Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive320

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

Noticeboard archives



Could someone have a word with him? He seems to have appointed himself moderator of Talk:Province of Bolzano-Bozen, and is removing posts and issuing orders, laced with profanity. Who appointed him drill-sergeant, and WP:Signpost missed it? ;-> Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I've left him a note on his talk page. David Fuchs (talk) 19:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I indefinitely blocked the user for this edit and the breach of WP:LEGAL therein. ("removing personal comments that border on libel - unless you have proof of this, refrain or we'll look into lawful matters") I welcome your review of this block. --John 20:08, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
I unblocked upon the user's assurance that no legal threat was intended. This might warrant continued scrutiny though. --John 20:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)
He made those attacks against me. I still have the copy of the e-mail he sent warning me about another Editor. Who cares actually, but I thought I'd let that Editor know. This guy was also selectively removing my posts across Wikipedia, and threating that some "game is going to begin"; i.e., he is going to get me blocked and banned, or he is gonna come over to my home and hit me. :-) Talking about needing a Wiki-break.... jeez. Icsunonove 04:45, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a little administrative focus on user Icsunonove here. Can a user continue to harrass another with constant banter, insult, and defamation without warning or punishment, while other users are scrutinized? I thought Wikipedia was a NEUTRAL place where ALL PARTIES involved are supposed to be treated equally. In this case, two wrongs don't make a right - so what about Icsunonove? Is there an admin out there that can see his various postings and sum most of them up as personal attacks and borderline libel? In my case, I have been regularly contributing positive, useful, and informative postings to wiki. With the case of South Tyrol, never again do I wish to be involved - but someone please stop Icsunonove from going to every talk page he can to leave slanderous and defaming comments. Thank you. Rarelibra 05:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah, "don't look at me, look at him!". Reminds me of elementary school. Interesting points you make though, considering that you began on Oct. 31st by messaging a new editor that I'm an "Italo-extremist", which I caught by a chance visit to Wikipedia. Then you go and selectively erase/edit my and others' posts. You must be pretty thick skinned to believe you will not receive return comments when you initiate attacks on other editors. I guess you've at least been consistent in convincing yourself time and time again that you are absolutely always in the right -- so I'm wondering why I am even bothering with this lecture. I think what you seriously need to do is focus a bit on your own behavior. Making legal threats and vandalizing others' edits is an issue you need to deal with. By the way, that is your opinion you regularly contribute positively; I believe others would have issue with that opinion, especially given the regular warnings you receive from Admins. Now, I ask you to please stop harassing editors that you somehow feel compelled to lambast once or twice a month. Also cease vandalizing the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page by placing POV tags, giving no clear explanation, and demanding who and who cannot then comment... i.e., read Lar's comments, and understand them! The bottom line is you sent me an e-mail, one that i still have, defaming Septentrionalis. You can call my action of telling him what you said "libel" until you turn blue. Maybe what you should have done was not sent it in the first place. I DO sincerely hope I no longer have to be involved with your lot any longer.. gosh, one can only wish! I'll let the Admins deal with your yelling, and constant stirring the pot on ethnic debates. Icsunonove 06:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • PS, isn't it funny that Rarelibra states to John that no legal threat was intended, but just above he again makes the same accusations of libel, slander, and defamation. Is this legal-verbage week on Wikipedia?! I think the message left on the talk page was a pretty-darn clear threat of some sort of legal action. o_O Rarelibra, you could at least be brave enough to be truthful in what your intentions were when you made that post. Was there something else you "meant to say" when you stated you are going to look into "lawful matters"? I'm more offended by this dodging of the truth, than the attack made regarding legal action. Icsunonove 06:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


How is it that such postings as THIS, THIS (calling me a coward), THIS (questionable behavior), and many other examples can continue to come from this user? One can sum up probably HALF of his edits as personal attacks and questionable behavior slandering and insulting those who disagree with his edits and behavior.

Is there no admin around that can see this and help? Thank you. Rarelibra 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PERHAPS you shouldn't have popped back into the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page and Francesco's page making all these claims again of Italo-centric and Italo-extremists. You complain after you insult people, and they make comments back at you? Interesting. Icsunonove 07:20, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You have been removing other people's posts [1][2], been incivil [3] and threatening legal action [4]. I would be more concerned about your own behaviour before reporting others. пﮟოьεԻ 57 09:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. --Checco 11:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, PhJ and Rarelibra might not like me, and maybe a certain subset of users from Germany (Gryfindor, Matthead, etc.), but this is pretty messed up that this behavior of Rarelibra (and PhJ) turns into an indictment on my editing history. Ok, maybe Fut. Perf. sees a war and just wants to end it ASAP without seeing what happened first, but PhJ coming on here and making his comments below. Jeez, how I wish I hadn't visited Wikipedia a few days ago and witnessed the new bashing on the Bolzano-Bozen page... :-) Icsunonove 15:08, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Topic ban proposed[edit]

This is an extremely long-standing conflict that has gone from lame edit war to festering personal hatred. The only solution I can see is that certain people need to be removed from this situation, and for good. I haven't made up my mind yet whether Rarelibra's behaviour is disruptive to a degree that requires sanctions (right now he seems to be simply angry, and understandably so to a certain degree.) The fault for the recent re-escalation I see squarely on Icsunove's side. A topic ban for him is the least we need. He is quite evidently unable or unwilling to work together constructively with the other editors on this matter.

Therefore, proposed community sanction: Icsunonove is banned, indefinitely, from making any edits relating to the question of geographical names in South Tyrol. This includes comments relating to these issues on talk pages and user talk pages, including his own, and comments about other contributors with whom he has been in conflict over them, including (but not limited to) Rarelibra, Gryffindor, and Pmanderson.

Violations of this ban to be met with escalating blocks, as usual. Other editors to be added to this or similar regulations as other admins see necessary. Fut.Perf. 06:56, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

"The fault for the recent re-escalation I see squarely on Icsunove's side. A topic ban for him is the least we need. He is quite evidently unable or unwilling to work together constructively with the other editors on this matter." Ok, if that isn't one of the most completely biased statements I've seen made in awhile, I don't know what is. I was one of the editors that helped finally bring a neutral solution to this page after ages of fighting. This was done, together with a group of editors that were German, English, and Italian speakers -- in an extremely civil manner. Then you decide to target a single user -- me? How convenient. I have no conflict with Pmanderson, it is Rarelibra that has a conflict with him as well; so please get that straight at least. I also suggest you should stay neutral in this discussion, since you are a native German speaker, and this has constantly been drawn into a useless debate between users from Germany and Italy. You then accuse me of being at fault in a re-escalation? Then you have not sufficiently investigated what re-instigated this new (and stupid) war. It was [5] and [6]. If you find edits I made earlier to those, please show me -- and then you can accuse me of re-starting this bickering. If not, my research shows it was Rarelibra and PhJ -- again. I have been one of those from day one that has pushed to get these pages at neutral titles, and the fighting on these pages has dropped significantly. There are just a few holdouts who like to come along and lambaste us (i.e., Gryffindor, PhJ, and Rarelibra). You want to topic ban some people for awhile? There ya go. Also, see below the highly threatening e-mail of legal action this user Rarelibra sent me. In the past he e-mailed me that Pmanderson had ulterior motives, so I told Pmanderson. Tough, he shouldn't of e-mailed that sort of language if he didn't want it made public. Regardless, Fut. Perf., that is really offensive what you have accused me of above and it is completely out of line that you are trying to isolate me from this topic, considering you yourself have been involved in this debate. Icsunonove 07:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm open to extending the topic ban to Rarelibra (hadn't honestly seen the timing of the "italo-extremists" comments). If the e-mail is confirmed there'll of course have to be an indef block too unless the threat is retracted. For the record, I have never been involved in this dispute that I can remember, except in administrative function, and I'm as neutral as can be. The suggestion I couldn't be neutral because I'm German just goes to show how insane this situation has become. Fut.Perf. 07:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You know what Fut. Perf., how about trying something else instead of getting people banned from topics they contribute to? I've worked a lot to get neutral solutions, and the vast majority of editors will agree we have solutions now that are fair to Italian/German sensitivities on the subject, and also reflect proper English usage. At one point the pages were simply dominated from a German point of view, basically a direct translation from German Wikipedia. I have a good idea with regards to this considering my ancestry is German and Italian. The situation is insane, I agree. But I feel it is fair for me, after what I have witnessed on Wikipedia with regards to this topic, to at least ask that you do consider any inherent biases you might have. If you feel absolutely neutral, then I'm proud of you -- seriously. :) I took quite a lot of time off from this subject, just concentrating on clean-up edits. I came back and saw all this hurtful writing again, and of course I have a reaction. I maybe wish I wouldn't of reacted so cynically, but it does get old! If you would like us all to take some time off from the BZ page, fine. But what you are asking for above, and pointing a finger at me (without even thoroughly investigating what happened).. you must know this is hurtful and insulting. I've put a lot of work into this region, a place where my ancestors come from in fact. Icsunonove 08:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • One question I have though: How many times does an Editor get to make such major threats like this, and then magically retract them? Icsunonove 08:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)


I somehow had the feeling this guy would send me an e-mail, and look what I just received in through the hopper:

If you keep on putting down slanderous lies and defamations about me on Wikipedia, you are going to find yourself rather quickly in a situation that you won't be able to handle, NASA boy. You seem smart - so figure out what the punishment is for libel and defamation of character - and exactly how much it will cost you. I'm not personally attacking you on every page, so you best keep your mouth closed and concentrate on something positive.

Keep on pushing me and see what happens. You think I don't know a few people in government, NASA boy? Keep it up and see how far down the rabbit hole really goes.

You've been warned.

