reverters, could I have a second opinion? Thanks, Navou banter 23:22, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

If a user has 'reverted' more then 3 times in 24hrs, that's a breach of 3RR. GoodDay 23:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Not even remotely surprised. Attempts to get "your way" in an editing dispute by changing the guidelines, and then changing other articles, are bound to get messy. It was disruptive to begin with, and this is just a symptom of that. --Haemo 23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I understand, however, you and another did revert exactly three times, and I considered blocking you two as well. Please do not participate in the edit war, even if you limit your reverts to exact three reverts. This is also disruption, and a block will prevent that disruption. Navou banter 23:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

:::I've only reverted 3-times (pointing out my third, was my last). GoodDay 23:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll limit myself to 2-reverts, and avoid getting involved with edit wars. GoodDay 23:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd say no other blocks are needed even if one person did revert against him 3+ times. Abtract's actions equate to simple vandalism, if not originally, then by the 12th time he repeated them against mass consensus. --tjstrf talk 23:35, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, we should be understanding of people who go to the "brink" when they're dealing with someone who makes unilateral, undiscussed changes, and then breaks our guidelines to edit war over them. --Haemo 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the edit history for United States I counted 3 reversions max for every reverter besides User:Abtract...

Breakdown:

  • Gooday: 1, 2, 3
  • DCGeist 1, 2 (had reverted earlier but those where all anti-vandal reverts, acceptable)
  • G2bambino 1, 2, 3
  • Evb-wiki 1
  • Jooler 1
  • AndonicO 1.

So technically there has been no 3rrs but the edit warring was disruptive.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 23:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I thought so, just wanted the to double check. Also, thank you for that promise GoodDay. Navou banter 23:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Folken De Fanel reported by Cman7792[edit]

Folken De fanel and me have been arguing over the dbz live action film being merged with the dbz page. we both have different opinions, but every time he leaves a comment, the comment is personally attacking me. he says aweful things and he should watch his mouth. not to mention, he broke the three revert rule on the dragonballz page. he has a history of doing both these things. --Cman7792 01:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding User:Maneisis[edit]

Maneisis (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

This user received a level 4 warning in early April for creating hoax movie pages. However, in late June, he created MayBe (film), which is supposedly directed by Martin Hernandez, a 15 year old. Then today, he created White Light (film), a nonsensical article that smells of hoax. He's also uploaded several movie posters from http://www.impawards.com; these probably aren't okay for 'pedia use. Not sure of appropriate action to be taken, possibly a short block? Thanks. GlassCobra (talkcontribs) 02:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Duff man2007[edit]

Sockpuppetry accusations aside, this user is showing a blatant disregard for Wikipedia policy and etiquette, making inflammatory posts on the Talk:Halo 3 page, and violating 3RR on Halo 3. Several users have attempted to discuss the subject of the edit war, as well as pointing out the 3RR rule and the need for sources. Please, do something about this user! Stryik 04:52, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, see User talk:SpigotMap; again, uncivil conduct and a general lack of respect for editors.

he's wrong, I've provided sources numerous times and they chose to disregard it, calling it a "hoax". even though every other site on the internet talked about it, there pictures OF it, and tehre was links to the halo 3 ebay page; honestly, I don't even know why i'm arguing with this guy. Duff man2007 04:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Even if those were reliable sources, you did break 3RR--$UIT 04:58, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for 24 hours for very blatant 3RR violations. Once this is up, if there are continuing problems, contact me. I'm concerned about the pattern of behavior I see here. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 05:04, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Pacula / User:Ralphyde[edit]

