Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive319

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:Le_Grand_Roi_des_Citrouilles[edit]

Resolved: This needs to go to dispute resolution, no admin action required. Guy (Help!) 21:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

This user has been disruptive for quite a while now. His attitude is poor, he is hypocritical at times and more. Some recent examples:

It needs to be noted: his AFD keep comments are the same repetitive things. His comments have ranged from "the article is well formatted" to "it has good images" and so on. He simply doesn't understand policies, and rarely thinks things violate policies. Also I believe he is using the Article Rescue Squadron as a way to vote stack. Most of the time when he comments in an AFD, minutes later (or before): he tags the article with a rescue tag. Something needs to be done about him. I will admit he has gotten better a little, but still fails to comprehend many policies and/or chooses to ignore them. RobJ1981 20:45, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like you are looking for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct instead of this page. Please follow that process. GRBerry 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
The editor bringing the complaint, and the editor about whom the complaint is made, are on opposite sites of and have tangled before on matters of deleting content one deems "trivia." It is best to discuss and edit these matters in good faith, not to make personal accusations against other editors based on their content editing and policy participation. If you see a real behavioral issue, here or RFC are appropriate. But please do not turn content and policy disagreements into conduct matters. Wikidemo 21:21, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly feel it's a behavior issue. He picks and chooses when he decides to agree with policies or not. He and I don't agree on what should be kept, but I would be somewhat fine with his anti-deletion attitude if he would have actual reasons that aren't just repetitive "I like it" style comments. I've tried to assume good faith with him, however it's nearly impossible as his attitude and behavior is very poor. One other point I want to bring up: his last comment on Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Television series considered the greatest ever (2nd nomination) is in a bit of bad faith. He brings up that I space out my time from editing, and commenting on him. This has no relevance, and I just think he is being paranoid. I don't just plan out when I'm going to edit something. Gaps between when I edit an article, and comment on him isn't a big deal. RobJ1981 13:07, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Allegations of misconduct have been raised by and against both sides. If someone repeatedly makes an argument you don't like, why not repeat the argument that makes sense to you? He can do the same. Are you going to take this to RFC?Wikidemo 16:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of which I just noticed that you (RobJ1981), User:Eyrian, and User:Dannycali are now proposed for blocking in the Alkivar arbitration case. I've asked Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles to leave a courtesy notice for all three; if that doesn't happen soon somebody should tell them.Wikidemo 16:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you think he's using the Article Rescue Squadron to canvass for votes, please post your reasons for thinking that on the WikiProject page there. That is not the intent of that project, & your help to keep it from being twisted to that end is appreciated. -- llywrch 19:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:PelleSmith[edit]

I have problem with this user who disputes sources even after I have attempted to provide evidence of notability. I am trying to avoid getting into an edit war with the editor on the article Recent single origin hypothesis. I want to include a quote from this source, which I believe is a reliable source:

  • Wade, Nicholas, Before the Dawn: Recovering the Lost History of Our Ancestors (2006) ISBN 1594200793

Wade is a science journalist for the New York Times which is a well respected newspaper. The book has been recognized and has received good reviews [1] from scientists such as E. O. Wilson and Matt Ridley[2]. The book won the 2007 Science in Society Journalism Awards award[3]. The user is keeps deleting this relevant information[4] Muntuwandi 04:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This is a content dispute involving interpretations of information in a published source. I might suggest posting a neutral (i.e., not "I'm right and someone's reverting me") call for additional editors to the noticeboard of a WikiProject like WP:WPEB. Some fresh eyes and new voices might help both of you reach a consensus. In the meantime, you're both sliding towards 3RR territory, so consider backing off for a while. The article isn't going anywhere. Dppowell 04:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes this is why I am requesting for external help, much as I would like to be modest, i also have to be honest about my opinion. I may try the WP:WPEB, however project boards have slow responses. Muntuwandi 04:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(e.c.x2)I would suggest soliciting a second opinion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anthropology and calling an immediate ceasefire in the edit war, even if the article is on the wrong version. --Dynaflow babble 04:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Muntuwandi is purposefully misusing sources that suggest the possibility of "some" cultural universals originating from a common human ancestry in order to claim emphatically that all cultural universals were fully developed in Africa prior to the geographic dispersal of homo sapiens. I welcome other opinions on this matter, but if history has anything to tell us when others also rebuke this editor he will simply ignore them as well in oder to present his twisted version of the facts.PelleSmith 11:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to request self-block[edit]

Resolved: Stifle (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • User talk:Srtab1 says: "{{db-userreq|rationale=I wish to quit using this account. Please block me indefinitely.}}." Anthony Appleyard 10:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
    • The page has been speedied by User:Penwhale, but the user has not been and will not be blocked as it would serve no useful purpose if the user doesn't want to edit any more, and could catch people in autoblocks otherwise. Stifle (talk) 12:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Well the obvious solution to that one would be to not set theautoblock... ViridaeTalk 12:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

non-free images question[edit]

Is an image that has a "This image is copyrighted, but the author allows it for any use, commercial or otherwise, so long as it retains attribution", which also contains a "no derivative works" clause, allowable outside the mainspace (i.e. userpages)? I'm specifically referring to Image:Politkovskaya.jpg. The text of the template says "no terms which prohibit derivatives. The license rationale says "No derivatives on text only (images are fine)", but the site is down for me so I can't verify that. Seems to me that "no terms which prohibit derivatives" is pretty unambiguous....it doesn't matter whether its relating to text or images. However, if it's not relating to images, how can it apply to that image? Any thoughts? SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it's a free license, it's good for use whereever you like. Now I can't load hro.org, but if it prohibits modifying of text explicitly then that would not seem to prevent modification of images, and the requirement of attribution we can live with.
So in summary it looks OK to use, but without seeing the original site to confirm the conditions I can't give you a firm answer. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Copyright law does not work that way. If they do not explicitly permit modifying of images, then modifying of images is forbidden, and the image is not OK to use. --Carnildo 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Image uploads by Gohan2091 (talk · contribs)[edit]

I stumbled across this user and from what I can tell he's uploaded a fair few copyright violations under GFDL-self licenses. Some examples are Image:Monokini Models.jpg, Image:Magnet Man in Barbados.JPG ( """""THIS MAGNET MAN PIC IS ACTUALLY A FREE/PRESS SHOT FOR ANYONE TO USE FREELY!! MAGNETIC IMAGE RECORDS OWN THE COPYRIGHT AND THERE WAS NO POROBLEM""""""" Why do people interfere so much and judge everyone?????? I can vbe contacted via the label if you want verificiation!!!!

....................and in my opinion, probably violations are Image:Purple Tankini.jpg, Image:Crop Top1.jpg and Image:Microskirt.jpg. Can another set of eyes look over his uploads? –– Lid(Talk) 12:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

CSD them all. As far as I can tell, none are free. See here for an example. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

WHAT AN AWFUL SHAME YOU HAVE HAD MAGFNET MANS FREE PRESS PICTURE REMOVED? Can you pleae replace it?

I REPRESENT MAGNETIC IMAGE RECORDS ( Magnet Man is our label's number one signed artiste) and Gohan is a genuine FAN of the Recording Artiste Magnet Man, and she ( Gohan)had full permission to use a press picture of MAGNET MAN. She wrote to us for permission. And we were delighted that a real genuine FAN of our Platinum Award winning star has gone to the trouble of researching Magnet Man's 'story so far' and then posted with so much accuracy the information.

I feel that there should be more encouragement when young people do something poisitive and spend their time doing useful stuff such as providing info on WIKIPEDIA.

I would like to thank and congratulate Gohan 2091, well done to her and keep up the good work!! check out www.magnetmanonline.com

plus You Tube Magnet Man - Wanna Flex

or www.myspace.com/themagnetman

List of Mensans[edit]

The user B-ham (talk · contribs) keeps adding the name Scott Sonnon to List of Mensans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), but the cited reference they add makes no mention of Mensa membership ... in the Edit Summary they provide the URL of a blog entry that claims he's a member, but that's not the URL they keep putting in the article ... they have been warned about unsourced additions, but are ignoring the official policies. —72.75.79.128 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

  • B-ham looks like a single-purpose account, and the article was hopelessly POV. I have stubbed it and requested that he restrict himself to suggesting content supported by reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 17:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block on User:Gtrtretertg546456567[edit]

I blocked this account as a vandalism only account. The username is clearly random gibberish as is most of the 8 vandalism edits made in a 4-minute timespan. There were four warnings all of which came after the vandalism spree had ended.

I am a relatively new admin and I rarely block users. I'm curious how other admins would view this situation. On the one side, the vandalism has ended. On the other side, this is clearly a vandalism-only account.

What are your thoughts?