This was sent by Rarelibra (<email redacted>) through Wikipedia e-mail at 11/01/2007 10:43 PM. While I almost spit a mouthful of water at my monitor laughing at this banter, I thought this should be reported. If an Admin needs me to forward the header, IP, and text, please tell me where to send. If this isn't a legal threat involving Wikipedia, I don't what is. I'd love to see this guy actually go to a lawyer and tell him that this dude with the nickname X on Wikipedia told the editor with the nickname Y that "Rarelibra" said something bad about him, etc., etc. That is almost worth paying money to watch. This should go in the hall of shame. :-) Icsunonove 07:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Is there some way of confirming Rarelibra sent this email? Anyone? Neil  10:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Not in a non-adminly way; but if you change your email, it sends you a confirmation, and will not let you send mail until you do. So the person in question, even if they were pranking him, *does* need to have access to that email account (whether it's really rarelibra is to be determined. BTW, if I understand correctly, the IP information will just be Wikipedia's mailserv, and won't actually help (the return path on mail I've received from two users in the past few days is I don't know what timestamps are available to admins, but I bet confirmation of this needs to go through the Foundation. --Thespian 10:27, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
On further thought, on the off chance that the email wasn't from Rarelibra, but was somehow his email, I redacted the address, just in case. As I can't oversight, it will still be in the history if people need to look it up. --Thespian 10:55, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Who knows, maybe this time he will actually just admit to it? Kinda doubt it though. Last time he made the excuse to John that his comments about bringing in matters of law obviously just meant Wikipedia Admins. Maybe that is what he means by "Government" this time? :-) Anyway, tell me what I can do to help verify. regards, Icsunonove 15:01, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have also received an abusive e-mail from an account which claims to be Rarelibra; I will forward it to any admin who requests it, and it can be compared to Icsunonove's. I am not in conflict with Icsunonove, whom I would count as one of the few editors on this subject who have hitherto been consistently civil; I say this although I do disagree with him. (My position on the substantive matter is actually closer to Rarelibra's, although I cannot concur with his reasons.) Certainly I would rather discuss the merits of the Italianizing position with Icsunonove than with some of its other advocates. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 19:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to say that I agree with you maybe 50% of the time or less :), but at least I feel like I'm getting a rational, thoughtful and open-minded debate. Simply put, it makes me respect Sep as an editor. I completely admit I get overly emotional sometimes when this same group of editors comes in swinging every other month, and I then might make cynical replies that are not completely civil; but at least I apologize here and there. The last time I made such an admission, what did I get? PhJ saying "see! he confesses, so ban him!" Nice!! A lot of these folk have never appeared to be in the least regretful saying what they say, or making threats, etc. Anyway, all we need now is to have Gryffindor show up. He'll have plenty to say how I don't work well with others, drive editors (i.e., him) crazy, etc., etc. Regardless, showing up and seeing the other two bad mouth me as an "italo-extremist" to a new contributor.. it is really getting close to that last straw. I am an native English-speaking American! o_O Anyway, Sep, we can definitely discuss the topic some more on your talk page sometime. I need a bit of a break. later, Icsunonove 22:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, could you forward me the mail please? "fut" "dot" "perf" "at" "freenet" "dot" "de" . Fut.Perf. 20:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Icsunonove vs. opponents[edit]

I can understand Rarelibra, even if he has really sent that e-mail (though such an e-mail couldn't be tolerated, but it has to be seen in the context). Rarelibra is definitely not the only one who is in trouble with Icsunonove (old username: Taalo), who seems to have a fine feeling for offending other users everywhere on Wikipedia to such an extent that he cannot be punished, but he still reaches his aim effectively hurting the others. It is a matter of fact that Icsunonove extensively writes off-topic comments obviously insulting other users. No wonder they get angry at him. -- PhJ 13:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

PhJ, et al. vs. opponents[edit]

PhJ, given that you, Rarelibra, and Gryffindor are the three who in particular keep coming back to lambaste/insult us, and disrupt these pages in general, I'd say you would of wanted to at least attempt to stay neutral. If you want to come and attack me, we can just as easily start digging up contributions that you have made in the past. I.e., we can repeat verbatim what you have said above about you three. In the end, it doesn't surprise me that you jump on the bandwagon here. Both you and Rarelibra have often found it necessary to go around and delete other editor's comments on talk pages. Both you guys placed POV tags repeatedly on the Province of Bolzano-Bozen page without giving a clear reason, and even against the advice of Admins such as Lar. Want some sort of revenge now? Go someplace else if that is what you need in life... I'd bet you'd love to get me banned, but this post to ANI was not an indictment on my editing history on Wikipedia. It was about legal threats made on Wikipedia. Also, it was initiated by new fighting instigated by you and Rarelibra with those initial posts you guys made on Francesco's talk page and the articles talk page. Icsunonove 14:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So, where do we go from here?[edit]

Okay, so what's going to happen now? I think it has become clear that it is not safe to let Icsunonove and Rarelibra edit together in that area. I take it Rarelibra accepts to stay away from South Tyrol articles. In my view, Icsunonove needs to stay away too. Look at his contributions from 1 November; almost every single one of them contained a personal attack, a long line of taunting and innuendo, on a very personal level, and directed not only against Rarelibra but others too. There is just too much bad blood between these groups of contributors, the situation is so inflamed we need people to get out of it, in their own interest. Just stop editing the same articles and stop talking about each other.

I therefore renew my proposal: topic ban for both Rarelibra and Icsunonove. Can we get this done here on the community level, or do we need to go through Arbcom? Comments from other uninvolved admins would be welcome. Fut.Perf. 09:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Rarelibra talk page[edit]

Wow, and when I was getting that feeling to just forget about this guy, thinking he might just be having a difficult time at the moment in real life, check out what he has put at the top of his talk page. We've gone from Italo-centric and Italo-extremist, to Italo-fascists! Talking with a certain editor over e-mail really seems to have gotten to this editor... wow! I guess someone can put anything they want on their talk page, but jeez, even racial slurs? It is funny we are all Italo-fascists, considering I am an American, Andreas and AldeBaer are Germans, we have various people from the UK who have said they have no Italian roots what-so-ever, and Sep is from somewhere in our Solar System, we think. The Italians who have been on here are Supparluca, Checco and Pcassetti, to name the most active recently, and these I've found to be genuinely good-hearted people. Fascists!?! Icsunonove 22:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

No amount of apology I offer - wholeheartedly - will most likely suffice in the light of the past few days. All I can say is, if it is a topic ban - I will fully accept this. Trust me, from hear on out - I will say this in full earnest - if anyone catches me on any of the controversial topics making trouble, ban me until Jesus comes back. As adults, we should be able to sort this out with civility. So I offer up a full apology to Pmanderson (whom I respect fully and sometimes bump elbows with), and I offer up a full apology to Icsunonove - who I ask of this, let us share the olive branch, go our separate ways, and contribute to wiki with positive and constructive vibes. I offer up no insults - it only fans the fire. I ask of you only the same. I was angered, yes. Because here I was all this time contributing to the growth and improvement of various articles in Pakistan, Japan, Romania, the list goes on and on... (working on Vietnam currently) and along comes an editor with what I saw as a perfect solution that would enable a regional article and a provincial article (as exists in many countries). I simply do not like the blog-like off-topic insulting type of banter, and it got to me at a time when, in my personal life, I am at a stress factor of 10 from various school, military, work, and home pressures - all of which culminate next year when I get the degree and retire from the service. I am humble in my approach - and hope you all see this.

I only wish to make maps and continue relying on wiki for accurate information in my quest throughout the various administrative levels of various countries. So once again, please accept my wholehearted apologies, one and all. Rarelibra 23:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Acknowledged with thanks. (This is the first I've seen this; you may want to write Icsunonove's talk page.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Disruption of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by Rlevse[edit]

User:Rlevse is an administrator who has come barging into Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts like a bull run amok in a china shop, entirely disrupting the process there. This is not a process in which Rlevse has ever before participated in its entire 2½ year history. Clearly he has no expertise in how it is supposed to work.

It is hard to imagine anything

  1. more likely to sabotage what is intended to be an informal first step in a dispute resolution process
  2. more likely to exacerbate this dispute
  3. more likely to fan the flames and to create more hard feelings, and
  4. more counterproductive to the spirit of cooperative editing

than what User:Rlevse did here.

Especially when

  1. There is absolutely nothing at WQA instructing me to offer a response.
  2. What is there, in fact, actively discourages such discussion, by saying "Avoid an extensive discussion of the problem or issue on this page" and "Do not continue your discussion in detail here".
  3. The discussion, including any response from me, actually belongs where the issue arose (in this case, Talk:Kilogram), and User:Rlevse never even looked there.

Rlevse's actions, (and perhaps equally important or more so, the actions he failed to take) fly directly in the face of the spirit of this entire process.

But Rlevse's are not merely contrary to the spirit of this entire process. It is much more than that.

In fact, they are contrary to very black-letter rules of this process, as set out in a big honking box at the top of that page:

"This page is an early step in the Wikipedia Dispute Resolution Process. It is a non-binding noticeboard where users can report impolite, uncivil or other difficult communications with editors, to seek perspective, advice, informal mediation, or a referral to a more appropriate forum.


"Wikiquette Alerts depends on the help of interested editors to provide neutral viewpoints. Everyone is invited to participate in responding to alerts."

a "non-binding noticeboard"; and in the opening paragraph:

"Wikiquette alerts are an informal streamlined way to request perspective and help with difficult communications with other editors. This page is not part of the formal dispute resolution process, so it can be a good place to start if you are not sure where else to go. It is hoped that assistance from uninvolved editors can help to resolve conflicts before they escalate."

and further down the page:

"Responding to alerts is also a good way to learn more about Wikipedia policies and even more, about how to work with other users to calm situations without resorting to formal procedures."

and you can't get much clearer than without resorting to formal procedures. In other words, that would be inappropriate at this stage even if their had been any relevant discussion, unless based on new developments during that discussion.

At the very least, formal procedures require reference to some other dispute resolution process, and action in accordance with the rules governing that other process. Not actions contrary to the rules of this process.

If my participation on this page were important, and there is no evidence whatsoever that Rlevse know anything whatsoever about how this is supposed to work, then he should have invited me to come here and comment on it. An out-of-the-blue, totally undiscussed block, for not doing something which I am not in any way obliged to do, is not by any stretch of the imagination an appropriate response. To instead prevent any comment from me is about the most illogical, irresponsible action anyone could possibly imagine.

The ball had already been picked up at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts by one of the regulars here Bfigura, who had already said that he was going to look into it. Rlevse's actions totally disrupted that, and stepped on territory that had already been claimed, and that was supposedly in the process of being worked out.

I am at a total loss as to why Rlevse might have done this. The only possible explanation that offers itself to me is that it was deliberately designed to give User:Greg L an upper hand in that WQA dispute. Why, I couldn't even guess.

That this process's integrity was in fact the primary target of User:Rlevse's attack is also evident from his posting of his notice about blocking me there[7] (still his only participation there, ever) seven minutes before he even posted a notice to me about it on my talk page,[8] as well as from the fact that he had not done the same at Wikipedia talk:Call a spade a spade, nor had he done so at User talk:ArielGold. It is further evidenced by his placement of your notice on my talk page under the existing User talk:Gene Nygaard#Wikiquette alert header halfway up my page, not in a new notice at the bottom (and he didn't add the subheader, I did that later). There's no disguising of the fact that the additional charges laid were intended as nothing other than a strategem or ploy, likely intended to create an appearance of fairness in an unwarranted 72-hour long block.

The other undiscussed, unproved issues thrown in by Rlevse were, based on all the evidence, clearly a red herring. The fact that a couple of hounds were diverted and chased after the false scent[9][10] merely shows that such ploys sometimes works. If anyone wants to discuss the side issues separately, that's fine--but they don't belong in this discussion.