I would like to report an ongoing edit war. It relates to the topic 'Tension Myositis Syndrome.' To review, on Sept 9, 2007, User:Pacula marked the article for deletion. This is a well established article that has been on Wikipedia since January, 2004, and has been edited and improved by many people over this time. It has many citations and has been linked to in many other articles. Then, on the same day, he began deleting all the references to this article and the citations involved, in other related articles. This left a mess of broken links and deleted citations, with nothing in the discussion pages to justify his edits. I should point out that Pacula is a games programmer, and knows nothing about the topic involved, but for some reason decided he didn't like it. As one interested in this topic, I began to try to repair the damage done. When I began to replace the deleted links and citations, trying to put the related articles back to the way they had been before his destructive edits, and not adding anything new, he quickly followed me around and deleted my repairs, calling me a "spammer." The discussion still goes on as to whether the article should be deleted or not, but Pacula continues to revert my repairs of his destructive edits. Then today, he accused me of spamming and advertising (false), of "Unwarranted pervasive linking to uncollaborated self-published work" (totally false) and threatened to block me if I continued to repair his destructive edits which I would consider vandalism. Look at his recent edits and comments and his multiple destructive edits to cited texts and links. This is censorship and vandalism in my opinion, and I would like it stopped. Thanks, Ralphyde 21:27, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: moved from AN3 - seems more appropriate here. Kuru talk 23:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
No wonder there is an edit war. We need some administrators to stop it ASAP. Greg Jones II 00:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Assuming you are talking about Tension myositis syndrome.) It is perfectly acceptable for Pacula to initiate this deletion discussion, no matter how long the article has been on Wikipedia. Notability is not conferred by an article's Wikipedia age, but by other external factors. As for your accusations that Pacula began deleting the references, there are only two edits to that article by Pacula among the last 50 edits: this one, in which s/he puts a CSD tag on it, and this one, in which s/he nominates it for AfD following your removal of the speedy tag. Pacula has made a few edits to the AfD, but none of them are reverts and they are all very constructive. I'm not seeing what the issue with Pacula is, and there is certainly no 3RR violation, since s/he has only edited the article twice and they were completely acceptable edits. Nominating an article for AfD when someone has disagreed with the speedy is the right way to handle that. Natalie 01:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(Nice summary, Natalie!) – Quadell (talk) (random) 01:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Natalie, to see what Pacula did, you have to look at his edit history. His edits weren't all to Tension Myositis Syndrome, but to all topics that previously linked to tension myositis syndrome, of which there were many. Since he destroyed these links by systematically deleting them and various cited text, they can't be found by just looking at tension myositis syndrome but can only be seen by looking at his editing history. He made a big mess of quite a few interrelated articles having to do with chronic pain. I have tried to repair some of the damage, to get it back to the way it was before his rampage, but he has then reverted most of my repairs. Thanks, Ralphyde 02:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