--Richard 16:33, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

If it only did vandalism then it can be blocked at your discretion. 1 != 2 16:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
The name is gibberish and the edits are vandalism. An indefinite block is totally appropriate. --Haemo 16:57, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Good block. MastCell Talk 16:58, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Media Tycoon 1[edit]

Resolved

This user has lodged pretty vicious attacks against two editors: here and here. These call for an extensive block. --David Shankbone 20:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This user is apparently unhappy with our project and severalof our contributers. Perhaps he is related to User:Ericnorcross? [5]. In any event, since he doesn't seem happy here, maybe somebody could point him towards the exit? Jeffpw 20:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked one week for harassment by Elkman, but I'd suggest upgrading to indef as a likely sock of Ericnorcross (talk · contribs). - auburnpilot talk 20:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Strongly endorse an indefinite block for this childish and abusive behavior, socking aside. --Haemo 20:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Don't you really mean, "Blocked one week by Elkman for harassment"? (OK, I'm nitpicking.) I wouldn't have any problems with an indefinite block. I didn't get a chance to thoroughly review all his contributions before placing the block -- I just wanted to prevent any more harassment and crude insults. I also didn't place a block notice since he'd probably just call me a predictable three-letter word. The Ericnorcross contributions date back to June of 2006, so I don't think there's a likely connection, but I'm not ruling it out. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly. ;-) - auburnpilot talk 20:40, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Given the discussion here, I've upgraded the block to indefinite. MastCell Talk 20:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I found a pattern of edits to Long Island, Maine between some of the sockpuppets. I also did a Web search and found this page with the telltale line, "I became a vandal and enemies with many of the administrators and veteran editors." That explains it. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Looks that way. I courtesy blanked the two AfDs, no need to rub his nose in it. Guy (Help!) 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets and User:Know Ocean 99[edit]

Resolved: Indefinitely blocked as a single-purpose troll account. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Paul Tibbets (who died today) was the pilot who dropped the atomic bomb at Hiroshima. New(?) user Know Ocean 99 wishes to insert the unreferenced claim that Tibbets was a war criminal to his article. I have warned the user against 3rr and they have continued to insert the data. I have been editing the article myself recently and I wish an uninvolved admin to take whatever action they deem necessary to sort this out. Thanks in advance, --John 20:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Wknight94, for your prompt action. --John 21:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
There were a significant number of POV pushing edits by anons, so I've semiprotected for a short while, to give those stalwart editors (thanks, folks!) who have been consistently reverting a bit of a break... ++Lar: t/c 02:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Open account[edit]

Resolved

Can an admin please block User:Bosqueschool? This diff explains that it was created as a group account and gives the password. Not surprisingly, at least half of its few edits have been vandalism. Thanks! Pinball22 20:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Done... I left the autoblock off and account creation enabled, so students can make new accounts, but a group account with a compromised password has to go. MastCell Talk 20:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of User:Beyonce fiance[edit]

I've indefinitely blocked Beyonce fiance (talk · contribs) as a sock of Keep It Real (talk · contribs). Beyonce has pretty much the same axe to grind as KIR (putting a negative spin on Something Awful). KIR was also a member of an online forum and posted the following message the day before Beyonce registered:

"They did ban me, for making edits to SA's article that eventually got put into place by other people after they banned me. I have a new IP in a new state now so they can't stop me"[6]

Beyonce has been actively editing Something Awful today, and at the same time of the activity, KIR made the following post on the forum:

"Wafulz keeps editing the article to downplay SA's illegal file sharing and other scandalous shit SA has done. Nevermind that like 10 people on the talk page have told him that it's obvious that he's just trying to manufacture the most positive spin possible.
"We should just keep reverting Wafulz's edits... he can't do shit if enough people are editing the article. Wikipedia has a rule that you can't revert an article more than 3 times a day so we can over ride his lame edits if the majority disagrees with him."[7]-Wafulz 21:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Prot for collusion, anybody? If I get no objections I'll protect the article. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been semi-protected for a while, but the tag isn't there. Semi-protection seems to have worked so far.-Wafulz 22:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Request block[edit]

Resolved: User blocked for 48 hours. ~Eliz81(C) 22:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

This IP: 71.61.89.4 is making threats of physical harm: [8]. Thanks, ~Eliz81(C) 22:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

He's been warned; if he does it again, I'll block. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
From WP:NPA, "Legal threats, death threats, and issues of similar severity may result in a block without warning", so that's why I brought it here. Jéské, are you sure that a death threat doesn't warrant a block? I apologize if I'm confused on this issue. ~Eliz81(C) 22:31, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but threats of physical harm plus a history of homophobic comments? Blocked 48 hours - Alison 22:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Attempted association of name with profile[edit]

Resolved: Anon editor seems to be intent on pushing an agenda we can do without for now. Guy (Help!) 22:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

A editor has attempted to associate a name with my porfile on the talk page of Violet_Blue(auther):

 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Violet_Blue_%28author%29&diff=168604992&oldid=168399311

Given the attacking nature of this edit I am uncomfortable with the use of a real name associated with the edit. As you can see I have removed the name but would like it to be removed from the history as well. Any help would be great. Wikiwikimoore —Preceding comment was added at 22:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


BigGabriel555[edit]

Off-Wiki Canvassing for AfD[edit]

It was brought to my attention that picard102 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has been off-wiki canvassing for this afd on this website. Can an impartial admin keep an eye on this for me? Also of relevance: otrs. ^demon[omg plz] 01:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

the afd seems to be going nicely towards its appropriate conclusion none the less. DGG (talk) 02:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Mattisse (again)[edit]

Hey guys, I feel harassed by User:Mattisse - wondering if anyone has any suggestions?

This follows from a dispute which is now at the request for mediation stage, detailed further up this page. The most recent events are this:

  • User:Mattisse posts this on my talk page (attacking me as "prolonging disputes", among other things). As it refers to me in the third person (and refers to a "you" who clearly isn't me), I assumed that it was posted on the wrong talk page.
  • Assuming good faith, and assuming that Mattisse is not trolling, I returned the message to him, with a suggestion that it might have been posted on the wrong page.
  • User:Mattisse posts a new message saying he did not understand my last post.
  • So I post another message trying to explain my position.
  • I'm pretty sure I've been quite clear, but User:Mattisse just keeps on posting messages on my talk page saying that he "doesn't understand".

It's beginning to make me suspect that he is not acting in good faith but is trying to provoke me into some kind of uncivil response. Having told him that I will not be resonding to such messages after explaining myself twice, I've been deleting these messages. Am I within my rights? Is there anything I can do to stop further messages of this type? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PS He seems to have stopped for now. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I left her a note of advice on her talk page. She needs to realize that she's upset with you "prolonging the issue" yet she's continuing it right now by not backing away from your talk page. So, we'll see how she reacts to that. (And yes, Mattisse is a she, not a he). Metros 04:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response - and sorry for the misogynistic use of "he" when I wasn't sure of Mattisse's gender. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 04:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It is not a problem; many editors do not make their gender known. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 04:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin deletes own images in anger[edit]

Moriori (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) seems to have gotten into a dispute with Liftarn (talk · contribs). He is upset that the PD status of one of his image uploads had been questioned here. His response to Liftarn was "are you calling me a liar" and, although Liftarn apologised for any unintentional insult [13], Moriori has deleted a number of his image uploads [14] including a personal attack against Liftarn in the summary and blanked his user and talk pages. Obviously this is totally unacceptable use of admin tools. I restored the images that are being used in the mainspace (they were on Commons so he could only orphan them, not delete them). The rest of his images are not used in articles but look like they could be pretty valuable. PD and GFDL releases are irrevocable so the deletions are invalid but I thought out of courtesy I would ask him to undelete them rather than undeleting all of them myself. I understand Moriori was upset, but his conduct really is indefensible. Notifying here for further input from uninvolved parties. WjBscribe 16:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Admin tools are not for making a point in a dispute, and certainly not for revoking your own contributions. I strongly urge this admin to reverse these actions. 1 != 2 16:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
What is more it seems that Liftarn had made a very reasonable request in a polite manner, calling him an arsehole in you administrative action summaries is incredibly inappropriate. Personal attacks are a nono, but using them as summaries in you admin actions makes this site look like it is ran by children. 1 != 2 16:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
At the very least, the images should be undeleted so people can judge if they really are public domain or not. Evidence should be provided on the image page (eg. a claim that the user took the pictures themselves), or via OTRS. When the uploader is active, it may be polite to ask them first before taking it to Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. In this case, with no evidence that the images are public domain (which is different from GFDL), all the uploader has to do is say "oops, I got it wrong". I think this is different from a case where the original release is under the GFDL as a "self taken" picture (taken by the user). In cases of "self taken" pictures, the original user claimed copyright and released under the GFDL, and the only way that status can be changed is by saying that they were wrong, and they are not the copyright holder and not entitled to release the pictures under the GFDL. I hope this is covered at the latest incarnation of Wikipedia:Revocation of GFDL is not permitted. Please note that the claim for these images was public domain, so that essay does not apply here. Carcharoth 16:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Update - now the images have been undeleted, I see they are all user-taken and released into the public domain (I could see the deleted versions of the image page, but couldn't work out how to view the images without actually restoring them). I presume that PD-release is irrevocable, in the same way that GFDL licensing is, but can someone confirm this? The original image that started the dispute is different, in that a different entity (ie. not the user uploading the picture) is said to have released it into the public domain. That, as has been said, does require evidence to be provided. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely childish. Since this admin appears to have left the project in a huff, I recommend undeleting his images so we can actually (1) use them if the license is valid and (2) verify the proper license if they're not. --Haemo 16:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with those steps, and would go a little further and suggest ArbCom take a quick look with an eye toward de-sysopping Moriori. Using the tools in such a childish fashion is totally unacceptable, as is including egregious personal attacks against other users in the indelible deletion summaries. If he comes back with an explanation, apology, contrition, etc then re-sysopping could be considered, but for now I think his admin buttons should be withdrawn until he's calmed down at least. MastCell Talk 17:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I concur with Mastcell. Unacceptable. Liftarn tagged one of Moriori's images for CSD due to unknown copyright status and then apologized for any inconvenience for it and Moriori deletes all of his images and calls Liftarn an "arsehole"? This is totally unaceptable from any editor let alone an administrator, however incidents like these dealing with administrators seem to be becoming more and more common. Wikidudeman (talk) 17:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Yep. Childish behavior with the admin tools should not be tolerated. This case is pretty clear. Friday (talk) 17:11, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And another agreement.... Moriori can always ask for them back if they wish, but I wouldn't be comfortable with them having the buttons unchecked after that display.--Isotope23 talk 17:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't even a CSD, it was a questioning of the public domain status; the image was not put up for deletion and all Moriori needed to do was get the original rights holder to confirm they had released it to the public domain. Personally I would hope Moriori would do the honorable thing. Sam Blacketer 17:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't see a reason to wait for him to fix his mess. We should undo the damage. I've begun restoring them; they were deleted without a valid reason. Friday (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've gone ahead an opened a request at WP:RfArb for ArbCom to look this over quickly and see if desysopping is warranted. Input welcome there. MastCell Talk 17:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And as the response over there has shown, that was premature. Carcharoth 10:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
OK. Thanks. I've withdrawn it. Though I continue to feel pretty strongly that desysopping, in this case, is not premature, it's become evident that ArbCom was not the correct venue. MastCell Talk 16:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