Worst of all, Rlevse is a rude, inconsiderate person who never once discussed any of this with me--not before blocking me, not after blocking me, not at any time. But that, too, is a side issue here. Gene Nygaard 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

By calling Rlevse rude and inconsiderate you are continuing the incivility that has led to several blocks on your account. I also believe you are misreading one statement that Rlevse made and attempting to use that to lawyer your way out of a completely appropriate block. Your unblock request was denied more than once.
It should be clear to you that personal attacks and incivility are not acceptable behaviors while editing Wikipedia. Stop it and you won't get blocked. Shell babelfish 15:13, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
After having a look at the situtation, I fully endorse Rlevse's block. пﮟოьεԻ 57 15:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
The block was entirely justified, but ideally would have been longer. Tim Vickers 16:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I think the tone of this report and the prior block log indicate that Gene Nygaard has completely failed to learn anything from his past travails. His response to being blocked for being rude and aggressive was to come here and be rude and aggressive. Sorry, not good enough. He can have another week off. Guy (Help!) 17:16, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
    A week long block for the post above? That seems excessive to me. Haukur 17:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Have a look at his block log, this is a long-term problem. Tim Vickers 17:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I realize he's grumpy (I've been fighting with him for years) - I just don't see a justification in our blocking policy for a week long block at this point. Being apparently in the minority here I won't unblock, though. Haukur 18:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

As a side point and please correct me if I'm wrong, the description of Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts as "non-binding" means that any agreements made on that page are voluntary on the part of all concerned. It does not mean that participants are given any kind of "immunity" from repercussions for their conduct. Sheffield Steeltalkstalk 19:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

For those considering if this block is justified, may I offer the following:

These are all edits asking Gene to be more civil. Almost all just from the last month(!)

To Gene:

These from a little further back may also be of interest - from AN/I reports and RFC/U

I don't think much comment is needed, other than to point out the sheer number of different editors quoted here.

Mondegreen 19:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Gene has strong and self-righteous views on many subjects. So do many Wikipedians. His topics, including the exact meaning of SI, are more arcane than some (and, for what it's worth I often disagree with him). But a week's block is destructive to a useful editor. Please reconsider. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Septentrionalis and Haukur. Gene's manner has never bothered me, even when I was on the receiving end. But the community as a whole has to set these standards of behavior and enforce them. I hope Gene can be a little more polite, and his fellow editors a little more accommodating. As for the seven day block - Gene can make it vanish per Guy's suggestion, if he so chooses. --Duk 23:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Endorse block. I agree with those above stating that Gene is a prolific contributor, but I'm not sure that's a valid reason to encourage a long pattern of discourteous behavior (WP:CIVIL is a policy, not a suggestion). Hopefully Gene will be back to editing soon as a more civil contributor (as Duk mentions above, Gene can get this lifted early if he wishes). --Bfigura (talk) 04:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
About time WP:CIVIL grew teeth. "I contribute article material!" is not an excuse for extreme and repeated incivility, period. Plenty of people manage to do that without attacking and insulting others, so no one should get a free pass on those grounds. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I want to endorse this block as per all of the above. Greg Jones II 16:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair use on Astronomy photographs[edit]

Would someone who is more up to speed on our image use policies than I am take a look at User talk:Apcgurutech for me. He has uploaded a couple of photographs by an astronomer who is now deceased so we cannot obtain permission. I'm pretty sure we can use them under fair use, the photographs are unique in that they apparently show an unexplained object, and it is discussed in the article but the thw only photographs I ever upload are my own so I'm rubbish at writing rationals. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 15:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The astronomer being dead complicates our asking for permission, but doesn't make it impossible. Someone still owns the photos - either the astronomer's institution or the beneficiaries of his estate (who could, I guess, be contacted by writing to his institution). -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 16:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
If we are talking about the photos then we don't need to request permission. Just make sure the images are "web-resolution" and the fair-use rationals are all filled out. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


This IP has been used repeatedly and (almost) exclusively for vandalism. The user talk page speaks for itself. The IP has been blocked twice this year already... Is there a way to put an IP on a watch list, to check anything they do? I just reverted some vandalism it did right after getting a "last warning" about the same page... Ratfox 19:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You probably want what is known as a softblock. This forces any user from this IP to login. It helps cut down the spam from school districts. spryde | talk 20:25, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Eh, generally speaking, even bothering to warn a school-IP with a history is the equivalent of pissing into a strong wind. Just report 'em here, mention they're a school IP and go on with your life. HalfShadow 21:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
WP:RBI. Caknuck 23:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
Except that then you're liable to get your report ignored or removed because you failed to warn the editor. :( --ElKevbo 00:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
The AIV helperbot tags known school ip's as such, which means that the reviewing admin is fully aware that warnings are unlikely to be seen by the particular vandal. Me? I just take a quick look at the volume to noise ratio of edits and the block log - nothing but vandalism and a recent block and I block to the next level. The most important thing is to {{schoolblock}} template the talkpage to allow pupils wanting to contribute to be able to get an account. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Porcupine[edit]

Resolved: Martinp23 will handle

RlevseTalk 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Could someone deal with this, please, making sure that you look at the page's history, plus the talkpages of myself + the nominator. Cheers!--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I have closed the discussion. Repeated incivility has been withstood and I don't want to take part in the discussion any more. Auroranorth (sign) 09:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

But you haven't. I'll do so now.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please remove the speedy deletion tag from WP:SSP. Auroranorth (sign) 09:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I've done so. I'm really quite efficient.--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 09:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
(removed discussion headers, etc.) Will be archived in due course. Auroranorth (sign) 09:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Note Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge closed the SSP on himself. This was reopened as that's a COI issue. The blocking admin, Martinp23, was contacted and will take the issue from here. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge asked Martinp23 to block his account and promised not to edit til Jan 20, 2008 or so. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge then opened the Circuit Judge account one week later and began heavy editing, which precipitated this thread and the SSP case. Rambutan/Porcupine/Circuit Judge admitted Circuit Judge was his, but there appears to be no socking going on. Martinp23 will handle the trust issue.RlevseTalk 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Of my 97 edits over 3 days, only 3 have been mainspace; most of the others have been "housekeeping" in setting up the new accoutn, or dealing with the stupid sock-report. Scarcely "heavy editing"!--Porcupine (see my userpage for details) 15:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have a serious problem with this continued changing of usernames to avoid the history of past blocks, while continuing the same kind of behaviour. I'd want to see some evidence that the user is no longer going to be an edit warrior before we sit back and let him put the past behind him again. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Himayat-Anjuman-i seemingly worthless editing[edit]

I am keeping an eye on the contributions of Himayat-Anjuman-i (talk · contribs) who is making a large number of edits with the edit summary "cleanup using BravoWIki", a client I have never heard of. Most of his/her edits seem completely worthless such as changing the position of stubs in articles. I have left a message on the talk page as have a couple of other editors. I wonder if a block may be in order of the user cannot explain this editing pattern? Tim! 10:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

A block certainly isn't in order but he's more than likely using those summaries to appear "better" than your average editor. Someone else should have a word with him but I wouldn't go as far as blocking him (Even though I can't)--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
On second thoughts, it looks like he's running an unauthorised bot from his account. An admin should investigate further--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 12:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. Everything points to an unauthorized bot: about 1,000 (seemingly useless) edits in 7 hours many of them performing different trivial tasks seconds apart, all with an identical edit summary.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I was about to but Maxim already blocked.--Fuhghettaboutit 12:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User:3meandEr and Northern Cyprus[edit]

3meandEr (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a new editor and apparent single-purpose account, has repeatedly been edit warring on Northern Cyprus (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) since creating his account on 4 October. He has sought to replace the existing intro with a new and very POV version (see e.g. [11]) as well as littering the article with "weasel word" tags. This was reverted several times by different editors. Aecis (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) protected the article on 7 October to stop the edit war. However, 3meandEr resumed edit warring within hours of the protection expiring on 21 October, and on 22 October I protected the article again to stop the edit war. I intervened on the talk page in an attempt to explain to 3meandEr what our policy requires. I also warned 3meandEr on his talk page not to resume edit warring or violating policy. After I unprotected the article on 1 November, 3meandEr began edit warring again and Aecis once again protected the article.

As things stand, the article has been editable for only about 1.5 days over the past month, solely because of this one disruptive editor. Aecis, ProhibitOnions (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) and I have tried working with him to educate him about WP:NPOV, WP:SOAP, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:V, WP:CITE, WP:RS, WP:NPOV and WP:OR. As this exchange indicates, 3meandEr simply doesn't get (or more likely doesn't want to get) Wikipedia's basic policies. This has been going on for a month now and I see no realistic possibility that he is going to start cooperating.

I'd be grateful if an uninvolved admin could review this situation. Wikipedia isn't being run for the benefit of abusive editors and it's unsatisfactory that an important article should be off-limits for a month because of one person who wants to use Wikipedia as a soapbox. I recommend blocking or banning 3meandEr as a disruptive SPA. I can't block him myself, since I've edited the article. -- ChrisO 11:10, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly with the above assessment. A quick look at the article's talk page shows several users (of various backgrounds, not just "Turkish POV") trying to reason with this SPA with no success whatsoever. Note that the poorly written, propagandistic additions to the article the user proposes (or makes, as soon as the article is unlocked) have not changed in the slightest. ChrisO has a reputation as a great mediator -- I don't suspect he'd be posting here except as a last resort, and he is only doing so after a lot of fruitless effort to get this SPA to work productively on the article. ProhibitOnions (T) 11:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocking for a week (for starters, and will re-block immediately if he continues after that). You guys are right, we can't keep the article protected forever just because of him. Fut.Perf. 11:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with ChrisO's analysis of 3meandEr's editing behaviour. It is uncooperative and opinionated at best. Basically it's just his editing that has led to the last three or four protections of the article. The other editors, who are on all sides of this issue (pro-Cyprus, pro-Northern Cyprus and uninvolved), appear to be willing to work towards a compromise that meets all of Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. 3meandEr's editing is keeping them from reaching that consensus and compromise. What ChrisO and I disagree about (see User talk:Aecis#Northern Cyprus and User talk:ChrisO#3meandEr) is what stage 3meandEr has reached. ChrisO basically feels that he has crossed the line and should be blocked, while I feel he should receive a stern final warning now and should be blocked the next time. Having said that, I can live with the block FutPerf issued. AecisBrievenbus 12:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Two things led me to that conclusion. The first was his willful resumption of edit warring even after I'd explicitly warned him against it, and the second was his exchange with you on your talk page and his. I concluded that he had no intention of following policy and was making it clear that he wouldn't do so in future. There was nothing to be gained by allowing him to continue editing, as he wasn't going to agree to anything that restricted his POV-pushing. -- ChrisO 14:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

User is already blocked for a week. When he returns he will have a choice to discontinue his previous behavior, and if he does not, block again in an escalating rate (two weeks, one months, etc.) ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 15:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with ChrisO's analysis of the situation. Keeping a page protected due to a single disruptive editor is not fair to the other editors who are trying to work productively toward a consensus version. In its current form Northern Cyprus is reasonably balanced, and (until 3meandEr took over) there was a cooperative effort going on to improve the lead and the referencing. EdJohnston 15:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3meandEr really doesn't seem to understand what's wrong with his/her version. Either the editor is being intentionally obtuse, or s/he simply doesn't understand NPOV. 3meandEr seems to have only edited articles related to Cyprus. S/he needs some diversity in his/her editing. I'd say unblock on the condition that s/he stays away from articles related to Turkey and Cyprus (including talk pages). In a few months, if s/he settles down a bit, we should reconsider. Guettarda 15:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Note about impersonator User:Barnecaration, and a request for a protected page edit[edit]

An impersonator, User:Barnecaration, inappropriately responded to about 25 unblock requests from 10/31 to 11/1, and signed my name instead of their own. Since several admins replied to those users, and at least a couple of them initially thought it was me, I'd just like to make a quick, general announcement that it wasn't me (see here).