What I see in Pacula's editing history is the removal of an external link you have repeatedly added. Whether this link is used a lot on Wikipedia or not will have no bearing on the AfD for the article since being an external link in Wikipedia is not a standard of notability. However, Pacula's editing history goes back nearly 3 years so I didn't check every edit. Could you provide some diffs, Ralphyde, of where Pacula has removed cited text, removed citations, or broken a link? Natalie 02:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Natalie, I don't know what you mean by diffs, but if you start with the edit history for Pacula at 15:42 on 9 September, you'll see his nomination for deletion, then in rapid order starting at 18:13 the same day, he removed the links to tension myositis syndrome from Fibromyalgia, Pain and nociception, repetitive strain injury, list of medical abbreviations, human body, chronic pain, back pain, biopsychosocial model, lumbago, carpel tunnel syndrome, TMS, low back pain, etc. When I tried to repair this damage, he then reverted all my changes and called me a "very determined spammer," when it was he who was vandalizing all the links and references based on a false idea that these links weren't legitimate. I've been a student of tension myositis syndrome, which relates to a method for curing chronic pain, for over three years, have read nine different books on it by several different authors, and it is a legitimate and important subject especially to those in chronic pain. And Pacula has continued destroying these important links in spite of my complaints to him, which he purged from his talk page. Thanks for caring, Ralphyde 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
There seem to be issues of LINKSPAMMING (which also applies to wikilinks) and OWNERSHIP going on here. (BTW, if you don't yet know what a "diff" is, please get better informed before doing much more editing. That's pretty basic knowledge you will need if you are going to engage in talk page discussions and in any conflict resolution processes.) Basically these matters are common beginner mistakes and a refusal to listen to more experienced editors (in this case Pacula) can give you a bad record here. Don't edit war. Discuss and learn. -- Fyslee/talk 05:39, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I find it helpful to link to the page in question when suggesting that someone educate themself. Ralphyde, you can learn what diffs are at Help:Diff. Natalie 17:56, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Natalie. I guess I knew what a diff was, as I'd assumed it stood for difference, and I'd learned to see them for what they were. However, what I didn't know was that they were called "diffs" or how to pass them to you for your observation. So thanks for the link. It is helpful. Ralphyde 16:11, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Ralphyde's complaint against me is basically that I systematically removed a considerable number of links and references from various articles that pointed to the TMS article, and that much is true. I removed them because I felt that they were link spam - refering (directly or otherwise) to what I saw as an extremely non-NPOV article on a WP:Fringe subject that basically read like an advertisement for the books it used as references. Most of these references to this article/advertisement seemed barely relevent, so I thought it best if I tried to sweep up the mess as much as possible. Ralphyde's insistence on undoing the removals prompted me to place the standard series of 'advertising' user warning templates on his talk page, from which came the threats of blocking that he refers to above. These books that the TMS article uses for reference are the above-mentioned 'uncollaborated self-published works', though I realize now that Ralphyde is not the author, but merely an evangelical fan of the author's theories, making this more of a WP:SOAP spamming issue than of blatant commercial spam as I first thought. - Pacula 05:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the essense of my complaint, that Pacula hastily marked an established, long standing, and important article for deletion, without any knowledge of the subject, but then, before anyone had a chance to discuss that motion, he deleted all the links to it in related articles, as well as cited text, so that people could not properly see the significance of the article, and when I tried to restore his destroyed links, he followed me around deleting them again and calling me a spammer. Marking the article for deletion was acceptable (though wrong in this case), but then rushing around destroying all the links to it to diminish its importance (i.e. destroying all the evidence) before anyone had a chance to vote on his motion and thus making it inaccessable from related articles, was absolutely unacceptable. There should have been a wait until the issue was decided. That is my point. In addition there was nothing about any 'uncollaborated self-published works' involved. This was a total red herring. Ralphyde 17:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, beginning a deletion discussion of this article is perfectly acceptable, regardless of how long the article has existed on Wikipedia. As to whether it's important, that's for the AfD discussion to hammer out. Secondly, removing links to this article from other articles will have no bearing on the AfD, as this is not a way of meeting Wikipedia:Notability. The importance or significance of an article can in no way be judged by its presence within Wikipedia - it has to come from outside. If you are worried that not enough people will participate in the deletion discussion, you may wish to list it on an appropriate noticeboard (not telling people how to vote, just informing them that the discussion is taking place). So what you have here is a content dispute, and as the banner on the top of the page says, this board is not part of the dispute resolution process. Administrators have no special ability to adjudicate content disputes; please utilize one of the processes outlined at Wikipedia: Dispute resolution instead. Natalie 17:52, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring on today's featured article[edit]

Two editors have been reverting like mad on today's featured article, Fightin' Texas Aggie Band. I've blocked both of them for 12 hours, but since this is my first 3RR enforcement, feel free to adjust length or overturn as needed. Resurgent insurgent 05:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up here yourself and hopefully and admin can soon have a second look. Let me just note that it is very unfortunate that we arrive at a situation where the author of a featured article gets blocked for multiple reversions on 'his' article the same day that it gets posted and can't help feeling that we should have been more vigilant / helpful in the first place --Tikiwont 15:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The editor in question claims he was reverting vandalism, and a cursory review of the diffs seems to bear that out. Please keep in mind that obvious vandalism is an exception to the 3RR policy. When an article is a TFA, it's a magnet for vandalism, and we need to keep that in mind and approach things a little more carefully. I think you owed the author a bit of an explanation when you blocked, telling him why the vandalism exception didn't apply in this case, assuming you believed that it didn't. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 19:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Err Resurgent insurgent's block doesn't show up in the logs at all. The users in question are User:BQZip01 and User:ThreeE, for the record (took me 10 minutes to find out who he was talking about :P). The two user block logs in question: [25] and [26]. Ignoring that confusing note, 3rr was indeed broken, and it was not vandalism. One editor removed a bit of unsourced information in the lead and it was reinserted back and forth, so the block was appropriate. [27] [28] [29] Cowman109Talk 20:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
User:BQZip01 has done the 3RR thing again today -- the second day in a row on the article in question. ThreeE 06:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am only partially involved as I was working vandal patrol yesterday but he is reverting other edits not related to this particular subject you guys are fighting about. There has been a LONG discussion on the talk page and consensus appears to be near but you came along and went ahead and edited anyway despite the ongoing discussion you knew was taking place. That is my observation. I am going to try to get BQZip01 to cool it a bit but you need to participate in the discourse. It would be better for the article. Spryde 11:28, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Grant_Chuggle[edit]