More User:Eleemosynary[edit]

I'm starting a new section because the last User:Eleemosynary section, addressing only his edit warring, is marked as "resolved." However, the edit warring is only part of the issue with his reverts — I'll assume it's "his" for the sake of this discussion — and the reverts at Talk:Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy (and subsequent wikistalking to Michael Mukasey) are only a small part of a long pattern of Eleemosynary's violations and willful misinterpretations of Wikipedia policies and guidelines. He has consistently reverted the edits of others as "vandalism," "trolling," etc., if he disagrees with them. On this talk page, a user archived the talk page, (innocently) failing to take care to keep recent (days-old) discussions. User:Steven Andrew Miller reverted this, and Eleemosynary entered into a revert war, calling the reversion "archive vandalism," which is wasn't. I would have preferred Miller had taken this to the talk page first, but it wasn't "vandalism" not to have done so.

This is far from an isolated incident. A look at the edit summaries of both the talk page and the corresponding article (as well as the content of both the talk page and its archives) reveal a long list of accusations and personal attacks on other editors by Eleemosynary. Eleemosynary regularly edits others' comments if he doesn't like them, ironically calling them "personal attacks" (even when they aren't), and citing policy for his regular edits of them (which actually violate WP:TALK#Others.27_comments and WP:NPA#Removal_of_text whether or not they are personal attacks).

In addition, he has a long history of homophobic personal attacks against Matt Sanchez (User:Bluemarine [15] [16] [17] [18]) which have not been formally addressed. I've tried to give polite warnings (e.g., [19]) of this, but, as per his M.O., these are reverted as "nonsense, trolling, etc." (He has a right to revert like that on his talk page, but not a right to accuse everyone of pointing out his violations of being a troll.) I have not brought these up here because I'd prefer to deal with these without administrative assistance, but, after dozens upon dozens of unaddressed violations by an unrepentant Eleemosynary, it's clear that polite reminders and peer pressure alone aren't going to get him to start adhering to policy, let alone to be civil. Calbaer 18:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

What sort of outcome are you seeking? Perhaps you should consider seeking mediation. If that doesn't work, the next step would probably be to file a request at WP:RfC. Ronnotel 18:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This isn't about a conflict that needs to be settled — hopefully Miller and Thumperward can do that themselves regarding the archiving issue — this is about a user continually ignoring policies and guidelines so that he can willfully disrupt the project. I realize that specific instances have gotten him blocked in the past, but if you look at the overall patterns, it doesn't seem like addressing these instances separately as they come is anything less than a waste of everyone's time at this point. I think it's gotten well past the point of mediation or WP:RfC. Calbaer 18:55, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And Calbaer's crusade of sophistry goes on... and on... and on. --Eleemosynary 00:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for emphasizing my point. Calbaer 00:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Your "point" can be summarized thusly: "Because I, Calbaer, have been unable to achieve consensus to slant the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page to my partisan whim, I will use lies (charges of "homophobic taunts" and "Wikistalking"), sophistry, and "concern trolling" to try to have Eleemosynary blocked. And, because I, Calbaer, don't have a leg to stand on, I don't want any mediation or RfC to get in my way." Not surprising. --Eleemosynary 00:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Putting words into another person's mouth while simultaneously denigrating their position is highly uncivil. Please stop. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:04, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting my actions, once again. Please stop. You also appear to be goading. That's not gonna work. --Eleemosynary 01:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually, the words he puts into my mouth are rather ironic, seeing as one of my motivations behind not reporting the homophobic taunts and other violations of policies was because Eleemosynary was, at one point, the only user providing balance, representing the "other side" to the debate. Now that users like Thumperward are involved in the article, there's no longer any positive role played by Eleemosynary. I know that balance isn't a justification for treating disruptions differently than I might otherwise, but that, along with wanting to avoid unnecessarily bothering administrators, was a motivation for my trying to deal with Eleemosynary's behavior on talk pages rather than here on prior occasions. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Never was a "homophobic taunt" made by me re: Matt Sanchez. I mentioned his previous career, and one of his professional sobriquets. As Sanchez has been proven an unreliable source, and was trying to crowbar his OR into the article, his history was worth mentioning. This issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago. Because you were not able to use your constant lie -- "Eleemosynary used a homophobic taunt" -- to have me blocked or banned, you are rehashing the argument, perhaps hoping that "the twelfth time's the charm." You also may want to check your edit history: you have reported me on prior occasions, with the same "homophobic taunt" lie, with the same result. I'm going to be watching the Scott Thomas Beauchamp page for some time, and editing constructively, as I have been. That's something you're going have to deal with. But feel free to issue as many bogus "incident reports" as you wish. --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, interesting edit. Thanks for letting us see the seething behind all this. --Eleemosynary 00:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I explicitly drew attention to my word choice change in the edit summary (unlike, say, this edit), so it's no great victory for you to have "discovered" this and no purpose in emphasizing it yet again. I used the wrong word, and if you view it as "seething," parapraxis, or a personal attack, so be it. Calbaer 01:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I view it as a "drawing back of the veil." --Eleemosynary 02:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those who don't want to follow the links I gave, Eleemosynary twice reverted Sanchez's edits, giving the reasons "discredited porn star" and "gay porn actor" in the edit summaries; I pointed out on his talk page that these explicitly violated WP:NPA. However, he multiple times after that called Sanchez "dirty Sanchez," even after being told this was a homophobic violation of WP:NPA. And while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I, also contrary to his claims. In any event, I have difficulty seeing how such a pattern of general violations and attacks — at Sanchez, at me, at Miller, of multiple Wikipedia policies — could be "mediated," since they're not disputes; they're one user making a nuisance of himself, having come to the conclusion that he can break any rules he hasn't been blocked for before (and even some of those he has). Calbaer 04:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

To revise my above comments, apparently Calbaer feels "the 13th time's the charm." "Dirty Sanchez" is not a "homophobic slur," no matter how much Calbaer wishes to make the case. It's a practice equally applicable to heterosexuals. The nickname, in context, has to do with Sanchez's well-documented career. (Do a Google search on "Matt Sanchez" and "Dirty Sanchez," for more on this.) But Calbaer has been screaming "homophobic slur!" for weeks, even though other editors have pointed out it's not one. And, again, this issue was dealt with on the Beauchamp Talk page (between me and several editors), my Talk page (between me and Ronnotel), and this page some time ago. I've agreed to stop using the nickname, but appparently Calbaer wishes to keep employing it. [Please note: these comments will also apply the next 73 times Calbaer makes this complaint.] --Eleemosynary 04:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Please point to any edit in which "other editors have pointed out it's not one." You're the only one who's made the claim that it's not. The Google search reveals others who, like you, have maligned Sanchez. Just because a slur has gained currency among hateful, partisan websites does not make it acceptable on Wikipedia. If "you can Google it" were a valid defense to any violation of Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia would be in a lot of trouble. (By the way, if anyone's in doubt that it's homophobic, I think this edit will remove any doubt.) Calbaer 06:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe "the 14th time's the charm." See above comments. --Eleemosynary 06:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, although Calbaer states above that he "has not previously reported [me] to WP:AN/I" for the exact same comments, he did so one week ago, just as dishonestly. [20][21][ [22]. Either he has an extremely short memory, or he's lying. Ronnotel and I spoke about the issue, and I agreed to stop using Sanchez's nickname here. I have not used it since. Now, it seems Calbaer wants to disrupt the page by rehashing things that were settled. It's not easy to assume good faith with this one. --Eleemosynary 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, "while I've mentioned Eleemosynary in the context of already reported occurrences here, I have not previously reported him to WP:AN/I." Please stop saying that's a lie when the evidence you linked to indicates that that's precisely what happened. And, again, please provide evidence to your claim that anyone (aside from you) said that your "nickname" for Matt Sanchez was not a slur and/or not homophobic. Yes, I said I'd ignore your past if you changed, but your attacks and policy violations have not yielded, so I felt it was finally time to discuss them here. Anyhow, as much as attempting serious replies to your statements may seem like a waste of my time, your responses illuminate that your attitude has not changed (and illustrate the veracity of your prior statements), which I think is useful to counter your argument that your past policy violations are "settled" rather than part of a long pattern of disrupting Wikipedia. Calbaer 17:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
15. --Eleemosynary 18:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