  • Also, Netsnipe reverted most of their responses, but there were a couple remaining where my signature was shown on the talk page. Per Lar's suggestion, I've struck out my signature on all of them but one. User talk:PBCF is protected, so a protracted discussion between the blocked user and the faux-me is still there. Could an admin please strike out my signature, or better yet, just remove the inapplicable unblock requests? I'm an idiot, it's only semi-protected. nevermind.

Thank you. --barneca (talk) 15:41, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Abusive, threatening talk page post by User:[edit]


Go and die. I hope that you meet with an "accident" involving a rusty knife and a double glazed window salesman. Here's the diff. The reason was I posted a vandalism warning to the user's talk page. Lurker (said · done) 16:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

1 week. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 16:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Although of course, this is nasty vandalism; I wouldn't get worried, it's just people who think they're funny (obviously they're not). Cheers, Qst 17:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment and attacks[edit]

Okay, so now I've had enough of the trolling, harassment and personal attacks towards me diff 1, diff 2, diff 3 and the articles I'm involved in by (talk · contribs) as a result of the Drake Circus and Drake Circus Shopping Centre debacle. This self professed student (aka a SPA account that is only being used for trolling etc) has taken exception to the work I've done on WP and is now attempting to disrupt to make a WP:POINT. He's constantly trolling on talk pages, making vandalistic edits (c/w non-civil edit summaries) and generally being a nuisance. I have no good faith left, I have no civility left. This Drake Circus nonsense has gone on for 2 days now and I'm pissed off with the constant crap coming in my direction. Could an administrator take charge before I find myself getting blocked for incivility. I've managed to get bugger all of any note done today just trying to sort the crap left behind by these morons. AnonEMouse has been graciously dealing with another anon IP doing the same thing and Jéské caught the admin flak yesterday. Thanks. ---- WebHamster 20:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 24 hours for vandalism and trolling. IrishGuy talk 20:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
You may also want to consider as that anon seems to have the same MO as the other IP. spryde | talk 20:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)
I have a checkuser out on Yiwentang and (almost, if not) all the IPs from yesterday. I have not added to it, and I can't recall offhand if I added the other one. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:31, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
There's also a possibility that Andytempt (talk · contribs) is either a sockpuppet or one of the SU meatpuppets. IrishGuy has been kind enough to nip him in the bud though. ---- WebHamster 00:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
We're getting overrun, add Harrybevan (talk · contribs) to the list. His MO is the same as the others, with the exception that he doesn't seem to vandalise, just troll... yet! ---- WebHamster 01:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
And another SPA joins the Drake Circus circus. (talk · contribs) is already handing out attacks and incivility here and based on the edit summaries in his contrib list he seems keen to be blocked. ---- WebHamster 02:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Add them to the CU request as they pop up, please. It hasn't been responded to yet, and if we find that these are Yiwentang socks... -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:02, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

CU Results[edit]

The Checkuser came back Likely that Yiwentang is using the IPs, but I didn't provide evidence for the named accounts. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 19:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

José Galisteo[edit]

Resolved: Material has been removed as WP:BLP violation

The subject of this article (which I wrote) has emailed me, demanding that we remove all gay references (even the fact that he performed at Europride and that he has gay fans) and all references to the fact that he served in the military. All contentious material is sourced and the article was vetted by several editors, including an admin. I even found a Spanish speaking editor to read the source material, just to double check my translation. Since I was emailed, I posted this on The LGBT Project talk page, where the consensus was that as it is sourced it should stand. I posted it to the BLP Noticeboard, too, but that page is not well trafficked, alas, so I am posting here to get a wide community consensus on how to proceed. I have emailed Galisteo, explaining Wikipedia policies and saying the article is currently being reviewed to ensure conformity with said policies. He emailed me once again, reiterating that the material should be removed, and saying his fan club site is the best source of information. He has also reverted both the English and Spanish articles. Please review. I will not be editing this article myslef for the foreseeable future, as I feel it would be a conflict of interest as both the article's creator and a fan of Galisteo (though this incident has made me see him in a different light). Jeffpw 09:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I forgot to add that the email was web based (hotmail) so there is no way to actually verify it is the subject himself or somebody else. I am assuming good faith and going with the presumption that it is actually him. Jeffpw 09:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Ask him to mail OTRS ( detailing precisely what the problem is, and which text is inaccurate, preferably with some kind of evidence. Guy (Help!) 11:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The way I read the sources, it's tricky; because of the way they're written, it's not clear if the interviews are actually quoting him or if they are quoting what was found on the internet. Can others who speak Spanish please look over what I wrote on the BLP board. It's a question of whether he has self-identified as gay, or whether the magazines are merely repeating blog-fueled rumors, and it's hard to tell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

the pest of Plymouth[edit]

For some time now there has been a tiresome campaign by somebody using a series of UIDs and IP numbers -- or conceivably more than one person, with remarkably similar obsessions and propensities to mock, whinge, vandalize, bluster, threaten, misread and make spelling mistakes -- who's most worked up about (i) what he thinks is the dreadfulness and insignificance (odd combination, yes) of Drake Circus Shopping Centre (Plymouth, SW England; a town of which I know little), (ii) its alleged misappropriation of the name Drake Circus, and (iii) the systemic failures of WP evidenced by its biased coverage of this and other Plymouth-related stuff. (And predictably he also says WP is a mere joke.) On occasion he's been countered by an apparent defender of the shopping centre, though I've wondered if the defender is real or merely a rhetorical device.

Both articles have been sprotected (which seems odd for something so local), but after ranting on the talk pages he's been posting tiresome squib after tiresome squib there, some of them at least appearing to ask a valid question (until one realizes that it merely demonstrates a wilful refusal to read an earlier response). WebHamster, I and others have been doing our best to answer him or (since he's clearly uninterested in answers other than as fuel for more trolling) swatting him away. On occasion, of course, we've got slightly wound up or even fed the troll: if you bother to go through the verbiage, you'll see miscellaneous, er, civility malfunctions of mine.

I'm tempted to be BOLD and announce that I'll delete anything even smelling of trollery; but even if that were permissible, implementing it would probably just encourage him to fan out to other articles: as it is, he's conveniently localized. The troll hasn't managed to irritate me except in the considerable amount of time he has wasted. For this, assistance would be welcome; a new (and "killer"?) countermeasure that I haven't thought of even more welcome. -- Hoary 13:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't think I'm being incivil, Hoary, but I've been monitoring those discussions, and I can't help thinking that you have fanned the flames of his ire by continually replying to his every remark (not exactly, but you know what I mean). I'm far less experienced here than you, of course, but once a person's credentials are established as "troll", I always thought that the best policy is to simply monitor their input and only respond when necessary (when a valid clearly-stated point is made, or with a standard warning, as appropriate). This is how such people used to be dealt with on Usenet, for instance. Hope this helps, Smalljim 14:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
You may very well be right, Jim. Perhaps one problem has been that there has been more than one person dealing with him: I've thought that if I didn't respond then Hamster or you or someone else would have to, and Hamster may have thought similarly. Meanwhile, please don't worry about being less than civil to me: (i) you weren't at all, and (ii) being pretty thick-skinned, I wouldn't have minded if you had been. -- Hoary 14:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, old man. As you're hinting, when taking part in discussions on any public forum it's important to bear in mind all the other people who will read your contributions. Too many people, I think, focus exclusively on the individual they're immediately replying to.
It's true that in cases like this one it can be tricky to communicate your desire to other potential participants not to continue the discussion with the troll. I don't think there is any quick and painless solution. Silence won't work. Neither will calls to Please stop!... Strident calls for everyone to send the troll to Coventry will usually be ignored ("who's he to say what I do?") and would probably violate some guideline here. However short replies to the troll along the lines of "I am not going to reply until you phrase your comments in a relatively polite and coherent manner" can be useful because the other potential participants often take the hint, especially if you are seen to be in a position of some authority. The one thing that trolls cannot tolerate is sunlight being ignored.
You probably know all this already. I'm sure I've read it somewhere; I'm not bright enough to have made it up myself! --Smalljim 16:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
So a quick castration and a soak in a salt bath isn't the way to go then? ---- WebHamster 19:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I have sent a screenshot copy of your comments to the WP headquarters for review (and before you yet again delete them.) I cannot believe their reputation or credibility should continue to be damaged in this way. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To quote Sergeant Hulka, "Lighten up, Francis." Rdfox 76 01:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe those should check out all the deletions made to this article by WebHamster and look at the reasons for them. He is consistently blocked anyone from trying to establish the true facts by infesting any reasonable discussion with trolling and insulting remarks. His repeated timing, language and style co-incides with a user 'Hoary' to a degree that any reasonable person would infer they are one in the same user.


I nominated Drake_Circus_Shopping_Centrefor deletion. From the perspective of those in the Drake Circus District remember these are just some of the reasons behind Webhamsters deletion of content, references, discussion and blocking other users:-

Please see the horse's mouth for details. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

its out of date - the same URL also states "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006."

"So far we only have your word that the website is out of date." WebHamster 21:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"I repeat the website reads "The centre is on schedule for completion and due to be open for business on 5th October 2006."