  • HE'S BACK ~ not a big surprise. New IP is 41.241.8.137. He also uses IP 41.241.74.5, and just added 41.241.14.73 not sure if you have that one yet. He has also posted this in the Wikipedia sandbox. I'll not link it because, you can tell from the title, what the picture is. Image:Hot_naked_woman.jpg He's been repeatedly blocked but continues to use sockpuppetry to get past the blocks. More information can been found on my talk page.IrishLass0128 20:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Along with placing the pictures of the naked women in the sandbox, he is putting obsene phrases/"invitations" in. He has a long history of this behavior and has been reported several times. He also uses user:Hen55 as a user id. He continues to remove verifiable information and place assumptions and personal opinion in articles. He is constantly changing his IP to evade blocking.IrishLass0128 20:29, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • User has abused people, posted pictures of naked women, bragged about evading blocks, repeatedly invited people to "enjoy his man parts" and changed user reports about him. He's blocked for a week but has evaded the blocks again. As I have never encountered such a problem, is there a procedure for getting him banned for good and blocking his sockpuppets? He is disruptive, participates in edit wars, adds unverifiable information, and reverts edits made by multiple editors ignoring consensus decisions. Please advise on how to get user banned. CelticGreen 00:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
He's back again this morning. 41.241.14.73. He's making the same changes and vandalising the same articles. He seems to believe there's no such thing as "step-siblings" such as step-brothers or step-sisters. It's what makes it so easy to tell it's him. CelticGreen 12:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

BulletBall[edit]

Could I get an uninvolved admin to step in and try to sort out some of a mess that I am, at least minorly, involved in? It started as an article about an game who's only claim to notability was an appearence on the reality show American Inventor, where it did not get very far at all. I wrote out a more full history here. The page has been bouncing around between redirect and aricle for the last few days, and as of this morning the two month old AFD has been suddenly re-opened. So we now have both active RFD and AFD discussions going on the same page at the same time. - TexasAndroid 13:53, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yikes. Another AfD is certainly in order, but re-opening the old one is probably a mistake this far out. A new, clean-slate AfD would probably be best. Have you talked with User:DarkFalls about this? MastCell Talk 15:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I've responded to him now. I had not noticed that he was an admin as well. - TexasAndroid 15:54, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Azurgi and disruptive editing[edit]

Could someone please check the disruptive edits of Azurgi (talk · contribs) at Saudi Arabia. The guy doesn't communicate and keeps reverting even if it was clearly explained to them that WP:MoS is more important than their POV. He has just reverted me twice to the version of an IP. It could be them as it could be someone else. I already left him a clear message at their talk page as i am not a fan of edit warring. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 13:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I left another warning that he needs to discuss his proposed change; if he again reverts against the consensus version without discussing, then I think a brief block would be in order. MastCell Talk 15:29, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
Thanks mate. -- FayssalF - Wiki me up® 16:17, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

In need of attention[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.
Anybody can claim to be anyone. No further admin action is needed, and the only one in need of attention is apparently User:Josebonifacio, so closed. Thatcher131 16:49, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I want to state first and foremost I apologize for ad hominen attacks on this website. However, what is more important to say is that I am not the vandal attacking Wookeepedia, nor am I EndoExo, GorgeHe, the Communism Vandal or any other troll on this site. I am trying to move on with life, and establish something more meaningful for myself. Therefore, I have no interest in childishly vandalizing and trolling this website as I had in the past. I am not sure how a CheckUser actually "confirmed" my vandalism as claimed by certain admins, but it isn't me. I actually edit productively on an anonymous account. Lastly, I understand why you would immediately delete this account and block my access to Wikipedia, but please listen and acknowledge the fact that I have discontinued vandalizing. Josebonifacio 16:26, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the context of the above and the edits that the user made, the above is most likely User:Encyclopedist. - TexasAndroid 16:31, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I am Encyclopedist - or was. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josebonifacio (talkcontribs) 16:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have indef blocked the user as a self confessed sockpuppet of a banned user. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:37, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
And any claim that he is not responsible for the trolling from EndoExo, at the very least, is absolutely and categorically bollocks. ~ Riana 16:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
It should also be noted that the claim above has apparently no basis for it per this edit [30] made by a apparent sockpuppet account of Encyclopedist just a few days ago. - Caribbean~H.Q. 16:41, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Harassment in User space.[edit]