(undent)Enough already - both of you. The next person to speak is going to lose their Halloween candy for good! Ronnotel 18:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I feel harrassed.[edit]

by User:Gnome Economics. Reported here Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests already but I don't know how fast this is and I don't know if I can take much more of this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 20:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Other than the one brief exchange on his/her talk page, what sort of harassment are you enduring? —Wknight94 (talk) 21:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This insulting personal attack: [23]

and note to this deletion [24]. It just needs to stop. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And this comment wasn't a personal attack on your part? IrishGuy talk 21:13, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't say my hands were clean and this is clear from Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests. But I was close to, amongst other things, throwing my keyboard across the room. I'm here to write an encyclopedia, not be patronised. I know there are ups and downs but I've never seen anything as appalling as this before. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:16, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just ignore them. Flipping out and name-calling doesn't help the situation; my advice to both of you is just to leave one another alone. This isn't harassment, this is a tiff between two adults who should know better. --Haemo 21:23, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Maybe I'm missing something but it appears this whole issue is over one brief exchange that you initiated. It's not real fair to begin a confrontation and then claim that you're being harassed when the other party is just responding to you. Needing to get the last word in does not equate to being harassed. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't want to get into a big argument. When he deleted an image I'd uploaded because it lacked a Fair Use Rationale, and I asked him why he just didn't ask for one- which has now been provided- I was met with this [25], then this [26], then this [27], I begin to wonder why were are here. When I use NP Watcher and new editors complain that I've CSD'd their pages, I will at least take a little time to explain why, and what they can do to remedy the problem, if it can be saved. That's my philosophy- cooperation. I'm prepared to give it, and I hope to receive it. But if I receive neither cooperation nor support, then perhaps I shouldn't be here. Shame. I was hoping to achieve 5000 good mainspace edits before Christmas. Sorry I'm not as robust in health or attitude as others, but then, perhaps I'm too old for all of this and expected too much. I did manage to afford some milk & sugar today, however, so at least I got some coffee this morning. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
If you look at the dates, you'll see who said what first. --əˈnongahy ♫Look What I've Done!♫ 21:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And I object to being called a "career flouncer". I'm not gay, but it could be taken as an anti-gay insult. I don't need this. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 21:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
It appears that you made the first personal attack saying "...Have a happy life, short though it may be. Sanctimonious prat." Gnome Economics merely replied "TTFN". IrishGuy talk 21:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. I'd be quite willing to block both of them. Raymond Arritt 21:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Just make sure you get the beer while we watch. Sorry to not take this seriously, but these two are...well....deserving of each other? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I am also uneasy with the blatant forum shopping. Rodhullandemu posted this to JoshuaZ‎'s talk page, Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests as well as here...all basically asking for the other editor to be blocked. IrishGuy talk 21:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Block the user filing the complaint for a short time. That seems to be the way to minimize disruption. - Jehochman Talk 21:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Exactly how does that minimise disruption? It would be a punitive block, nothing else. And that won't do. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 21:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I reported to Wikipedia:Editor_assistance/Requests but I wasn't sure how long it would take to get a response. I put a request on JoshuaZ‎'s talk page because he witnessed the original exchange and sent me a helpful email. He's not here so I won't say what it said, but it was helpful to me. And I don't remember asking for a block, and I wouldn't have done because I'd prefer not to raise the stakes, and that would have been punitive, not protective. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

How about you leave the other user alone and stop shopping around for somebody to block them, and we'll not block you. Is that a deal? - Jehochman Talk 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't subscribe to "Have you stopped beating your wife?"-type questions, and you know very well that such a block would be indefensible. You either block both of us or neither of us. I repeat: I have not asked for a block. Just protection. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 22:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

RH&E, back off from them; if they continue to harass without a single reply or revert from you, we will bury them. Jehochman, RH&E has a point - you've no defensible reason to block either of them at the moment, so threatening a block is both pointless and sabre-rattling to no good end. ➔ REDVEЯS isn't wearing pants 22:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would strongly recommend that both Rod and Gnome steer clear from each. Simply don't get involved. That means don't talk to each other, don't edit the same articles (presumably if anything really really needs tagging their are many other editors other than Gnome who would do it). Can we go back to writing the encyclopedia now? JoshuaZ 23:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the last 2 sensible replies. I'll do what I can. Now can anyone lend me 25p for a packet of digestives? --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 23:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • What pray is the point of issuing recommendations to User:Gnome Economics in this thread when Rodhullandemu hasn't even informed him/her that he/she's being discussed on ANI? Bishonen | talk 10:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC).

User:Caesarjbsquitti's soapbox at Talk:feminism[edit]

Caesarjbsquitti (talk · contribs · count · logs · page moves · block log)

In a campaign to expose "that feminism was [not] concerned about gender inequalities [... and is] a type of half-truth not yet identified"[28] User:Caesarjbsquitti has been trolling Talk:Feminism. Apologies for the square brackets - this user's syntax is not English. I'm not sure if he is confused or if he's being disruptive but here are some of his soapy posts at the page: [29][30][31][32][33][34]

On November 1st he added this comment which is both soapboxy and flambaiting. He added these two lines in particluar: "an interest in 'women's only' interest reflect a somewhat "selfish" or "lesbian" perspective of the matter. Is someone against war because it kills women, or that it kills men nd women ?" and "no doubt some of feminism was the work of the devil in that it involved a great deal of manipulation of statistics, terminology, and logic that were part of the reliable sources that were quoted and used to promote this false philosophy." After this Caesar was reminded by myself and by User:Lquilter of WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:SOAP. Caesar's response was "I do not believe the world is ready yet to accept the truth about feminism."[35]

This is not the first time that this user has behaved like this at Talk:feminism[36][37][38][39][40][41][42]

This behaviour is at least a year old - I haven't template warned Caesarjbsquitti since he is an experienced editor but WP:NOT#FORUM and WP:SOAP were pointed out to him at least 5 times in the past 3 or 4 days.[43][44][45][46][47]. As I mentioned, this user is experienced, and should know what is improper use of WP's talk-space, baring that in mind I consider this use of a talk page to be disruptive--Cailil talk 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Cailil's evidence checks out. The behavior seems to have been ongoing for at least 4 days. I have therefore blocked the account for 4 days in hopes that will be enough time for the editor to reconsider their participation and return to proper editing. If there is a recurrence, I recommend a longer block next time. Please do not reverse this block without prior discussion. I welcome a review and will abide by the consensus. - Jehochman Talk 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have run across this editor on scientific articles, where he sometimes makes eccentric and unreferenced contributions that wind up being removed. These scientific edits are not evidence that he is disputatious, but just evidence that he feels unconstrained by any need to supply reliable sources. EdJohnston 16:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruption on General (United States)[edit]

A situation has developed on General (United States) where a user, who previously wanted this article merged, has gone against community consensus and merged material from General of the Armies, General, and Lieutenant General (United States) all one one article. Since the merger was turned down by the community, the user has copied the info on all three articles, now having all of them appear as quasi-mergers, POV forks. As I am at the limit of 3RR I will revert no longer, but this is blatant policy violation, among them WP:CON, and WP:OWN. A full investigation can be found under Talk:General_(United_States)#Investigation_into_non-consensus_merger. Adminstrators, please take action as this has gone beyond a content dispute and has exploded into out-right disruption. -OberRanks 04:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As the other party to this dispute, I agree that an administrator might need to get involved. See [[48]] for information on the dispute. OberRanks reverted my edits for invalid reasons. Then I explained why his reasons were invalid, and restored my edits. Then he ignored my explanation and reverted again. And that's been repeated a few times now. It appears that he's unwilling to follow Wikipedia's policy and resolve disputes by discussion, so someone might have to ban him. OberRanks is already being monitored by the administrator User:Neil as a result of past conduct, so I also contacted Neil specifically about this. - Shaheenjim 04:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The user has since claimed I have not expressed why this is against the rules here. To spell it out exactly: "Creating three copies of exactly the same article under Lieutenant General, General and General of the Armies against a merger vote is against policy." Also of interest is that the user is now calling for a WP:BAN on me since I have challenged his edits and asked for the opinion of others. -OberRanks 04:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

That's just a repeat of the original invalid reason. It doesn't address my specific explanation of why it's invalid, and it's still invalid, as my explanation explains. - Shaheenjim 04:34, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You circumvented a failed merge vote, merged articles anyway, and then tried to create the illusion of consensus by maintaining three articles under different names of the same merged text. When I asked others to comment, you followed me to the talk pages of others, such as User talk:Neil, then asked admins to ban me from this site. Lastly we have a personal attack in an edit history [49] where you call me "self centered" (please note nowhere in my edits did I ever call you a name or make personal comments about your behavior). I think the reason why this isnt get more attention is thats its the middle of the night in the USA and early morning in UK where most of serious admins are located. So I will back off from this for two or three days and see what others come up with. But,for the record, we have violations of WP:CON, WP:OWN, and now WP:NPA. I will adhere to WP:CIV and state that perhaps you mean well and we can work together to make this article better. But I urge you to stop this kind of behavior. -OberRanks 06:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The first and third parts of that post are just repeats of the original invalid reason. They don't address my specific explanation of why it's invalid, and they's still invalid, as my explanation explains. I won't bother addressing the second part where you become hysterical about being called self centered. - Shaheenjim 06:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a ban is in order here. There's no need for admin intervention in what is basically a content dispute. I notice there's a discussion ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history#First_section_break, which you are both engaged in, and I think the best solution is to continue that. There's no need for it to spiral onto other pages. Neil  09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Month-long edit war on Dari (Afghanistan): suggesting a temporary user-block of Anoshirawan[edit]

Hi, guys!

Today I came across an edit war between the users Bejnar and Anoshirawan on the page Dari (Afghanistan). During the last month, Anoshirawan and Bejnar had an edit war on the question wether Dari was just a dialect or a language, which seems to have some ethnic or nationalist implications. They had countless reverts from this here to that one (and maybe even earlier, but I didn't have the nerve to check). I reverted to Bejnar's version, as he took pains to argue for it and as it seemed linguistically more sound, and asked both to refer to the talk page before continuing their bickering. Bejnar responded on my own talk page and showed to be very positive and constructive, although exasperated - while Anoshirawan just continued his edit war, cool guy.

