Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive331

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Unjustified block of User: Moldopodo based on alleged violation of 3RR by User:Nat[edit]

Resolved

- AN/I is not dispute resolution.

(copy of the e-mail sent to unblock)

Dear Sirs,

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the user Nat (administrator) has blocked me for the alleged violation of the 3 revert rule, in my view with no justifiable reason for this and moreover without any explication a posteriori and without any notification a priori.

First of all, nor the user who has made this request, not the adminitrator has notified of their intention in advance. The user TSO1D has written on the block that another user reminded me of the 3 RR on the 1 November 2007. That reminder, on my talk page is completely unrelated to the resent dispute and was made in the context where user Anonimu seemed to help me as a new user in an edit war on the Balti page with Dc76.

Secondly, there were only three reverts from my side proermy speaking, rest was editing. So there ws no violation from my side o the three revert rule. The problem is that user TSO1D keeps erasing text with direct referece to the art. 13 of the Constitution of the Republic of Moldova and to the organic laws (to which the fourth line of the art 13 refers) to the Law on Functionning of languages on teh territory of th Moldavian SSR dated 1989 and to the law on legal status of Transistria dated 2005. Further TSO1D deletes from official languages: Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz and adds to the given constituionally and legally name of one of the used languages in Moldova another name - Romanian (Mldavina/Romanian). The same was done by user Dc76 on the Balti (city) page before.

On the block request page, user TSO1D stated that I give unsourced information, which is an open lie/intentional misinformation. I have always sourced all of my edits on pages Balti, Moldova and Moldovan language with a source. And most often the source is the official governmental up to date legal portal. You can also check the talk pages of relevant articles (Balti, Moldova), where TSO1D boldly says that Constitution and laws of the Republic of Moldova means no source to him/her, hence no legal status for the four (Moldovan, Russian, Ukrainian, Gagauz) languages. How can one answer to such an illogical phrase of TSO1D?

TSO1D has made himelf/hersemf much more than 3 reverts on the 19th of November.

18:44, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172531265&oldid=172527018

18:21, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172526512&oldid=172525330

17:18, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172514956&oldid=172514406

17:13, 19 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172514064&oldid=172513821

14:15, 19 November 2007 TSO1D http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172485286&oldid=172484954

14:49, 18 November 2007 TSO1D

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Moldova&diff=172284885&oldid=172275711

However, this was not taken in consideration by the administrator user Nat. Moreover I suspect Nat to be originally from Romania, as on his personal page he states that he/she likes a Romanian band 3 Sud Est, which is a local Romanian band, not even known in all of Romania and not so popular in fact. To know it, and especially to be fan of it, one really has to have some very strong connection to Romania. Anyway, my be I am just getting paranoiac.

User / administrator Nat stated that my account will be blocked for 24H; which is over by now. However, when I connect (I can log in now) it says that editing function is indefenitely blocked for me.

I would like to have my account unblocked and fully operatioal, and receive detail explications and apologies from user / administrator Nat (she/he just said on my talk page "you are blocked"; I think it's rude and impolite, she/he could have at least explained for what excatly and on which page and for how long) for this erroneous block, also for this discriminatory block, whereas user with more reverts remains clean, like TSO1D. I admit I am new to Wikipedia, but I have already learned very well the three RR and I confirm that I did not revert as it is defined on Wikipedia (may be there is some other definitions which helped user Nat in taking the decision) more than three times.

Respectfully and thank you in advance for your attention to this request.

Moldopodo (talk) 16:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Please note that if you have managed to post to any page other than your talk page, that your account cannot be blocked. Indeed, your block was for 24 hours and was done well over 48 hours ago, so you are no longer blocked. --Deskana (talk) 17:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Hey, I know Romanian but this guy above lies blatanly. There is only one official language in Moldova which is Romanian language. There's no Russian or Ukranian. This person lies. I can give you the source that there is only one official language. I hope my statement helps.Sambure (talk) 17:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sure your personal unsourced statement has bigger authority than Moldovan Constitution and Moldovan laws, and more than that only your personal unsourced statement is enough to assert the ultimate truth on the planet Earth. Sambure, please don't be ridiculous. Wikipedia is for serious and civilised people. --Moldopodo (talk) 22:50, 22 November 2007 (UTC)Moldopodo

Dubious image uploads[edit]

Resolved

User banninated by User:Bencherlite.