User:Zsero has openly declared in past discussion that he has abandoned WP:AGF in his interactions with me. In light of this, I asked that he not make edits to my User or User_talk pages until he rescinds said abandonment. He has continued arguing in my User_talk space despite my request; this is harassment, and I request intervention against his continue posting there unless and until he rescinds his abandonment of WP:AGF. Italiavivi 03:05, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK there is no policy, guideline, or even mild suggestion, that editors own their talk pages, and can ban people from them. User talk pages exist to facilitate communication between editors, and any editor who has a legitimate comment to make to another editor, or a legitimate contribution to make to a discussion taking place on another editor's user talk page, is entitled to do so. Doing so does not constitute harassment in any sense of the word, and certainly not in the sense defined at WP:Harassment. As for AGF, it is decidedly not the case that one must continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary; I did AGF of Italiavivi for far longer than I needed to, but eventually the evidence to the contrary seemed to me overwhelming, and I stopped, as is clearly my right. I fail to see how that affects my right to participate in discussions taking place on his/her talk page. -- Zsero 03:17, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Zsero, I will ask politely one more time: Please abstain from making edits to my userspace until you rescind your declared abandonment of good faith against me. Italiavivi 03:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No policy, guideline, or anything else, requires me to accede to such an request. I will continue to make reasonable and appropriate comments on your talk page whenever I see a legitimate cause to do so. I have not harassed you until now, and I have no intention of doing so in the future. -- Zsero 03:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't care if you have not harassed me until now, now is not acceptable. Please do not make edits to my User space while you continue flaunting your abandonment of good faith against me elsewhere. It is harassment to fill my User space with arguments while openly declaring your refusal to assume good faith in discussions with me. Italiavivi 03:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
No, it isn't. And I have hardly "filled" your user space with arguments. My comments there have been few and modest. Now if I were in fact "filling your user space" or trying to do so, e.g. by posting many KB of nonsense, that would be harassment. But I've never done so, or even come within orders of magnitude of appearing to do so, so I don't know where you come off implying otherwise. -- Zsero 04:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
It is generally recognized that when someone asks you to stop using their talk page, esp. in admitted cases of no AGF and no civility, the offending editor should stop. Please limit your conversation to the talk page of the article in question. Continuing to attack him on his talk page constitutes harassment (even if only he feels it's an attack, it's best to disengage.) ThuranX 03:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
If it's "generally recognised" it must surely be written somewhere. Where?
BTW in this case there is no article in question, to whose talk page I could take it; the discussion, about something that happened here on ANI, was taking place on Italiavivi's talk page, between him/her and another editor, and s/he said something that wasn't true, so I pointed it out, as is my right. I was entirely factual, and documented the truth with the relevant diffs. -- Zsero 03:28, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
First, above the 'until now' indicates you KNOW that your actions are taken as harrassment. beyond that, if you're going to wait till the admins block you by demanding I give you a policy citation for a common occurance here on AN/I, then good luck with that free time the block will get you. Your statement that you intend to keep editing there, despite your admission that it comes off as harassment, is a problem. but since you don't believe it, I'll step aside ,and let others get the point across. ThuranX 03:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh my goodness. "Until now" indicates nothing of the sort. It means exactly what it says. I have never harassed Italiavivi, and I have no intention of harassing him/her, or anybody else. How you read what you do into it is beyond me. AFAIK when Italiavivi claims that declining a request not to edit a user talk page is per se harassment, s/he is using a definition of "harassment" that is peculiar to him/her. Are you really saying that you share that view? It's certainly not consistent with the definition at WP:Harassment. -- Zsero 04:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Why don't you all just walk away? This seems like pointless instigation at this point, and it's definitely not helping anyone resolve their disputes. --Haemo 04:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I would love for him to walk away. I simply ask that Zsero not make edits to my User space until he rescinds his abandonment of good faith against me, nothing more. Italiavivi 04:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The correct response would be "I would love to walk away", not "I would love for him to walk away". And since you're the one who filed this frivolous complaint here at ANI, I can hardly walk away from that can I? You have not "asked" me not to comment on your talk page, you have demanded it, something that you have no right to do, and threatened that if I refuse you will file frivolous complaints against me, such as this one. That's hardly something I can walk away from. I don't comment on your talk page to annoy you, I do it when I have something pertinent to say. Such as this evening, when you misrepresented what another editor had done, and I pointed out the facts. That's what the talk page is for, and I have every intention of continuing to do so when appropriate and not otherwise. -- Zsero 04:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously, Zsero, Italia, step away from each other entirely. Zsero, stop instigating discussions with Italia where he/she does not want to discuss things with you. Italia, ignore Zsero if necessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 04:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Both of you should stop and rather concentrate energies on editing articles accordingly to WP:CIVIL. I did see the message on User talk:Zsero in which he explicitly talks about not proceeding with good faith towards the other editor. that means trolling! WP:TROLL/WP:GAME. Just because there are gaps in certain rules in wikipedia doesn't give you the right to harass someone else's user page and more if the other party doesn't want to discuss things not related to articles but a discussion here.[31] plus Zsero edited over taliavivi's comments (it is considered vandalism WP:TALK). My humble advice is to just drop all this nonsense..!!--F3rn4nd0 (Roger - Out) 04:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me? You've got to be kidding. 1) I am explicitly not required to AGF forever; how is declaring that I've reached the point where I no longer AGF of someone "trolling" or "gaming"? 2) How have I "harassed someone else's user page"? By "gaps in certain rules in wikipedia" do you mean that I'm expected to obey rules that exist in your head and nowhere else? 3) Deleting someone's comments on my own talk page is not vandalism - where on earth did you get the idea that it is? I'm entitled to delete them just as Italiavivi is entitled to delete comments on his/her talk page. I leave comments that I consider useful and constructive, even if they're criticism directed against me. In this case I saw no point in leaving the comment up. -- Zsero 07:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to consider this resolved so long as you both agree not to talk to each other on each other's user talks. How's that sound?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:13, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Which is what is being asked here, is it not?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