I suggest to give a mild warning to Anoshirawan who seems to have a record already: block him for a couple of days or whatever you admins deem fit, and send him some suggestions on how to avoid edit wars. It might also be good to block the article for a short time, just to break that chain of re-re-re-edits. In my opinion, it should be frozen on Bejnar's, not Anoshirawan's version, reasons already given. Cheers! -- Kavaiyan <°)))o>< 05:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment - Bejnar version has a reasonable looking reference but not Anoshirawan's. See comparison [50] Anoshirawan should be given the opportunity to make the edit if a reliable source can be cited. If it is done, then an explanation of the debate can be included in the article. Miesbu 16:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Reversionvandalismbot not approved yet making edits[edit]

Resolved: blocked by Secretlondon / as requested by bot itself --slakrtalk / 06:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Reversionvandalismbot (talk · contribs) isn't approved, yet it's making edits. It also doesn't look like Cobi's. --slakrtalk / 06:35, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Bluemarine evading block, now posting as User:MattSanchez[edit]

Bluemarine (talk · contribs), who was indefinitely blocked a few days ago, is evading his block, and is posting under another account he's used in the past: Mattsanchez (talk · contribs). He seems to be in attack mode, as evidenced by this, which he left on my Talk page today. --Eleemosynary 06:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

He's been blocked. --Eleemosynary 10:07, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

User: 87.84.100.98[edit]

Resolved: schoolblock -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Continually vandalising. See user page for details.

Latest vandalism is on the Grafting page Kennedygr 10:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Now blocked. WP:AIV is the more usual place to report such vandalism. -- zzuuzz (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, Noted that address. Kennedygr 10:54, 2 November 2007 (UTC) --

User:Jeck2x[edit]

I think an upload ban is in order. This user has been uploading like crazy, and his "own" images doesn't have metadata as proof that those photos are his. Also I suspect this is the same guy engaging in a slow-motion edit war at the Manila article for the infobox photo. --Howard the Duck 10:43, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Pair Of Eyes Please[edit]

Resolved

I deleted User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWiki on the basis of it being a recreation of User:Beano ni/UserBoxes/NIFlagInWikipedia where consensus was found for deletion at this MFD. The user is now asking for restoration (in a calm and pleasent fashion) per this. My rationale is that moving the text from This user opposes the ongoing campaign to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia to This user opposes efforts to remove the Northern Ireland flag from Wikipedia does not address the spirit of the MFD under which it was deleted. To move from campaign to efforts seems to me to be too similar in spirit to restore. Sorry to bring it here, but I have promised the user a third opinion. Pedro :  Chat  11:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I'm not supposed to post here, I don't know if this is for Admin's only or not, but I just want to leave a quick note to highlight that I think the change from "the ongoing campaign" to "efforts" is significant enough to warrant separate consideration firstly because it removes any implication that the actions had sinister motivations and secondly because it is non-specific (i.e. from the campaign to efforts generally). beano 12:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Pedro that the new wording still does not address the spirit of the MfD. I suggest that Beano express his opinion with text on his user page, rather than using a user box. Chaz Beckett 12:06, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I deleted it as a recreation, as well, before he re-made it the third time. I have to say that the box still falls under the reasons it was deleted. нмŵוτнτ 13:52, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree that re-wording the userbox is not sufficient. Please consider that a content dispute isn't likely to belong is a userbox - ever. Nothing precludes you writing an essay about what you feel the problem is in your userspace. Shell babelfish 14:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe this is sufficent community support of the deletion. I have advised the editor [51] and marked this thread as resolved. Pedro :  Chat  14:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for protection of Japanese expansionism[edit]

While Eugenics in Showa Japan is now protected by user:Maxim and under a request for mediation, I ask for the same protection for Japanese expansionism as the same user: user:Azukimonaka is on his way to start another war edit. In my request for mediation I linked the two articles and I think the two cases can be solved at once. --Flying tiger 14:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


CarloPlyr440, again[edit]

Resolved: CarloPlyr440 blocked 1 month due to repeated violations of copyright policy. Fourth block.

CarloPlyr440 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) was blocked twice in October for uploading images without fair-use rationales. Then he stepped it up to another level by uploading copyrighted or fair-use images and claimed to own the copyright. That earned him a week-long block. Well, he did it again on October 23 ... I just happened to catch via a recent-changes patrol that on October 23, he uploaded an image that he claimed was free when it was actually a station logo--one whose copyright is obviously owned by the station.

I'm here asking that he be blocked long-term ... for a month at least, though I won't object if it's indef. This guy clearly does not understand that what he's doing could put the whole project in serious danger. Blueboy96 16:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WBRC happens to be on my watchlist (grew up watching that station), so I fixed the rationale for Image:New Wbrc Logo.jpg moments before the above post. However, it does appear CarloPlyr440 (talk · contribs) has been sufficiently warned to stop improperly uploading images. I have no problem with a long term block; I just wish we could disable image uploads in the same way we can disable email. - auburnpilot talk 16:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes; see clear messages here and here. We have given them second, third, and now fourth-chances.[52] I support at least a month-long block, and indef is not unreasonable at this point. — Satori Son 17:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocked for one month. - auburnpilot talk 18:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Copyvio problems and protection at Louisdale, Nova Scotia[edit]

Louisdale, Nova Scotia has had copyright violation problems dating back to early 2006. I realized this after two editors started conflicting over the history of the community. I've deleted all revisions since early 2006 because they contained copyright violations. I've protected the page for a week because of the conflict. I've asked experienced members of Wikipedia:WikiProject Nova Scotia to coordinate a rewrite, supervise the article, and/or mentor the editors. I will have no objection to any other admin unprotecting the article provided a couple experienced editors are willing to supervise the article. I'm not reliably available right now, so am posting this permission publicly in advance. GRBerry 17:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Aggressive revert warring, severe incivility[edit]

Ash48GotdaLife (talk · contribs) (previously active under the IP 99.226.195.126 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)) appears to be quite determined that the most recent album by the band Korn should be listed in italics in the respective band template (see the history of Template:Korn), even though the record in question was verifiably left untitled by the group and as such is clearly to be listed without italics, as per WP:MUSTARD#Formatting. This has been repeatedly pointed out to Ash48GotdaLife, yet to no avail and their replies and talk page messages were quite often very rude and also lacked a conclusive rationale for these repeated reverts.[53] [54] [55]

It's a silly thing, but given that user's activities appear to be fairly focused on this issue,[56] along with the severe incivility, I'd rather post here first, before taking this to WP:RFP, have the template locked from general day-to-day editing and then go through more stages of dispute resolution with this character. - Cyrus XIII 17:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Good friend100 (talk · contribs · logs)[edit]

This user was indefinitely blocked by myself earlier this year after multiple breaches of the 3RR. I unblocked them to participate in the arbitration over liancort rocks which was recently closed. A condition of the unblock was that they would comply with a strict 1RR. Since then they have received multiple warnings (see their talk) and have been blocked twice. I feel that they are not improving as an editor and following the most recent discussion [57] at AN3 concerning their most recent block I feel that enough is enough. I would very much appreciate feedback on whether we should now reinstate the indef block. Spartaz Humbug! 18:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please block the user indefinitely. Positive things can be said about this user, and I have not lost good faith completely. However -- as Spartaz says enough is enough. Ultra-nationalistic users such as the one mentioned here (and another one who has been banned for a year) have done an incredible amount of damage in the Chinese, Korean, and Japanese history and culture articles. Honest editors should not have to put up with the ultranationalist cabal that has waged a totally lame war on the Korean articles of this project for 2-3 years. Users such as this have done some good things, but they have totally ruined the atmosphere in the Korean articles. On Friday Jimbo wrote that we should not have to put up with these anti-project users any longer. I think Jimbo wasreferring to users such as Goodfriend100 and several other ultranationalist disruptors. Let's take a tougher stance on the incredible amount of disruption and foolishness that takes place in the Korean articles, especially. Let's show them the door. Please forgive me for using an anon IP for this message, but as I mentioned the atmosphere is totally poisonous and has been for a looooong time -- I fear some kind of retribution on me and my contributions if I use my username here. Why should we put up with this? 74.12.78.124 18:38, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I strongly endorse an indefblock. This user has a long-standing history of edit warring. Wikipedia should not tolerate this. I urge the community to consider this user banned. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Likewise. I'll upgrade my initial block to indefinite, pending any objections. Anthøny 19:21, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I think Spartaz has a point elsewhere, and Goodfriend100 seems to indicate that s/he wasn't aware that the 1RR restriction was still in force, as the arb case was concluded. (Although it would have been smart to seek clarification of this before edit warring.) I say block Goodfriend100 for 3 days now for edit warring. Also, make it crystal clear that the 1RR restriction is continuing indefinitely (or until further notice), and, for anything other than obvious vandalism, s/he should report rather than revert. -- But|seriously|folks  20:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I respectfully disagree with But Seriously Folks as per the reasons I have listed above. How many good editors have been chased away by this user and his nationalist cabal? We are long past the point at which we should give the user one more chance. This user and others like him/her are making a mockery of wikipedia and there here is no end in sight to the ongoing blatant disregard and ceaseless disrespect for Wikipedia policies and members of the wikipedia editing community. Wikipedia is not a nationalist battleground. Please re-institute the indefblock. 74.12.78.124 20:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
This user has received multiple last chances, and was warned at the start of his last one-week ban that any further edit warring would result in an indef ban. Even so, he chose to edit war on one of the most controversial articles immediately. Even if he wasn't aware of the 1RR, he reverted three times on that article, and going up to immediately hit your limit for the day (without summaries, without discussion) is still not constructive editing. He is interleaving his "I've learned my lesson" comments with "I haven't done anything wrong" (which is kind of contradictory) and has done so on all of his previous blocks as well. We're into double digits on his block count now. --Cheers, Komdori 21:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Looking at his talk page in his responses, it is painfully clear he does not consider what he did (undoing actions of other editors repeatedly) to be edit warring, and that if unblocked he would thus clearly do the same action again. Furthermore, he suggests that he was not bound by the 1RR because he was undoing vandalism (in all cases the changes clearly being a content dispute). It seems that if he were to be given an eleventh chance, he'd gladly do it all over again and we'd be back here in a few days. --Cheers, Komdori 21:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Most likely, but then there won't be any question that the restrictions applied. I agree, by the way, that this was a content dispute, not vandalism. -- But|seriously|folks  23:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
I have crossed paths with this editor several times. The last few times he was brought here for discussion of an indef block I didn't leave any comments in the hope that he truly was improving. However, I really don't see this being the case considering his actions following the expiration of each of his blocks. I would suggest the indefinite block go in place not for the most recent violation of the 1RR imposition, but for his latest example of continual editing warring and violation of WP:OWN, as he showed his tendency to refuse changes to be put forth by others. He was very much aware that any more edit warring would land him an indefinite block, even after the arbcom case was over, since during the most recent block several actually mentioned [58] [59] [60] that to him on his talk page--at least one doing so after the arbcom case was finished. Furthermore, the editor himself offered to have an indefinite block be placed on him if he ever edit warred again. Then when his block expired, he did. —LactoseTIT 23:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