Who are you to say that the article isn't informative or educational? You are being far too parochial. Two days ago I'd never heard of the place, now I've been educated on how disruptive some of the locals can be. I've been informed that the official website is a year out of date. Just because you already know the details does not mean that someone else does. You are saying a lot but yet no pointers to verifiable sources. WP does not take peoples' words for it, not yours, not mine. So back up your statements with available sources that meet WP:RS and we'll make the changes. It can't be put any simpler than that. We most certainly aren't experts on DCSC, but we do know how WP works and what is expected. Likewise from the WP standpoint you aren't an expert either, you are just some anonymous IP address, you have no verifiable credentials of your expertise. You may be a local but that's not the same thing. This being the case anything you tell us here comes under the banner of original research which is why we need verifiable sources. ---- WebHamster 13:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)"

"Out of interest why was the link to Plymouth's other shopping mall - the Armada_Centreremoved? If it was because it had nothing to do with drake circus or was outside the area then why has the link to the drakecircus shopping centre also not been removed"

The Armada Centre was removed, based on the edit summary, because it isn't actually in the Drake Circus area WebHamster 13:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

"The reason you gave to justify your vandalism was 'WP is not a phone book'. In case you had failed to observe the article did not list any telephone numbers moreover it referred to a university and a musuem which most reasonably intelligent people would assume has more to do within the academic research of an encyclopedia than a promo for selling spuds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:12, 2 November 2007 (UTC)"

Stirring stuff -- I think, but I'm not entirely sure. What do you think this person's first language might be, Hamster? -- Hoary 15:26, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The one practised by Stanley Unwin I'm guessing. It doesn't bode well for the teaching standards of UK educational establishments though. ---- WebHamster 15:41, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You're stuck with it. I suggest you learn to live with it. The chances are it'll still be there when you've left Uni and gone on to bigger and better things. meanwhile I suggest you concentrate on things that are far more important, like avoiding being a graduate working at the Spud-U-Like you despise so much. ---- WebHamster 15:42, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I have a reference, now where's yours, see WP:VERIFY: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth"? Put up or shut up. The info in the infobox came from the horse's mouth, I wonder which end of the horse yours is coming from? ---- WebHamster 01:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I do not have a clue what else has been said by webhamster on other users discussion pages however i think in any discussion of 'trolling' account should be taken of the above quotes. Since i worked in the Old Drake Circus i thought i could correct some of the claims charged to my old work place however i have been subjected to a tirrade of insulting snipes from the above despite my best attempts at being polite and lucid. I suspect others like me are too intimidated to create user accounts.

Dreckly, moi 'ansum. LessHeard vanU 01:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing of user:Ireland101[edit]

This user is notifying ethnic Macedonian users about a vote for deletion of a few ethnic Macedonian songs. ForeignerFromTheEast 19:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible Image Copyright Issues[edit]

Could an administrator have a look at these uploads? I don't think any of them are fair use-able, and in any case, they've all be taken off a website. I include below the post on my talk page which alerted me to the problem, as I think it explains the problem best:

You seem knowledgeable in this area, and I've noticed you've dealt with this before. I am new to the uploading of images issue. However, I've noticed an image that has been uploaded and being used on an article claiming that it is a fair-use image and a screenshot of a television program. In reality, it is not a screenshot, rather an image taken by a photographer placed on website with a policy stating "(Company Name) does not issue licenses for internet use." Obviously, this detail was not in plain view but was easy to find. How would I go about this? Again, I'm new to the images issues. I hope you can shed some light on this. Thank you.

I also think that quite a few of them may be reposted material. Is this allowed? Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry 19:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sakis Rouvas[edit]

I just deleted the whole article as one of the worst WP:BLP violations I seen. The whole article was unsourced fancruft, and there was a section called personal life saying that he was gay with a source of a blog, and a whole bunch of gay speculations. Need more eyes. Thanks This is a Secret account 20:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Support. The article was a mess, start again form a stub was the only real option IMO. And more watchlists with that article on them would help, too. Guy (Help!) 20:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Actually, there were decent revisions further back in the history, prior to 16 December 2006. I'll undelete the previous history and revert to that version, if you don't mind. Fut.Perf. 20:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Oops, taking this back. The homosexuality allegations were there for much longer. Fut.Perf. 20:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Bleh it was there since May of 2005, and before that it was re-written copyvio seems like, no salvagble version This is a Secret account 20:29, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Only three 2004 versions had no issue, so those are restored This is a Secret account 20:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Backlog Wikipedia:Usernames for administrator attention[edit]


The page hasn't been marked as so yet, but nothing has happened at the page for over 20minutes. Thought I would bring it to the administrators attention before it came to be a really big problem. Rgoodermote(Respond Here) 20:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just blocked three blatant bot-reported vios. There's only one left, but with no consensus to block.Dppowell 21:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism with WP:BLP issues to Todd Stroger article[edit]

Resolved: semiprotected. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP (talk · contribs) keeps reinserting a preposterous nickname with fairly serious WP:BLP implications into the Todd Stroger article. When I ran a whois on the IP, it came back as a privately owned block, licensed from AT&T (I guess?). This is the edit this person keeps inserting [12]. Last one was Nov. 1. I've placed a warning on the talk page. Should probably keep an eye on this person. I'm also wondering, is there an ISP template for a situation like this? A geektools whois came back to a person's name, with an sbcglobal address indicated for abuse issues. Did I put the right ISP template on the talk page? Nobody of consequence 21:24, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I semiprotected, and I commend to you WP:RFPP in case of future occurrences. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Need Help[edit]

See User talk:Jéské Couriano#Fred Thompson (at the bottom of the page). Could someone give me some guidance? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 22:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I've warned User:Turtlescrubber for civility. Mr.Z-man 23:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Allowal to be part of Caisson discussion[edit]

For the past two weeks a debate has been occurring on the Caisson (Asian architecture) article. On one side is PalaceGuard008, and on the other, Mattisse. I have attempted to provide solutions for the argument and that is visible on the article's Discussion page. Unfortunately, I have run into conflicts with the admin LessHeardVanU who seems to believe that I am harassing Mattisse, and he subsequently issued a warning and a recent block that were both wrongfully conceived. Perhaps I should have contested the warning before, and this would not have occurred, but my words fell on deaf ears so I did not press it further. Either way, I would like it to be known and stated that I have not committed any wrongful acts on the Caisson page and have only tried to help as a peer and concerned Wikipedian. In the future, I may ask for the warning and block issued by LessHeardVanU be revoked, but for now I wish for a declaration that I can go back to contributing to the Caisson article. - Cyborg Ninja 00:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


I attempted an Rfc recently to establish some consensus on the solar energy page regarding picture choices. The results of the Rfc were relatively clear but this IP user has disregarded the results and appears to be willfully avoiding the consensus process. This sort of general disruptive behavior has been going on for several months but as a new user I’ve been slow to gain some of the conflict resolution tools required in these situations. I'm posting here after attempting the Rfc process and then asking for futher help on the Editor assistance/Requests page. Thanks for any help or advice. Mrshaba 05:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Repeated harassment[edit]


It's a shame that I have to waste your time, but someone, please, have a look at what's happening to my talk page: [13]. It seems two accounts have been created with the single purpose to harass me by false accusations: Special:Contributions/HyperColony. Special:Contributions/QuinellaAlethea. I'm certain, they'd cease their attacks, if some admin or any other long-term user asked. Thanks for your attention. --NotSarenne 20:46, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I just consulted with User:Dmcdevit, HyperColony is on tor, and QuinellaAlethea has been blocked indefinitely for being a sock of User:Fnagaton. Fnagaton is currently unblocked. Kwsn (Ni!) 22:00, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
My greatest thanks to both of you! This is a relieving albeit sad turn of events. Until the last minute, I did not expect him to go this far and assumed it was a third-party trying to make fun of me and him. --NotSarenne 22:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not connected with User:QuinellaAlethea. Fnagaton 22:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible that he used the same dirty trick against Sarenne before and succeeded in getting him blocked? --NotSarenne 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Sarenne was blocked for using multiple sock puppets to do sweeping kib/mib/etc. edits across Wikipedia after consensus swung in a direction he didn't like, and even after when informed to cease and desist by admins. Even proponents of kib/mib/etc. usage during the MOSNUM consensus debates were calling his edits disruptive. Its all archived on the MOSNUM talk page as well as Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Sarenne. Sarenne's actions got him blocked, not any "dirty tricks" by anyone. Don't confuse this situation with that. --Marty Goldberg 03:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have read Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_B1 and Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)/Archive_B6. On the latter, just search for the first occurence of "Strawman". With all due respect (I mean that) User:Fnagaton is hardly ever making any valid arguments and constantly dismissing facts. User:SLi points this out in this thread. Fnagaton is also accusing people of being straw men there. I don't see how I am confusing anything. He has used straw men against me and even worse accused me that those were my straw men. It is exactly the same kind of behaviour, except that this time he made some obvious mistakes and got caught. I cannot read all of the history but I don't see any strong evidence that those anonymous edits can be linked to User:Sarenne. In fact, the report says, it's not possible. Further, I've been accused of writing like User:Sarenne but my style is clearly quite different. So these accusation appear made-up against better knowledge. I absolutely cannot understand how those discussion led to a change of WP:MOSNUM when User:Matt_Britt, User:Seraphimblade, User:Omegatron, User:Aluvus, even User:Sarenne and several others provide logically undeniable arguments. All I can conclude is that supporters got tired of running in circles due to complete ignorance of facts and logic. You always have to reinterprete the past whenever new insights surface. So now that User:Fnagaton has been caught using socket puppets, how can we still accept the voting on this issue? There was at best a 50:50 result after all those discussion which means the status quo has to be preserved. Instead WP:MOSNUM has been modified. It's all very fishy. This requires further investigation. --NotSarenne 12:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
No it is you who is not providing any strong argument just like the other users you cite. The change to MOSNUM happened because consensus was reached and that is clearly shown in the archives, basically there were many more editors for the change than the tiny minorty who were against the change. I have also not been using sock puppets, you have been using sock puppets with Tor just like Sarenne did. I demand you stop spreading those lies right now. Fnagaton 12:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for providing even more evidence of your dubious behaviour. In case you forgot: You have just been convicted of sock puppetry, just scroll up. --NotSarenne 12:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That is a mistake by the admin looking at the case and I'm getting it sorted out. Fnagaton 13:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
You seem to have a problem with your personal opinion vs. fact. Your initial writing style and conduct here was indeed the same, enough to bring the concern of a group of people. Even your propensity to argue nonstop on every point and your usage of dismissive circular reasoning ("Well that's not right because I say so, so this is obviously made up") is the same. Your clear attempt to alter your writing style over the past week is simply that, a conscious effort to change how your involvement is perceived. Likewise, Fnagton's claimed recent use of sock puppets has absolutely nothing to do with the results of consensus at WP:MOSNUM, and this page has nothing to do with such happenings. The fact that you agree with one group's arguments over the other also has no bearing on how the results went, as if because you agree with one group suddenly that makes the whole well established and used process on Wikipedia "fishy". Nor does it render the fact that by your own self admission 50% did not agree with that group and did not perceive them as "logically undeniable arguments" (even though the count against kib/mib usage was much higher). Nor does it make them "ignorant of facts and logic", that sort of condescending attitude is exactly again what Sarenne promoted. This is all exactly why you're being viewed as a disruptive editor, and directly linked to him. The so called "logic group" was also originally accused of "arguing until supporters of not using kib/mib/etc. got tired of running in circles" when they initially changed MOSNUM to that kib/mib/etc. format months before that - yes, the last consensus debate was simply one of many. The current version was created by editors from *both camps* after it was decided there was no actual consensus here on one usage over the other, and that the text of the previous version promoted disruptive editing practices. Hence the text of the current guidelines were laid out, via a concerted effort from both camps. Your nonstop and continued attempt to invalidate and discredit the previous WP:MOSNUM happenings by trying to use every perceived and unrelated disagreement against your opinions, is both condescending and disrespectful to all those who participated in the well established consensus process. And you've been doing it on every single talk page you've been writing to. You are *not* going to get an admin here to change WP:MOSNUM based on your personal opinions or perceptions, that is not the scope of the administrators' notice board, nor is it how Wikipedia works. It runs on well established processes and guidelines, not on "NotSarenne's opinions on how things should work". --Marty Goldberg 12:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Oh well, pretty much everything except the sock puppetry that I said about User:Fnagaton could be applied to you as well. As you're acting just like him. You're also not exactly demonstrating good will with reverts such as this one. Just like User:Fnagaton you believe I don't have the right to defend myself and clarify things, so you're just removing my responses. Yes, you are allowed to do this on your own talk page but there's a difference between legally' right and morally right. --NotSarenne 13:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
A revert of yet another attempt to insert your self in to a discussion on my talk page has nothing to do with any of the proceedings here, the WP:MOSNUM results, nor does it make you a mind reader. I removed it because I didn't care to get in to yet another circular reasoning debate with you on yet another talk page. It was filled with yet more accusations (did I put a 3RR warning on your page? I don't recall doing that), more dismissive directives (its incorrect for me to do many things simply because they go against your viewpoints and opinions apparently), and a claim that the admin's finding of sock puppetry was some how also a finding of false claims against you. You're also claiming for some odd reason that I don't think you have the right to "defend" your self, when your recent monopolization of talk pages to argue your circular reasoning shows anything but the opposite. A simple look at your "contributions" to discussions shows you'd be hard pressed to claim any sort of censorship of your opinions and viewpoints. So once again, don't try use one thing to discredit another. It simply promotes the viewpoint everyone is having on you. --Marty Goldberg 13:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, inserting myself into a discussion about me. You're always twisting my words and are trying to distort what I say. I did not claim you had put a WP:3RR on my page. I wrote that I am convinced you tried to trick me into a 3RR violation. I was smart enough though to not revert it once more and instead rephrased the bogus statement in question. You had to accept that in order to not commit a 3RR violation yourself and you didn't even notice that my version makes it obvious that the whole statement is bogus (and should therefore still be removed). Where do I monopolize talk pages? I never used the term censorship either. Actually, you're removal of my valid responses are not censorship but simply manipulative by making certain discussions single-sided. I'm quite impressed that you know what everyone thinks about me. --NotSarenne 14:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
What you say is a matter of record here, no need for me to distort anything. But its ironic you're saying that with the claims and directives you've all addressed at me. Let me make it clear: 3RR never entered my mind and was not a driving force. I'm glad you were smart enough to formulate a plan for that fantasy, and here I thought your were just trying to compromise like a normal editor. Likewise, its your *opinion* that your statement on my talk page clarified things. Its your *opinion* that the responses on my talk page was valid. You claimed I don't want your viewpoint to be heard - that's a claim of censorship. Likewise, a simple look at your "contributions" history shows where your debates have monopolized talk pages, and in fact since you "popped up" on Wikipedia, I have yet to see a conversation where you do not cause and continue to stroke a debate. Even look at this page, where you took a discussion on sock puppets and started drawing it in to a discussion on the validity of WP:MOSNUM consensus. Then from one paragraph to the next you've thrown in to one thing after another after another, further obfuscating things. Regardless of your propensity to argue and debate (and I'm sure you'll want to throw up yet another response), there really is no point in continuing this unless it has anything to do with the sock puppet issue. That's the incident the admins here were addressing, and that's what this section of the Administrator's incident noticeboard is in regards to. But please, drag it further away from that issue and respond again like you have for the last several paragraphs. You'll find your self arguing with your self though, as the sockpuppet issue is the only discussion I'll be participating (and even then only if the admin's respond with the evidence requested). --Marty Goldberg 14:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
(un-indent). NotSarenne has been blocked indefinitely for being a sockpuppet of Sarenne. Based off the User name and a recent email I received, I see very little to prove there is not a relationship. NotSarenne's first edit [14] is very suspicious, right off the start saying "I'm not a sock". This shot up a red flag to me. This incident is pretty much resolved, but Fnagaton, please avoid using socks in the future. Kwsn (Ni!) 17:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I can easily commit to not "using socks" in the future since I have not before now, but ho hum water under the bridge and all that. I am glad another sock of Sarenne has been blocked though. Thank you for taking the time to look through the case from Marty, he is much better at the long hard slogging through references than I am and I think it was his diligence that helped resolve this. Fnagaton 17:42, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
PS. The other suspected sock ( User:HyperColony ) in the NotSarenne sock puppet report was using Tor according to the check user. With NotSarenne blocked there is a good chance that user will become active again so it may be wise to keep an eye on it. Fnagaton 17:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Dynamic anon IP stalking 2 users[edit]