ItaliaVivi is blocked for 48 hours for (unrelated) violation of 3RR, and has announced that he leaves Wikipedia, which makes this all rather moot. Fram 09:18, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that may be relevant. Szero's comment on Italiavivi's user talk page included the word "confabulating" used in an unnecessary and provoking manner and may possibly have been a contributing factor in Italiavivi's decision to try to leave Wikipedia. I think that users should not have total control over their user talk page. They should not be able to use it as a forum where a limited group of people can develop a consensus that does not include all points of view (as I tried to do on a user page once and was criticized for it and stopped). However, posting a comment which does not assume good faith and which is provoking and at the same time is overstepping a request to stay off the talk page is a combination which I think is worse than any one of those things alone. I think Szero has mistaken a user with a very different point of view with a user who does not have good faith -- they are two very different things. --Coppertwig 12:59, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, I have not mistaken anything. This was not a matter of a different point of view but of different facts: those in the edit history and those in Italiavivi's mind. The word "confabulating" was carefully chosen to describe what I believe Italiavivi was actually doing, and what I believe s/he has done before. It's as much good faith as I can muster for him/her, and bear in mind that I am under no obligation to assume any GF, having had plenty of evidence to the contrary, but rather than accuse him/her of deliberately lying (as s/he did to me) I gave a more innocent explanation. But the facts remain the facts, and they're not as Italiavivi has represented them, either in that case or in the previous ones.
And it remains the case that nobody has the right to ban others from appropriate use of their talk pages, and defying such a purported ban does not constitute harassment. Which means that this complaint was frivolous, yet another violation to Italiavivi's account. -- Zsero 20:45, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm seeing a lot of this[edit]