You never want to get rid of the carrot for good behavior. I recommend against indefinite block. 4 months, ok. 6 months, whatever. 9 months, really? but ok. This is assuming the user does edit using full sentences and not profanity. WP6 00:44, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly oppose an indefinite block, if this is in response to Goodfriend's two recent reverts at Goguryeo. The reverts were on edits made by this annon IP which are as follows[61][62]. In these edits, stable contents built upon a very difficult consensus were unilaterally deleted with no discussion whatsoever. I believe reverting the changes were made in good faith and contributed to maintaining the integrity and stability of the article, and do not constitute edit warring. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Response to 74.12.78.124's assertion of ultranationalism - I strongly ask that the admins and editors here to take a look into articles on Goguryeo in other respectable encyclopedias and reliable sources, and perhaps you can see what's seriously wrong here. Both LactoseTI and Komdori have been making claims just recently that "Goguryeo is a part of Chinese history"[63][64], but what reliable sources back their claims? What about LactoseTI's unilateral categorization of An Jung-geun, a Korean national hero, as a terrorist? Why INSIST that An Jung-geun was a terrorist, when it is very obviously offensive to Koreans and "independent activist" or "political assassin" are good enough definitions for this individual? Can Goodfriend's reverts be really defined as ultranationalism when he was restoring material where supportive western(i.e. non-Korean) reliable sources are abound? Please have the courtesy of taking the time to look at other secondary and tertiary sources on this subject, and decide for yourselves where the extremism(e.g. ultranationalism) really lies. Cydevil38 01:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

One revert perhaps, but the second one, when knowing he was already on notice to not edit war after the anon reverted him? Then, a third as he reverts another editor after that? We've got about a dozen blocks in five months (including two with the editor on vacation), essentially all for the same reason: edit wars on the same articles. This after several administrators actually do so much hand holding as to come in and say, essentially, "Your block is about to end, here's a reminder--don't edit war again or you will be permanently banned." Blocks of increasing duration have failed to elicit a whit of change, and at this point giving more and more chances simply shows the hollowness of any further threat. Looking at his editing history I see essentially no constructive edits to any articles, just reverts or re-insertion of text that someone else reverts. If we want to avoid a permanent ban, perhaps a topic ban, such as all articles dealing with Asia. I feel bad because I think that often the editor means well, but loses self control when it comes to edits about this topic. One might say the majority of his edits are about Asia, but then so are the majority of his edits involved in edit warring. This is at least the third time we've been here discussing the appropriateness of a permanent ban for this editor. —LactoseTIT 01:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Komdori's report cannot be used against me because it shows nothing about me edit warring at all. Simply undoing an anon user's deletion of text in the articles doesn't mean that I'm edit warring. I explained above (with links) that the diffs don't even match.
Also, Komdori and LactoseTI are making this into a bigger problem than it is. Instead of watching me behave for a week or two, they immediately make an excuse about a couple reverts that I did, and now they are accusing me of "edit warring", which I definitely did not do. They are twisting their comments as if I was violating policies immediately after my one week ban. That is not true. I would like to ask you to put all this up at ANI because I'm just disappointed how Komdori and LactoseTI are so bold with accusing me when they don't even have any significant proof.
LactoseTI keeps trying to hammer in that I was edit warring. I was NOT! I am really shocked at how boldly this editor lies about my reverts. ALL the reverts were isolated from each other and NONE of them had to do with the same person or the same information continuesly. Also, how can I be edit warring when I'm restoring information that was previously deleted? I know I'm starting to rant, but it makes me angry when others lie about what I did. {written by Good friend100, posted by Heimstern} 19:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This user is a chronic violator of 3RR. An indef or a year-long block is due for good. Tons of users have been banded for much less disruptive behavior than his. Hermeneus (user/talk) 20:22, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll describe the diffs that Komdori posted that he thought I was edit warring.
First diff shows that I undid an anon user's deletion of several important sentences in the article.
Second diff shows that I restored the word "major" to the article when describing Goguryeo as a "major regional power". It certainly was a major power, and I saw no reason for an anon to delete that so I undid that as well.
Do the diffs even include the same reverts? No. Did I repeatedly undo relevent edits without discussing? No. These two diffs are the diffs that Komdori listed on his report and frankly, his argument is extremely weak. His base of action comes only from the fact that I was on 1RR parole. However, the reverts were isolated and the report doesn't show a clear case of edit warring so the 1RR can't apply. I only reverted once on each completely separate edit. Also, some of the administrators were correct in assuming that the length of the 1RR parole was not clarified. I was aware of the 1RR parole after the one week ban. Yes, I was going to ask Spartaz about it, but then I got blocked. Good friend100 19:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Another thing that has lighted upon me is that I have made reverts and undid anon users' deletions in the past. Yet Komdori or LactoseTI have not taken those previous reverts to 3RR. Why? I interpret their prejudice in filing reports as a bold attempt to hammer me out of Wikipedia. Really, after the one week ban, I began to edit normally, and when I got blocked, frankly, I couldn't pull out of my head of any recent edit warring I had done out of the few edits (save Japanese invasions of Korea (1592-1598)) I had made after the one week ban. But what they are trying to do is not just vigilante justice to help hunt down bad seeds. They have taken this to a personal level to indef block me, which I really see as not fair on their part. Regardless of my trail of edit warring, they should assume good faith until the last moment (that is, up to the point where I get indef banned for edit warring). For all the other blocks, they were right about me edit warring. But for this block, it isn't. The report on me is just wrong.

When I related this information to Komdori, he said he was simply keeping an eye on me, since I have been a troublemaker in the past. I agree that he can keep an eye on me, I don't mind. But picking on a couple isolated reverts and trying to formulate a ban on me using those small reverts is just going overboard. Am I ranting again? I'm sorry if you feel that I'm spitting nonsense out of my mouth. But again, wouldn't you get angry if somebody starts to talk about your conduct when they don't have hard evidence that you were breaking the rules? I'm simply trying to explain my side of the story about the diffs and all. Thank you, Heimstern, for providing a vehicle for me to get my comments through. Good friend100 19:38, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

So where are we on this? Are admins willing to make Good friend100's block indefinite? Perhaps more importantly, are admins willing to unblock if this happens? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 03:06, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Disagree with Indef at this time. Run him through ArbCom again (or RfC/RfM) if necessary. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 06:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking I'll take you up on that ArbCom suggestion. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 07:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Please excuse me to write this with my ip address but I don't want to get in a trouble to be a next prey of the notorious JPOV pushers like Komdori, LactoseT1, Endroit, Op2 and others. Their hatred feelings against Koreans have been noteworthy on every Korean related articles. They tend to suddenly jump into articles regardless of the previous discussions and start reverting edits without any consensus. If other editors requested them to add verifiable sources, they simply reject as if the other party was proclaiming completely ridiculous ideas and they were judges. With their disruptive behaviors, editors who really engaged in the article were out of the league. I also have seen them being frequent subjects of 3RR report, incident reports, and arbitration cases. They always insist that they have a NPOV and push the other party to have a KPOV, but that is a blatant lie. Since I've not seen any good contribution done by them. I think administrators shouldn't listen attentively to the people who have so many edit wars with Korean editors. If Good friend100 was really blamed to be a disruptive user, they all might be equally responsible for the blame. Their goal is to kick out Good friend100, or other Korean users out of here. Japanese editors are so eager to push their POV every wiki place.