An anon editor, using a dynamic IP addy has been stalking both User:Benjiboi and myself, apparently in retaliation for edits made to Hot House Entertainment. The article has been a source of contention, and it and two others had to be semi protected. That is when the harassment on our talk pages and the stalking began. Some diffs: [15] [16] [17] This is the Hot House history: [18] A compariosn of the addresses seems to bear out that the anon stalking IP is related to the one who was editing the article. I would appreciate it if some admin could intervene, or provide some suggestions as to how to deal with this. Jeffpw 21:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

The IP resolves to Paterson, New Jersey. That's all the help I can give because dynamic IPs have a tendency to switch. It's a Verizon IP. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:26, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Anon apparently had issue with Sister Roma's perceived anti-Catholicism stemming from her inclusion on the Folsom Street Fair poster artwork (parody of the The Last Supper). Roma works at Hot House Entertainment (hence the connection) and Sister Boom-Boom was also semi-protected for repeated vandalism. User_talk: (also,,,,,, mass deleted the vast majority of stub Sister Roma then tagged the article as non-notable as seen here. The same was done to Hot House Entertainment porn company where Sister Roma works (seen here and to a lesser degree Sister Boom-Boom. This anon IP is either a quick learner or, more likely a sock as they seem to have advanced wikipedia editing skills and then left me this note ending the first round of vandalism. Benjiboi 21:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3 weeks of semi-protection for both your user pages and user talk pages sounds right. Semi-protection of user talk pages is something some admins shy from, but it's really the only recourse we have to protect good editors from ongoing harassment from anon vandals. Three weeks is about how long it takes for truly dedicated trolls to lose interest. Some admin should step up to the plate and do it. Go to RFPP if this thread gets archived. 09:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

Contacting the ISP would be a good idea. There may be people at LTA who are willing to help with that. 09:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk)

User:Perspicacite/Frank Gaffney[edit]

I have tried to engage User:Perspicacite on a friendly and professional level (see [19]) and asked why he continues to categorize Frank Gaffney as a Jewish-American politician, when Mr. Gaffney is neither to the best of my knowledge, and also why he deletes other valid categories. Perspicacite blanked all my comments and questions from his talkpage, refused to respond on my talk page, reinserted the category without explanation and accused me in an edit summary of spamming his talk page (see [20]). This person is behaving entirely withough good faith and appears to be extremely arrogant. Please check this matter out. Thanks. Maplewooddrive 01:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Gaffney worked in the Reagan administration as Assistant Secretary of Defense. Gaffney is Jewish. Therefore, surprise surprise, he is categorized as a Jewish-American politician. Maplewooddrive felt it was necessary to post a lengthy, incoherent complaint[21] about my reversion of another user's vandalism. His only edit to the Frank Gaffney article was this.[22] His... contribution only made the article worse. Perspicacite 01:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Which of the sources cited by the article supports your claim as to the subject's religion? -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 01:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Exactly my point. Where is the evidence that Gaffney, against all probability, is Jewish. Perspicacite refuses to provide a reference for this, meaning possible original research or private knowledge, at best. Also, a politician is someone who is elected to public office, no?
What is more, Perspicacite has misrepresented my edits, which were meant to improve the article, including the new categories which he himself acknowledged in one of his edit summaries. I really hate to sound shrill, but Perspicacite refusal to respond on my talk page and discuss the matter one on one left me no choice but to come to WP:AN/I. Maplewooddrive 01:59, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Maplewooddrive, you were reverted because your edits are poor. A user complaining about other editors engaging in "bad-faith" reversions would be wise not to call the user "arrogant" in the complaint. Some would interpret that as a personal attack. Stop wasting my time. Perspicacite 04:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not clear to me what you're asking administrators to do, Maplewooddrive. Perhaps you would find some part of dispute resolution more appropriate to your needs? And a pinch of WP:COOL might help you. That said, I'd like to suggest to Perspicacite that you show a little more civility to people trying to work on the same articles as you. All our articles should be sourced, so if somebody asks you for the source to an edit, you should be prepared to give him one. To my eye, your behavior and comments to Maplewooddrive look very BITE-y. William Pietri 04:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It may be that Perspicacite should be asked to enter into a dialogue with fellow editors in a more collegiate manner rather than just expunging (valid) comments and questions he has no legitimate answer to.

(There have been similar problems with Perspicacite at the Tokelau article with US versions of English and dates being introduced to an article on a Commonwealth country and the deletion without consensus of a relevant image and conversion templates.) Alice.S 04:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I would concur here. The diff shown displays Perspicacite reverting back to a version of the article containing improper grammar and misspellings, which is extremely disruptive. Other diffs show Perspicacite being uncivil and ignoring good faith attempts to reach out by other editors. K. Scott Bailey 05:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
That would seem like a step forward to me. Although it can sometimes be reasonable to delete sections that one is done with, I think that works best with notes from good pals who expect no reply. To strangers or those trying to have a conversation, it can seem hostile, which I'm sure is an impression Perspicacite wouldn't want to give. Would you be willing to give it a try, Perspicacite? If it helps, I'll add my request to the others here. Thanks, William Pietri 05:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your condescension does not contribute to dispute resolution. Alice.S followed me onto the Frank Gaffney page after I cleanedup the mess on Tokelau. If you really want to push this matter forward I have no problem finding diffs to get both of you, Alice.S and Maplewooddrive, blocked. An RFCU is probably in order here. My patience is finite. Perspicacite 05:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Making threats in response to polite requests to discuss issues civilly does not put you in a particularly good light, Perspicacite. When I'm nearing the end of my patience, I turn off the computer and take a long stroll. Perhaps you might benefit from that, too. William Pietri 05:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I would endorse that advice, Perspicacite. Editing here can be stressful, but only if you let it. A nice cup of tea, or whatever you do to relax. I see a minor content dispute (which seems to have been resolved; the minor errors of formatting your edit introduced have been fixed), and a bit of annoyance between people who wish to improve the encyclopedia. Happens all the time. -- John 06:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
John, William Pietri, K. Scott Bailey, et al - All I want to know is where is the proof Gaffney is Jewish. Perspicacite cannot and/or will not provide such proof. The matter is not resolved. The only editor to even state that Gaffney is Jewish is an anonymous IP who left a comment on Gaffney's talkpage ("the guy is Jewish").
I don't get it why Perspicacite is permitted to make unconfirmable edits, threaten others (I have no problem finding diffs to get both of you, Alice.S and Maplewooddrive, blocked. An RFCU is probably in order here. My patience is finite.) and otherwise behave badly towards other editors. An RFCU is fine by me, Alice and I are not the same person, but evidently we both find Perspicacite behaviour intolerable and meriting a 48 hour or so block just for his/her incivility alone. What happens when I delete this contested category again?? Maplewooddrive 11:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I might not be the best person to comment here, seeing that my name is currently on ANI with various people complaining about my edits, however I have encountered Perspicacite before, and he is most certainly not civil with regards to edits, his edit summaries and talk comments are normally rude and/or dismissive. This of course was just in my brief encounter with him, he might be an angel at other times, I really don't know.Sennen goroshi 16:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Regardless of Perspicacite's civility, which occasionally leaves something to be desired, the Jewish-American category certainly should not be re-inserted into the article without reliable sourcing, and I have placed a note on their talk page noting such. ELIMINATORJR 16:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
And I'd add that if going forward any participant in this issue feels that things have not been resolved, opening a request for comment is probably a better step than coming back here, as blocks are preventative, not punitive, and I don't see them as having a place in minor editorial disputes. But I'd encourage everybody to try to make a fresh start. None of us are perfect, and it's generally more productive to focus on improving one own's actions than trying to enumerate all the ways someone else is imperfect. William Pietri 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)'s behavior.[edit]