I've seen quite a lot of people lately who think they can "ban" other people they dislike from their talk page. It may sound like stating the obvious, but perhaps WP:UP needs to point out that they can't do that? >Radiant< 09:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Might be a good idea. ViridaeTalk 09:26, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Certainly true, but it's often wise to honor a request to stay away. Tom Harrison Talk 11:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I'd support a balanced edit to UP, once which explicitly states taht 'while a user's request that you not continue using his talk page is not enforcable because it constitutes a WO:OWN violation, it's often wise to be CIVIL and disengage, at least for a brief period (such as a day, or weekend), to allow both parties to cool off and return their focus to the content dispute.', thus making it clear that it's good manners, but not policy, to stop when asked. ThuranX 11:25, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I personally consider it really bad form to post to someone's talk page if they make it clear they don't want any communication with you. I don't think there should be a policy about it either way. We shouldn't encourage Wikilawyering, but we shouldn't encourage WP:DICK violations either. – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • On the contrary, I consider it really childish to tell people "whatever you have to say, I don't want to hear it". It's the wiki equivalent of putting your fingers in your ears and going "la la la la" at the top of your voice. >Radiant< 13:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
    • I understand the concerns about harassment and incivility, but I think these can be dealt with by other means than talk page embargoes. These include comments by uninvolved admins, the dispute resolution process, and (in extreme cases) admin actions. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. As a policy, it could be gamed and used to justify harassment. Radiant's stance would make for a mighty fine essay though. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 18:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Perhaps we could add Radiant's note to WP:UP, but also bring up WP:HARRASS on the page and specifically state that as an exception, or something. You Can't Review Me!!! 01:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Alansohn[edit]