Good friend100 has been engaging in a variety of Korean history related articles from being distorted by them. I thank him with my heart for at least one person trying to protest against the JPOV pusher's irrational behaviors. I haven't met with any of them because I have to protect myself from being a target. I object to to the idea of Good friend100 indefinitely being blocked. The JPOV editors are always skillfully getting away from any punishment, and it is very weird to me. Please mind that Japanese editors are over 9 times than Korean editors any Wiki place. In my thought, Good friend100 didn't violate 1RR patrol rule. Komdori is so cunning to take advantage of Good friend100's situation. That action can hardly refers to a good faith.--72.79.54.106 11:41, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • Once we take out the users who already have a beef with Good friend100, there does not appear to be a clear consensus for an indefinate block at this time by independant reviewers. While I fully appreciate the difficulties that this editor has caused on Korean articles the point of independant review is to ensure that a ban is fair and appropriate & I'm not seeing a clear consensus for this to be effected at this time. I'm inclined to suggest that we go back to an earlier suggestion which is to reaffirm the 1RR restriction and unblock Good friend100. If they can stick to this, then well and good and after a suitable period of good behaviour (say 6 months) they can apply on ANI to have their 1RR probation lifted. They can then reblocked indefinitely immediately they breach this probation. Does this seem a reasonable compromise that everyone can agree to? I also see no point taking this back to arbcom. The user has just been through an arbitration case and I really don't see the point of dragging this out any further. If they behave they can continue to edit. If they misbehave they get kicked immediately. it seems to me that there is nothing to adjudicate from this. I'm willing to mentor and monitor their conduct if closer oversight is required. Spartaz Humbug! 11:43, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Spartaz, I agree with your decision to give Goodfriend100 a last chance. Hopefully, Goodfriend100 will make good use of it. Cydevil38 11:59, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

    • Suggestion, not decision. Spartaz Humbug! 12:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
If I'm too close to the situation (as several other users both for and against him are, along with WPC who's handful of edits all essentially are clustered right around his comment here), I'd be happy to recuse myself. In any case, one thing that concerns me to a certain extent which I think is at the core of the issue and still has not really been addressed: he has explicitly stated that he does not believe he was edit warring, and by extension would not hesitate to edit in the same manner again. One cannot discount an edit as "unworthy" simply because it comes from an anonymous ip. To then continue by reverting Cydevl's contribution just illustrates his general attitude toward editing. To address a point of confusion of whether or not he knew his 1RR parole was still in place, he also explicitly offered to have himself blocked permanently if he ever edit warred again. After 10 blocks for edit warring over the span of a few months, he should at least know the basic definition. If not--if he gets blocked twice even after receiving "last chance, you will be blocked permanently if you edit war again" notices--there really isn't much hope. There is perhaps some lack of communication here since it seems people keep plainly stating to him that he will be blocked permanently if he acts in a certain manner again, and he keeps plainly stating that he will continue to do (and does) that very action again.
If a permanent block or topic ban are inappropriate, one suggestion might be to expand the 1RR to be 1RR collectively per day, instead of per article as it hasn't been effective (since he has received two blocks when on it already). Recently this editor has been going around hitting his 1RR limit on many articles and then stopping editing for the day, making a large percentage of the edits reverts. For someone prone to edit warring, this shouldn't be tolerated any more than someone going around and hitting their "limit" of three reverts per day. I'm not suggesting this to be vindictive (ignore the suggestion if you like), but it might give the editor pause to consider if what is being written is really worth reverting. I really don't have much of a problem with Good friend, and I think he could make some valid contributions if he can gain a bit of self-control (he edited much less disruptively before his first few blocks), but it has been tiring over the past few months to have disruption after disruption. —LactoseTIT 13:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia either needs a better way to handle edit warriors or the community needs to find a way to use the existing methods better. This has gone on for far too long and will apparently be allowed to continue going on. All right, one more chance for Good friend100, but further edit warring should lead to an immediate indefblock and to arbitration if the block doesn't stand. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 18:07, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
Just one clarification: Are we in agreement that Good friend100 is in fact still under his 1RR parole? I had assumed that the parole was indefinite, much as the block that it replaced was. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 02:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh yes, I wouldn't even think about unblocking without this in place. I'm going to leave this up a little longer before enforcing this. Spartaz Humbug! 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Good friend100's block by AGK for the 1RR violation has expired and Good friend100 has sought guidence on the terms of the editing restrictions. I have written up my views on this on his talk page [65]. Does anyone disgaree with these terms? Otherwise, he is free to edit based on these. Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

robertchristgau.com spam - 2000 links[edit]

Resolved: The source is agreed to be a notable music critic.

Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 18:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review this collection of over 2000+ outbound links from Wikipedia. This person is apparently a semi-notable music reviewer, but there are dozens of notable music reviewers. On most album infoboxes, we'll list reviews from major organizations. I found an IP adding these links while doing some RC patrol, and then found all these. As we don't link to personal sites on any music reviews besides this site, shouldn't these all be removed as spam? • Lawrence Cohen 06:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • As it's the music critic's website and not my site, how can these be considered personal sites? Or do you just don't like someone having a different opinion of a band than you do? I won't say anything in favor of one view or another, but album articles should represent a world-wide view and not just blind praise of the band being reviewed. (72.153.117.99 06:44, 31 October 2007 (UTC))
    • As just mentioned on Cohen's talkpage, Christgau is a veteran music reviewer who is published online and in print, including Esquire and the Village Voice. Cohen began to arbitrarily remove links to Christgau's reviews from articles after being challenged by the above IP over accusations of vandalism and linkspamming. Posting here instead of engaging the IP in meaningful conversation (at Talk:Korn#Professional_reviews) shows an alarming tendency to forgo good faith consideration. The question whether to include links to any of Christgau's reviews is an editorial one, it can be and should be solved without administrative intervention. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 06:48, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

All my dozen removals are now undone by myself, pending review here by uninvolved admins. My concern is that we apparently offer no other "personal" websites of other reviewers on these articles which I can see. So, by including robertchristgau.com in the infobox on 2000+ articles, we are by defacto giving this person weight on the level of Rolling Stone, and other major music news outlets. That seems oddly wrong, and the links look and feel like spam in this vein. • Lawrence Cohen 06:55, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

  • The same argument could be made for excluding film reviews by Roger Ebert. I think that it is difficult to make a fair judgment on these links unless you are familiar with the field of music journalism or are thoroughly acquainted with Christgau's career and the syndication of his review columns. Coincidentally, AN/I is not the best noticeboard for recruiting editors with the requisite background in dealing with music-related content disputes. I suggest you try Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Music. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 07:11, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Whilst I would normally be wary about linking to personal review sites, given Christgau's standing in the music journalism world, I can't really see a problem with these links. ELIMINATORJR 07:58, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
  • You don't get music critics more important than Christgau. These links are on the same level of importance as IMDb, BoxRec, etc. east.718 at 17:02, 10/31/2007
    • I couldn't agree more. Given Christgau's credentials, his web site can hardly be considered a "personal website". This may not be the best place for this discussion but the mass removals are unneeded. RxS 21:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I didn't initially realize the scope of respect in music journalism this fellow has, and have researched it more off of Wikipedia. Someone can tag this resolved. • Lawrence Cohen 13:54, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Eleemosynary[edit]

Resolved

Eleemosynary is edit warring on two different articles: Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy & Michael Mukasey. The first article was placed under protection do to the editor's edit warring, and Eleemosynary has now followed me to Michael Mukasey, and article that he has no previous edits on, and is reverting my edits just to mess with me. — Steven Andrew Miller (talk) 06:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