An anon, reverted my talk page and the whole comments are distorted with font size: 666" by his/her childish prank. [23] The page is MY talk page and according to wiki policy, reverting other's talk page is not acceptable. The 'font size=666' has a pregnant meaning in the Western culture. I want you to take a strong attitude to him, Thanks --Appletrees 11:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not defending someone vandalising your talk page, mine was vandalised a few times as well. But it seems as if they changed it, then 2 minutes later removed their changes, so perhaps they saw the error of their ways - if it happens again, you might want to ask an admin to protect your talk page to prevent anon users from editing it.Sennen goroshi 13:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny you say like this. Now you ADMIT you were vanalizing my talk page as reverting at this time? [24][25] [26][27] yaya. You clearly did vandalism as you admit and do shadowing my almost every edits like that. And no apology from you yet but just getting your mockery. It's so funny. You're pleading for the anon. --Appletrees 13:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
oh come on, lets keep this constructive, I was not admitting vandalising anything, I was merely saying that an anon user vandalised my page as well.Sennen goroshi 13:39, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This situation has evolved since Appletrees posted his/her long and rambling complaints about another user. That user, Sennen goroshi, now appears to be wikistalking Appletrees. It is quite plain to see that Sennen goroshi is following Appletrees from article to article. Judging by the taunting style of edits summaries, Sennen goroshi seems to be trying to disrupt Appletrees. Also, Sennen goroshi appears to have used an Anon. IP to vandalize the user talk page of Appletrees. It is unfortunate that these two users are acting so childishly. Would an administrator please look into this.
By the way, this problem was originally a content dispute at a controversial article that has seen nationalistic battles between users who outwardly identify with Japan, Chinese, and Korea. These users are all extremely tiresome and are all a drag on the 'pedia. They insist on using this project as a nationalistic battleground and they have scared away or completely turned off a whole bunch of constructive and policy-abiding editors. As long as we continue to ignore this problem at Wikipedia and/or deal with it in a piecemeal fashion (for example, Goodfriend100 should have been indef. banned along with others involved in the dispute!!), we will have more bad press from the mainstream media (i.e. care to edit the Koguryo article, anyone?). But I digress... 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This situation? this is about an anon user vandalising Appletrees' talk page, nothing more, nothing less - don't try to blow this out of proportion. Also "Sennen goroshi appears to have used an Anon. IP to vandalize the user talk page of Appletrees." what are you talking about, I do not appear to have used an anon IP. to vandalise anything - if you do a quick WHOIS on the IP that vandalised Appletree's talk page, you will see it originated from NYC - I live in Japan - I'm wondering how I managed to post from an American IP address on the same day that I was posting on my normal account, which any admin can confirm has only been used in conjunction with my Japanese IP. I know that appletrees and I have not got on well, however I have tried very hard recently to discuss this with him, and suggest that even when we don't agree, we remain civil. The accusation of using an anon IP seems a little ironic, consider the only anon IP I see at the moment is - ie. yours. Before you try to fan the flames, and make something out of nothing, by making accusations against me, perhaps you could try to get some facts and base your comments on facts, not on your imagination.Sennen goroshi 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Actually it's quite easy to use an anonymous NYC IP whilst posting from Japan, though I have no intention on giving instruction on how. ---- WebHamster 15:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am now annoyed with all of the above, what started as a simple vandalism report, has turned into a 'lets bitch and whine about sennen goroshi' session. I didn't perform the aforementioned act of vandalism, I gave advice regarding how to deal with vandalism, but still people with agendas find the need to find issue with my comments. Feel free to complain about me in an article dedicated to me, or on my talk page.Sennen goroshi 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
This new advent anon at least clearly points out that Sennen goroshi is stalking me (wikistalking, the new term is interesting). I'm considering adding Sennen goshi's recent disruptive behaviors as shadowing my almost every edits. [28] [29] [30] Thank you for clearing this up. I've been harassed by him. The problem already happened one months ago, not just as I posted the report and the matter is not done yet. As for the anon reverting my talk page, who know who did that until andmins looks into it. With all due respect to, I don't agree with your opinion on one point that I did childish behaviors. I feel enough of his personal insults. And the article, Gogoryeo is actually not my concern (History is not my specialty). I only encountered Good friend 100 on Liancourt Rocks. The report explains why Sennen goroshi is so obsessive at me, so I mentioned the participants in the sensitive article in the report. That's all. I think you care about the history article, but you should talk to him directly. Anyway thank you for the comment even though you're not positive for anyone in this report.
By the way, Sennen goroshi, you've never been close to a civil person just like showing this [31] [32]. Instead of apology to me, you said you're gonna take a relax and drink an Asahi beer as the report was accidently removed? Interesting. Even as the new anon unrelated to me says that you're doing disruptive behaviors on me. Sennen goroshi, you're making so many people annoyed by your abusive edits and slams like against SingoPop (I can't recall his id exactly), Good friend 100, and melonbanmoster, and Ledtim, so forth. Don't lie any more. In addition, as for the your another abusive language like 'bitch', you're representing an English teacher, so "please" do act like that. I don't understand you're supporting the vandal anyway. Do you feel sympathy for him. weird --Appletrees 15:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Webhampster, I am aware of people using anon proxies, however it is not something I would waste my time with, and to be honest if I was going to vandalise a talk page while using an anon proxy, I wouldn't bother changing a font size, I would plaster goatse and tubgirl all over the place.

Goodfriend, I am still trying to be civil, because as I previously stated, even when I don't agree with your opinion, I will remain civil. I don't consider the word bitch to be obscene, if I called someone a bitch, it would be a personal attack, however to saying someone is bitching about me, hardly constitutes a breach of civility.

I don't recall defending the vandal, I said that as they seemed to revert their vandalism withing 2mins, then perhaps they had reconsidered and decided against it - therefore, it is a long drawn out report is a waste of time.

I move that the IP gets blocked if it makes a habit of vandalism, and this report gets moved to the lamest ever, because at the moment, that is what it seems like me. Sennen goroshi 15:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My nickname is not Good friend 100, you're so funny to confuse me with somebody. Yah, the term, 'bitch is like a language used by a bitch, You implied enough that I and the other's comments are "bitching" against you and sounds still inappropriate for anyone and especially an English teacher to use that. I only can see your absurd excuses from you above comment. This report could've finished in a very simple way unless you added on this as "stalking my edits", Quite impressive, indeed. So if an indecent posts was added in my talk page, I could easily recall your name. That's good to know about you. Why don't you care about other things instead of stalking me? Your log on the tower of Babel is another evidence that you frequently visit MY PAGE and follow my every step. --Appletrees 16:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the 2 of you need to seperate for a while. Preferably voluntarily. Stop with the revert warring, stop stalking the user contrib listings and feeling the need to answer every post. Stop slinging accusations of incivility. It takes 2 to argue, and from what I've seen, neither one is completely innocent here. ArakunemTalk 16:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a shame, I made every effort to come to a diplomatic solution/compromise, but even when I made a request for civility, and made my offer of civility, Appletrees had to find something to get offended by, and then demanded that I make an apology, offence is found in the use of the word "bitch" it's a total fucking waste of my time. I enjoy the debate, I enjoy the differences of opinion, I don't however enjoying people bitching and whining about pointless crap, especially when I have tried to make peace with them, only to have them bitch about something else and make 15 billion reports. This report is a huge waste of my time, maybe others have time on their hands, I don't, I don't enjoy wasting my time in such a pointless manner.Sennen goroshi 17:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You haven't made any effort to be a civil man as others point out. You can't be diplomatic at all, because you previously admit that we each other are incapable of getting along and you're acting very weird as if you were a god. Why don't you leave me alone instead of "stalking me from article to article" (quoted from the anon) and pouring out such the "insolent languages " like "fucking", "crap", "bitching"? Please care less about what I'm doing in wiki. If you do so, there will be an absolute peace. Even though I would have some different thought to Japanese editors, but "WE" have tried to discuss on the matter. Whatever they have in mind, they're acting civil unlike you. You've made me waste my precious time and get stresses. This simple report is just toward the anon reverting my page, why do you care? --17:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Appletrees (talkcontribs)

User talk:TheJudge310 - violation of policy?[edit]

Is the content on this talkpage a violation of policy? I think it is, but wanted clarification, after all Wikipedia is not a webhost. Also concerning the user, should someone warn him over this post he's violated NPA. Thanks, Davnel03 12:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have you thought about asking him/her yourself why s/he has that page there? Perhaps s/he is using the text for an article. I always think dialogue is the best first step, and WP:AGF. Jeffpw 13:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Also, we aren't that strict about the rules if it helps improve the encyclopedia (ie. leaving it alone will keep him happy, thus making him a better contributer and encouraging im to stay). Of course, if all he ever did was edit his talkpage we'd take some kind of action--Phoenix-wiki (talk · contribs) 14:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BoricuaeddieBot (talk · contribs)[edit]


Single purpose account madly opposing all Rfas. Jeffpw 15:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

It's happened many times. He's a die-hard fan of mine :-) He's been blocked. --Agüeybaná 15:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Legal threat on the Helpdesk[edit]