Would somebody please help me at User talk:Alansohn. I asked him really quite nicely nicely not to use misleading edit summaries, which prompted him to accuse me of all kinds of shit, and he also thinks that reposting a cached version of an article is fine by policy whereas deleting an article on a living individual drawn entirely form tabloid news reports is Evil. Judging from Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Alansohn this is pretty much normal behaviour for him. Is it time for further action? Guy (Help!) 16:31, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Quite nicely? You accuse me of deliberately falsified edit summaries to disguise changes made to the Lizzie Grubman article: "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." You then made an "or else" threat: " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." There is no policy requiring that any edit summary be entered, whatsoever. Every single word added to the article included a reliable and verifiable source. We now have a completely imaginary WP:TABLOID policy that has been violated, when in fact every single reference added comes from a reliable source, and that no one else has challenged. Even the admin who deleted the article in the face of unanimous consensus to keep the article as is (other than the nominator) didn't use teh excuse that teh sources weren't reliable. No other editor has claimed that the content added was "controversial" or attempted to change a word of what you have decided was inserted misleadingly. Every single edit that I have made over the past few years includes an edit summary that provides a clear, concise and accurate description of the changes I've made. That, despite repeated requests, you have never specified what Wikipedia policy has been violated, you have failed to specify what the "or else" part of your threat is and to take take the action you keep on threatening is evidence that there is no legitimate purpose here. It amazes me that an admin can improperly delete an article, another admin can improperly delete the same article after sources were added, and a third admin can make false accusations of a policy violation, accompanied by threats of further action, that I can plead with this admin to move on and have him refuse. I finished my edits of the article, which is balanced, comprehensive and in which nearly every sentence is thoroughly-documented (including such "tabloids as The New York Times and New York magazine). I had already moved on, but an admin wants to fight a non-existent battle. And who has a problem here? Alansohn 18:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I agree with JzG in regards to you using a misleading edit summary. I do not see where JzG has breached WP:CIVIL here? He did not right off the bat come to you with a stern warning. I think you overacted to what he was leaving as a notice/reminder from the start. Also, there may be no policy about entering an edit summary but policy is clear enough in saying "do not enter a misleading edit summary."¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice" when NO ONE HAS SPECIFIED WHAT WIKIPEDIA WAS VIOLATED, may not be a violation of WP:CIVIL, but it is certainly not "nicely". What battle is being fought here? Are we just having admins defending other admins by attacking non-policy issues? Alansohn 19:14, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Calm down. No battle is being fought here. Your edits were believed to be inappropriate. I am not really aware or involved about the controversy of your content additions (so I have no comments in regards to that) but it is easy to tell that you were using a misleading edit summary. Just understand that it is honestly not appropriate to do so. That's all.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you (or anyone else) seriously believe that the edits were deliberately "misleading" as User:JzG accused or (at worst) brief? Do you have any shred of Wikipedia policy that requires any edit summary for any article (Answer: none exists)? Was any Wikipedia policy violated? What is the "or else" threat "to bring this to wider notice" and why was it necessary? I had finished editing the article and moved on. I'm trying to build an encyclopedia here; Your fellow admin User:JzG is trying to fight some sort of battle about the article, citing his brand-new WP:TABLOIDISM policy. I don't suppose that you know his motivations or the answers to these questions, but we need to hear a thorough explanation for these actions directly from the horse's mouth. Alansohn 19:36, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I do and I explained to you why. You labeled them copyedits when they had nothing to do with small grammatical, spelling, etc. fixes. However, I do understand it might not have been your direct intention to make the edit summary misleading.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I left this comment on his talk page describing the difference between what is considered copyediting and introducing new material into an article. I also alerted him to this ANI thread as common courtesy.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 17:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
I have last week been in a very similar dispute with Alansohn, and this behavious seems to be all too common for him. The RfC hasn't really achieved anything, sadly. Fram 19:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Good to see all the old tricks here: the SHOUTING, the accusations, the outrage, the wikilawyering and the mindless repetition, all without admitting even the slightest possibility of having done something wrong. The RfC could be re-opened. Eusebeus 19:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Or escalated, since he shows every sign of not just not learning, but of denying any need to learn. Guy (Help!) 19:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Agreed. This is not a new problem by any means. wikipediatrix 19:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • No disrespect, Guy, but given that your response to his "what the hell are talking about?" was to simply repeat what you originally said, with added boldface, talk about escalation cuts both ways. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • That was the third or fourth iteration. But you're right, it should have been apparent that Alansohn's response to any form of kickback is reliably denial and attack, so yes I should have taken it straight here or maybe arbcom. Guy (Help!) 20:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • <Slaps forehead>. Guy, doing the same over and over again and expecting different results is, what, exactly? And yes, I mean both of you. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Actually Calton, he didn't ask for clarification, he asked what WP policy he was explicitly violating in his summaries, which is wikilawyerish & belligerent, given the discussion that had already occurred. Eusebeus 20:24, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Asking "what did I do wrong" isn't asking for clarification? On this planet, it is. And the answer is, to tell him what. If he doesn't shut up then, yeah, it's Wikilawyering, but citations to the International Journal of Because I Said So (to use one of JzG's formulations) are bad regardless of who's doing it or how microscopically thin-skinned your respondent is. --Calton | Talk 15:38, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If your edit summaries were misleading, and it was an accident, then just apologize and explain that you'll be more careful? Is that a really difficult thing to do? Why all the shouting?--Haemo 19:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems apparent that he didn't understand what JzG was talking about -- whether he should have is another question, but is at least ambiguous -- and since JzG's response was to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, it seems Alansohn's response to repeat the same thing over and over, with added boldface, was at least at the same level. --Calton | Talk 19:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • A note on my page that read "Alan, please try to leave more descriptive edit summaries when making edits of this nature", would have gotten a prompt thanks. I have nothing to hide, and stand behind every single edit (and edit summary) I made to the article, despite the claim of "violating" the brand-new WP:TABLOID policy that JzG created earlier today. Instead, my first contact from User:JzG was the baseless claim of making knowingly misleading edit summaries in bad faith "Alan, I suggest you take a lot more care here. You have at least twice used highly misleading edit summaries, making significant changes which you knew to be controversial with summaries that imply minor copyediting." followed by " If you continue to do this then I will feel a need to bring this to wider notice." An accusation of "misleading edit summaries" followed by a threat "to bring this to wider notice", which User:JzG presents as "asking nicely", is anything but. We deserve far better from an admin who seems to be desperately trying to manufacture a controversy here. Alansohn 20:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't really see why one would get a "thanks" and the other would cause you to react like this. You've made it clear that it was an accident; that's good now. Everyone here appears to be acting in good faith, and it would probably be beneficial if we just left it at that. Sometimes cheerfully responding even to things you feel might be pushing it prevents a lot of trouble. After all, we all have better things to do. --Haemo 20:23, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • My version is a suggestion; JzG's version constitutes an accusation and a threat. And you think they're the same? Accusing someone of maliciously hiding nefarious edits to an article and threatening action is your version of assuming good faith? Alansohn 20:32, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Except that the issue wasn't that your summaries weren't descriptive, it was that they were misleading, representing significant textual changes as "copyediting". Most editors will not check or patrol an edit labelled "copyediting" by an account with a bluelinked user page. You didn't suggest that this was accidental, what you did was to demand what the hell was wrong with calling it copyediting - and all that does is make it look very much more like you are deliberately setting out to mislead and far less likely that you simply hadn't thought it through.