His persecution complex notwithstanding, Steven Andrew Miller is misstating the facts. --Eleemosynary 06:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Discuss edits on the articles talk page. Tiptoety 06:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Note that both editors have violated WP:3RR. Tiptoety 06:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have in the past, but not at present. Please check the recent history again. --Eleemosynary 10:21, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I have blocked Steven Andrew Miller for 24 hours for a clear three revert rule breach at Michael Mukasey. Eleemosynary has three reverts on this article and should not revert it again. He also has two reverts on Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy but this page is now protected. If he edits disruptively then he may be blocked, but not at the moment. Sam Blacketer 10:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
This is something new? Eleemosynary has a bad habit of edit warring. I'd block even for the three reverts. One is not entitled to 3 reverts per day. The fact that he's edit warring on a wide scale, constitutes disruption.SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:25, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
And you'd be wrong to issue the block. 1) I have no "habit" of edit warring. 2) You have no say as to what any editor is "entitled" to, and are as bound by Wiki policy as I am. 3) Your claim that I'm "edit warring on a wide scale" is a lie. I realize you're having major issues with Jimmy Wales these days, but try not to take that out on me. --Eleemosynary 00:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
It's not my "say". Read the policy. WP:3RR explicitly states that users are not entitled to three reverts per day, and you well know this. SWATJester Son of the Defender 01:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't make "three reverts a day," nor have I ever claimed I was entitled to. And none of those reversions were "disruptive," to quote the policy. You have a history of misrepresenting my actions both on and off-Wiki, so you'll forgive me for not assuming good faith with you.--Eleemosynary 01:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I won't. Assuming good faith is policy. SWATJester Son of the Defender 04:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
But your abuse of it, as I believe your off-site actions have done, frees me from assuming you're acting in good faith. I'd be happy to get some more admins to weigh in on this. Sound good? --Eleemosynary 05:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, my off site actions? Yes, lets please get some more admins to weigh in on this. SWATJester Son of the Defender 05:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There are issues other than the two Miller mentioned. Since section this is listed as "resolved," I've brought up these issues under "More User:Eleemosynary." Calbaer 19:48, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Why am I not surprised? --Eleemosynary 00:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Block of admin User:Dbachmann[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Resolved
I don't think there's anything else to discuss here, really. Neil  11:30, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Looks like User:Dbachmann has been blocked by User:Penwhale while he was trying to enforce policy at Race of Ancient Egyptians. He isn't requesting immediate unblock but he is requesting that various actions be taken. Please see his talk page for details. Requests include: *consider resetting my block to expire at 13:43, or unblock me on parole of not touching the disputed article until 20:29 today. *either way, take the case of Race of Ancient Egyptians to WP:AN/I for wider review: dedicated trolling accounts make reasonable editing impossible, admin intervention is necessary. Hit everyone with sticks until morale improves. Would uninvolved admins please pursue this case. Thanks. --Folantin 08:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've crossed paths with Dbachmann in the past, and unfortunately I get the impression that he seems to be willing to use his admin tools in disputes he's involved in. He did unambiguously break 3RR in a content dispute, and on top of this he used his admin rollback to do so. He also appears to be making sharp and unneccesary personal attacks towards Penwhale, the blocking admin. Unfortunately, this block was probably warranted. --krimpet 08:53, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Erm, Dbachmann was trying to ensure articles adhered to Wikipedia policy. Plus - correct me if I'm wrong- but I thought blocks were supposed to be preventive rather than punitive. --Folantin 09:00, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(edit conflict) DBachmann is one of the strongest defenders of the encyclopaedia against nationalst trolls of all stripes. I think that needs to be said, repeatedly, and remembered. Relata refero 09:02, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Using admin rollback on trolling edits may not be 100% ideal, but admins do it all the time and I've never seen anybody cite it as a reason to block that admin before. As for the 3RR, it's a fair cop, though should a hardworking admin's very first 3RR error get as much as 24 hours, really? That also is a new sight to me. Anyway, keeping dab blocked for the full 24 hours would be punitive after his own parole suggestion, see his talkpage. Penwhale doesn't seem to be editing. I've called for him on his page and on irc (where he's lurking, but I think not personally present). Unless I hear from Penwhale in 5 minutes, I'm unblocking on the conditions dab himself suggests. Bishonen | talk 09:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Absolutely, endorse unblock. Fut.Perf. 09:09, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Unblocked. Bishonen | talk 09:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Yeah, good unblock. The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page. Ryan Postlethwaite 09:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmph! This place gets dafter by the moment. Giano 09:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
My dear friends, I don't think a mere 5 minutes is a proper discussion. See this proposal by User:Daniel, "You don't unblock a problem user without discussion with the blocking [administrator]...Period". Any administrator who does so may face temporary desysopping at the direction of Jimmy Wales or the Arbitration Committee." Please restore the block until there is a consensus to unblock. This block wasn't a mistake, nor was it placed in bad faith. - Jehochman Talk 09:26, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Post-close clarification: For the record, I have never said I support that proposal, and never also in this circumstance. I have actually no opinion on the block, or unblock. My proposal at that RfAr is an attempt to clarify the ArbCom's stance on Jimbo's edict-like comment. Daniel 00:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid you'll have to place a request for my desysopping here to get any action on that from the ArbCom, Jehochman. Jimbo Wales, indeed, may desysop me without a request—we'll have to wait and see—but he doesn't after all intervene in the day-to-day running of the place very often. The ArbCom is your best bet. Bishonen | talk 10:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC).
Oh, noodles! not another case. At least you tried to contact him and waited for one or two comments, and this is hardly a sneaky vandal we're talking about. - Jehochman Talk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Is anyone calling Dbachmann a "problem user"? I don't think so. Rather, he's a very productive and helpful admin. While he may have violated 3RR (I haven't checked), he should be given an opportunity to correct his mistake. I don't think this block was made with Wikipedia's best interests in mind, and I support the decision to shorten it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:36, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec.) The preceding version of the proposal Jehochman linked to sums up what is actual long-standing good practice: administrators should not unblock users blocked by other administrators without first attempting to contact the blocking administrator and discuss the matter with them. If the blocking administrator is not available, or if the administrators cannot come to an agreement, then a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard is recommended." Which is precisely what happened here. Fut.Perf. 09:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I would also support a decision to shorten the block, but I think we should wait, let's say, 60 minutes to get a consensus, not 5 minutes and just two additional opinions. This is a high traffic board. Wait an hour for deeper snow. - Jehochman Talk 09:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) It was a short 24-hour block for 3RR (and that might be disputed) of a good editor and productive admin, not a block of a problem user. There is a world of difference between that and an indefinite block and proposed community ban of a problematic COI editor (Sadi Carnot). The former can be resolved with a short discussion, and the latter should have had further discussion before an unblock took place. The point about the 3RR is that it can be removed once the editor has agreed to stay away from the page as Ryan said "The block only serves a punitive purpose now given that Dbachman has offered to stay away from the page." The alternative viewpoint is that, as a strictly defined block (limited to 24 hours), 3RR blocks are best left in place if unblocking may cause drama (but then who can predict that?). The deeper snow comment is relevant, but how deep does snow have to be to overcome time considerations (appearing to unblock hastily)? Carcharoth 09:46, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not extremely happy with the unblock (which was first posted on my talk page a little under 2 hours ago -- and that was 5:00AM time that bishonen posted on my talk. I never thought that someone might assume that I wasn't hanging around to deal with the unblock issue. Unblocking after only a 12-minute wait period isn't something that I feel should have been done, but I'm not going to wheel war over this. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

←I support the unblock. Dbachmann is not a troll or vandal, he has agreed to avoid the article in question. I don't know if he has or hasn't violated 3RR. Yes he was incivil toward Penwhale but I doubt that it is a trend or ongoing problem. James086Talk | Email 09:44, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I have seen many established editors here who make solid contributions to the Wiki get blocked for violating the 3RR rule. I have not seen them unblocked after a 5 minute discussion. These sort of actions make users think that there is a two tier system here, with admins getting a free pass for their transgressions. It makes one think that, in spite of all the blather one reads on Rfas, adminship is, indeed, a big deal. Jeffpw 09:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Short discussion followed by strong actions seems to be a trend around here recently. Please, before anything drastic is done, allow decent conversation. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
You cannot reasonably expect an administrator to be online 24/7. I was informed of the actions when I woke up just a few minutes ago (which is 6:30 AM), so I feel slighted by that. - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 10:39, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Another reason that things should not be done in such rapid succession. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 10:41, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Feh. No suggestion of ill faith on anybody's part, no suggestion that Dbachmann wants to escalate this, Penwhale was offline and there was no pressing reason to retain the block as there is an adequate explanation for the behaviour identified. I suspect that someone was gaming the system here to try to make drama, but I've not really looked into it. Anyway, I propose we archive this thread, file it under "nobody's perfect" and move on, since there's clearly no need to escalate this any further. Guy (Help!) 11:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Dbachmann has been IMHO a troublesome admin in the past. However, he does do good work as well. Race of ancient egyptians is a shithole of an article, as evidenced by the recent edit wars that have brought it onto AN/I at least two, and possibly three times in the last 7 days. As much as I dislike his admin practices and editing behavior, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt on this one. P.S. we should also delete that article, start it anew from a blank stub, and require every single edit be sourced before it is included. SWATJester Son of the Defender 11:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)


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

No, forget it, I do not consent to this archive. This is absurd. An admin that barely made it in his RfA due to lack of mainspace experience decides to make-up new mainspace rules, such as blocking for rollback. Someone should have the courage to say something about that, and I'm glad Bishonen did. El_C 17:10, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've made my stand and responses, and you're just trying to flare things up again. Do not instigate this further; dab and I have talked and came to an understanding (and this was before you started complaining on here and my talk page). - Penwhale | Blast him / Follow his steps 23:14, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
Wow. El_C 02:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
El C, I don't know what the problem is but from my perspective you seem to be frequently adding only brief and vague responses to legitimate questions or statements. We're not mind readers here. Wikidudeman (talk) 23:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user: Davkal[edit]

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

Davkal (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been disruptively editing Wikipedia and has set himself up as an attack account for people who dare to edit in paranormal/pseudoscience articles that disagree with him, he vandalizes user pages, edit wars, mischaracterizes good faith warnings as harassment, makes unfounded accusations, and generally causes a lot of distress everywhere he goes at Wikipedia. The arbcomm found he was a disruptive editor and he hasn't improved one bit. I request a community ban. ScienceApologist 21:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The userpage "vandalism" looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. --Ali'i 21:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Could you clarify what you mean by your comment Ali'i? Which comment are you talking about?
Sure, but e kala mai for interrupting. ScienceApologist said that with this edit, Davkal was "vandaliz[ing] user pages". It actually looks more like a misplaced comment to the user. Sometimes people post comments on a person's userpage rather than on their talk page. It's actually a fairly common occurance. Mahalo. --Ali'i 12:31, 31 October 2007 (UTC)
With regards to Davkal, he has been nothing but trouble. He has accused me of being both a sock puppet and a meat puppet of ScienceApologist, of which I am certainly not. A checkuser can be run to quell any doubts about the sock issue and SA and I simply share similar interests. Davkal has continued to edit disruptively all over the List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts talk page in order to exclude a long standing source of information from the article. It appears that his method of editing is to try to exhaust other editor's patience in order to achieve his point. I requested a 3RR review against him due to his insistance on adding irrelevant information and continuing to insert a disputed tag but it did not result in a block but in the page being protected. He shows no sign of wanting to achieve consensus on the article and would rather continue to, for lack of a better word, rant about how much he distrusts the source and the author. The two other editors working on the page EPadmirateur and Hgilbert have been much more civil throughout the process of working towards a consensus but Davkal has been unable to remain civil. After being warned by both OrangeMarlin twice and once myself, he deleted the warnings from his page because he deemed them harassment. He even copied nearly the exact same warning I put on his page and put it onto mine, as you can see from this and then accused me again of being a sock puppet of SA. He has an extensive history of disruptive editing, as SA mentioned, which has culminated in 6 separate blocks. Even after all of these blocks, he has shown little change in his editing styles. It is time so show this editor the door. Baegis 22:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
Baegis makes great play of the fact that he's not a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of scienceapologist. Well he's certainly a sockpuppet or meatpuppet of someone. His first edits were to an RFC [[66]]! And then a few days later he jokes with Dave Souza on his talk page about his seeming familiarity with all things wiki[[67]]. His first words to me on the List of pseudosciences talk page was to tell me to leave [[68]]. And he has since accused me ov vandalism [[69]], for trying to uphold the an arbcom decision. He now seems to spend his time almost exclusively following ScienceApologist around wiki gang editing to avoid 3RR, including removing legitimately placed disputed tags from the list of pseudosciences article (added because there was a clear dispute involving at least three editors on either side - even though this was always presented as only me against the world - which was the same dispute that resurfaces constantly on that article because it has never been resolved). Not only does he follow ScienceApologist about, he seems to know SA's mind very well: well enough to make a change to SA's entry here as if he almost knew what SA was thinking[