An IP user has just posted a rant on the helpdesk. [33] Among the text of the rant, which apparently blames Wikipedia for them not being able to access Google on their mobile, is a threat to contact the FCC. Now while I know that the FCC won't be able to do anything about it, I still believe it goes against WP:LEGAL. I would respond, but in these situations, I usually piss them off or make the situation worse in some other way. I believe that a sysop needs to take action. NF24(radio me!Editor review) 15:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 6 months. We have no place this kind of crap on Wikipedia. Maxim(talk) (contributions) 16:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
At least we can get a good laugh out of it. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
I would not bite a newbie. It is not a legal threat. I would have said "I am sorry that you feel that wikipedia is affecting your google access. If you have further information, please let me know. Your help in resolving this matter, even if it involves the FCC, is more productive than a potentially hostile complaint where you don't give us enough information to solve a potential problem." The user did not threaten to sue. That's a legal threat. Making an ordinary complaint is not a legal threat as much as complaining to ArbCom is not a legal threat. I would block only if the response was hostile. I do suspect this is a crank. Miesbu 18:20, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
A "legal threat" isn't only a threat of a lawsuit. It can also be a threat to call the police, a threat to contact federal authorities (such as the FCC), etc. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Is a six-month block really appropriate for an IP address? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
  • It varies by IP address; AOL IPs are blocked for less time because there is too high of a risk for collateral damage; open proxies are indef'd, as are some misbehaving static IPs (I believe we had an LTA page for a vandal who used a static IP?); average dynamic IPs get short blocks depending on the severity of the infraction. I've seen yearlong IP-blocks for school districts (in fact, most of my morning editing last year was done from school, and their IP was anonblocked). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 04:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

This page is not to be left move unprotected[edit]

See Wikipedia:Requests for page protection#Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs). Admins should not ever set any protection expiry time for this page, even if they either change their protection level to [edit=autoconfirmed:move=autoconfirmed] or [edit=autoconfirmed:move=sysop]. 22:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad there's no way to protect from edits for a finite amount of time, but move protect indefinitely. Feature request? feature creep? –Crazy tales talk/desk 02:18, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
The page can be only manually removed semi-protection by admins after having been protected for a certain amount of time, but should indefinitely remain move protected. Setting an expiry will result the move protection to be automatically removed from the page, once the expiration has ended. 03:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it possible to hardcode this warning into the page that admins see when changing the protection levels? This sounds like the sort of thing that could easily be forgotten. Carcharoth 12:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am going to leave a message for an administrator, who most recently move protected the page, on his talk page. 22:50, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
It's definitely possible to add a note to the page that admins see, but I'm not sure how necessary it is. I agree that this page should never be unmove-protected, but adding a note doesn't just add it to the screen for this page; admins would see it no matter what page they are protecting. That in itself isn't a bad thing, as Special:Blockip has all kinds of notices and reminders. You'll just have to find the correct Mediawiki page. - auburnpilot talk 23:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Admins may see a protection log at the bottom of a MediaWiki interface, when they click a 'protect'/'unprotect' tab at the top of a page. Sometimes, they fail to check it before they set a different protection level with or without an expiry. I do not think an additional note for this kind of protection is necessary to be added to the page, not even the interface. 23:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've added the appropriate note to the interface. Seems un intrusive enough. Mercury 00:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

  • It's good to note, but it should also be noted that there have only ever been 3 page moves on this page, not exactly a critical situation. — xaosflux Talk 05:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please edit my edit summaries on 3 pages[edit]

Resolved: ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I accidentally put the wrong edit summary on my edits of these pages:

Leeds Grammar School

I thought I had "Fixed link(s) to disambig page ([[Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation|you can help!]])" in my paste buffer, but instead I had an URL. Can you please fix them that so that the URL is no longer in the edit summaries? Thanks. Auntof6 05:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

You could just make a null edit (like adding a space) with a clarifying edit summary if this really bothers you, as admins can't change edit summaries anyway. And although I wouldn't be surprised if oversights could modify them, they generally reserve their superpowers for removing personal identification or contact information. Someguy1221 05:15, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I was just about to say the same thing as Someguy1221. I don't think the edit summary leaks more information than a nosy person could guess, so I personally wouldn't worry about it. But if you're concerned, I think Wikipedia:Requests for oversight is the place to start. Regardless, thanks for being diligent about edit summaries. Thanks, William Pietri 05:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I saw this in some obscure policy somewhere, and what you should do is make a really trivial edit with an edit summary explaining your previous edit. Honestly, if it's a non-controversial edit I don't think anybody would care, and if it is you should be discussing it on the talk page. Cheers, east.718 at 05:31, 11/4/2007
I spoke too soon. Actually, if it's a mild privacy concern, any admin can delete the whole page and restore all but the edits in question. That would require you to re-do your edit, and admins would still be able to see the bad edit summary if they looked, though. Either way, just let us know. Thanks, William Pietri 05:35, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The edits have been removed, per user's request. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 02:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

EverybodyHatesChris (talk · contribs)[edit]

Recently administrator Isotope23 unblocked EverybodyHatesChris with the summary "Per discussion with editor and blocking admin". EverybodyHatesChris has originally blocked on 5 June for harrassment of editors, and indef blocked on 11 June with block summary "Trolling, plain and simple". Since his indefinite block, EverybodyHatesChris has used over a dozen sockpuppets to continue his campaign of trolling, harassment, sub-par editing and other bad behavior, right up until his unblock by Isotope23.

Checkuser Jpgordon has previously confirmed the sockpuppetry, and the checkusers declined to run another check on those grounds. Still, the connection between the accounts is clear. The accounts all edit the same small subset of television articles in the same manner. Eagle 101 linked to an impressive list of overlap on the WP:RFCU case page, but that link seems to be broken at the moment.

I inquired about this unblock at Isotope's talk page, along with another user, and was told that "It happened because I spoke to the original blocking admin and the editor in question. The blocking admin had no objection, so I unblocked. The editor created multiple accounts because they were blocked; no block = no reason to edit through other accounts. Blocking is a preventative measure, not a punishment. As long as the user behaves themselves, there is no reason for them to be blocked." (diff) He suggested that I appeal to ANI with any further concerns.

This troll has been causing trouble non-stop since his original block. I am bewildered by the unblock. Why are we to condone this sort of behavior? (diff diff diff diff) It goes on an on. There's no reason to think that it won't continue. Can I get a reasonable explanation as to why this editor was unblocked to begin with, and why they shouldn't be reblocked along with the rest of their socks? Thanks, ➪HiDrNick! 05:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I don't have time right now to look into this in the detail it deserves, but I have one question that will probably occur to others: how has his behavior been since the unblock? Thanks, William Pietri 06:09, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I am the original blocking administrator, and for the past couple of months I had no idea why people kept coming to me about EverybodyHatesChris. When I blocked him, the past 200 edits he had were complaining about LessHeard than U (or however the name is spelled), and his activity during his block may have been deplorable, but Isotope23 believes that EverbodyHatesChris can edit constructively and act with some maturity other than why I had originally blocked him and how he acted during his block. If the community thinks he should be banned, then let that be decided. In this case, Isotope23 has lifted the administrators' ban, and my block and unblock cover that I agree with him.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:53, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Might it be more convenient to refer to me as LHvU, and... he did, did he? Ho hum. LessHeard vanU 10:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Those edits while blocked are particularly concerning, and are remarkably uncivil. However if Ryulong and Isotope are prepared to put that down to frustration at being blocked, then I'll accept that, because I trust their judgment. I would think that EverybodyHatesChris will be given little leeway from now on, however. --bainer (talk) 07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request. If he can act civil now that he is not actively being blocked at every turn, then let him edit. If he does act out of line, then he gets blocked, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm comfortable with accepting your take on the situation, Ryulong (especially since I trust you to nail him to the wall if he steps out of line again). EVula // talk // // 08:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why we should pay out more rope in this case, but there is always the chance, I suppose, that this user won't make the noose right away, and if people are prepared to watch him for repeats of the original problem then I guess little harm is done. Guy (Help!) 08:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I have Judge Judy on my watchlist, which EverybodyHatesChris frequently edits, and they've generally all been good, well-considered work. Looking at his history reveals similar edits to articles related to the show Everybody Hates Chris. He seems to have cleaned up his act. JuJube 10:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I just want to stress that I absolutely, positively can not possibly be more sure that every one of the above listed accounts belong to the same person. I understand that the unblocking admin(s) were not aware of this when they unblocked (or at least not aware of the full extent of the problem), and I know that not every unblock warrants a full-blown investigation into socking since the block and other misbehavior. If any of you have any doubt of the fact that these socks all belong to the same editor, I ask you to comment on the request for checkuser that I filed; I was unsuccessful in convincing the checkusers to run a check, apparently on the grounds that a previous check had already been done a couple months ago, and revealed a lot of abuse before. I'm not very good at the whole checkuser thing apparently, and maybe someone can help me out there.

While I agree that EverybodyHatesChris's edits since his unblock have been constructive, he practices some serious article ownership. Mark my words, as soon as an editor attempts to correct one of his bad habits (gratuitous unfair use of fair-use images, for example), they will be reverted and subsequently harrased with EverybodyHatesChris's particular brand of immature vitriol. This editor was spouting obscenities and other nonsense at other editors just last week. ➪HiDrNick! 14:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The checkuser just came back  Confirmed, along with a couple of socks I had missed. Here are a few diffs from the ones I had missed: (diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff diff). Why should we condone this sort of behavior? ➪HiDrNick! 14:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I ran another check for you, the CU page has been updated. Yes, those accounts are all connected.
What some of the CUs are telling you is that you don't have to always ask for checks in every case. If the behaviour pattern is a close match, the CU is redundant, tag the suspected socks as just that and move on. If the behaviour pattern of a suspected sock is abusive, block that ID on behaviour. If this person does not straighten up and fly right, and if the pattern of behaviour continues to new IDs only then would it warrant blocking the IP or IPs where the socks originate from. That's all my view but I think it's fairly widely held... CU is not magic pixie dust, and it is to be used sparingly, when there are few or no other ways to determine what is going on. This seems pretty obvious to me (which means I don't agree with Ryulong on this one when he said he wasn't convinced it was the same underlying user).
As for the ownership and not taking criticism well issues... if you see new ownership, raise the matter with the underlying user, politely, respectfully, and in a neutral way, overlooking the past. If the user then reacts badly, let's address that at that point. Hope that helps. ++Lar: t/c 14:51, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your sentiment about checkuser, for sure. I didn't need a checkuser to know that they were all the same editor, it's obvious. I just needed something to answer the people who don't take the time to look into the situation and then say "Those edits are not proven to be him, yet, as far as I can tell from the checkuser request." Some people do act like checkuser is the only answer. ➪HiDrNick! 15:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Just to be clear, I was aware of the block evading accounts when I unblocked EverybodyHatesChris. I had a talk with the editor and Ryulong and after these conversations I felt that giving EverybodyHatesChris a second chance might not be a bad thing; indefinite != infinite. The block evasion accounts were not the correct way to deal with a block the editor felt was unfair, but we don't need to scarlet letter them over it. I've spoken to the editor about WP:OWN, WP:OR, and most importantly, containing their temper and staying civil, which is why they got blocked in the first place. I've made it clear that EverybodyHatesChris needs to follow policy and there won't be a third chance if they squander this one.--Isotope23 talk 15:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • As long as someone's prepared to watch EHC's edits, I see no pressing problem - a new block can be placed if there is a repeat. Guy (Help!) 21:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Works for me too. Isotope23