Could an admin please take a look at the contributions of one LindsayKensington (talk · contribs), please? They've uploaded several images, which (except for one that looked to be a promotional image of Darren Hayes and was uploaded over a public domain pic of Edward C. Hayes - I fixed that one) seem to have been Photoshopped. I suspect someone's playing. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Some further consideration of the editor's other contributions suggests this is a hoaxer; I've just AFDed Hussain Ali Nasser, and note that several other related articles are either PRODed or have been speedied. Tony Fox (arf!) 17:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorted! User blocked, problem articles deleted. Tony Fox (arf!) 23:28, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Evis Daison Marrero (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: User given a stern final warning by — Coren (talk) 03:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps ignoring warnings left on his talk page regarding improperly sourced images and keep uploading them and reverting other users' edits after they've been removed. He is quickly editing many articles, adding material that might be classified as spam. Could someone issue something of a final warning to him regarding this? Thanks. SWik78 (talk) 17:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Calming influences needed at the Durova subthread[edit]

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

WP:BOLDly closing this; Nothing productive is coming out of this discussion. Take it to the sub-page of this debate or WP:RFC if you like. — Save_Us_229 02:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Indefinite block of an established editor#ArbCom Elections silly season. This may increase the drama, but I have a feeling things are about to kick off over there. People posting stuff and others deleting page revisions, then the same material being posted on a user page. If anyone can think of a way to calm it down, please do. Unfortunately, I have to leave my desk for a few hours. Hopefully Wikipedia won't have completely melted down by the time I get back. Carcharoth (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Try playing a little Mozart? Seriously, the more people make this a deal, the more it becomes one. Everyone laugh for a bit, those that deserve to feel like idiots do so for a day or two, then we get back to normal.--Docg 18:34, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Ew, Mozart. Try Rachmaninoff. But seriously, the thread is starting to turn into a bash-Durova-because-now-we-have-the-chance thread. The topic has already deviated from the original complaint (which was resolved). Clue bats were brushed off as "obfuscating Durova's mistakes." Step away from the dead horse, guys. It's dead already, FFS. —Kurykh 18:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I could tell a silly joke or wish everyone happy Indigenous People's Day. Or I could post links to Charlie the Unicorn, though I might have to recreate a deleted article to do that. We could all use a good youtube cruft article to break the tension. Wikidemo (talk) 19:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I vote we nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure. =P Tony Fox (arf!) 19:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • You are the one who has escalated this by decreeing that such stupid rubbish was "secret evidence" to be deleted as a danger to the project. I have been telling every one for days it was rubbish and nothing secret. The only thing this has told me is that some people are seeing spooks in every corner. Now auf wiedersehen fur jetz. Giano (talk) 18:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Lots of people escalated it, Giano, few of us are blameless. It's rather hard to see how actively soliciting this email and publishing it was supposed to damp down the flames, for example. I guess for some people a swift reversal, an apology and an undertaking to learn from the experience simply isn't enough, eh? Guy (Help!) 19:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Right! We have had the laugh now let us stop yodelling to each other, take the combs from under our noses and cease goose stepping and ask the serious question. Durova had her chance to come clean last night and blew it. I know the full answer and I'm reluctant to give it but it needs to be in the open, and it will be, so hopefully some one will come forward because we need to know. Who were the high ranking Admins and Arbs that Durova said reviewed that rubbish and OKd the block because any person who reviewed that was either very stupid or up to something. We are told the Arbcom are clean [1]. So who is fibbing? Either way I think you all know how this continues - but we do need to know. Someone is not being totally honest somewhere - who? Giano (talk) 19:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't believe that Durova ever said that she sent that information to the ArbCom mailing list. So there's been no fibbing that I'm aware of. Paul August 21:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Let's be frank. So, in summary, you want her desysopped. —Kurykh 19:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
      • No, he has said he want her to be banned, and everyone who has supported her. AzaToth 20:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No I think we can settle for one humane de-sysoping and some others explaining themselves. Giano (talk) 20:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
So you want Durova to be desysopped and others to apologize for supporting her. For the sake of clarity, let's avoid using metaphors, euphemisms, and colorful language. —Kurykh 20:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a mistake to move that thread onto a page of its own. If it had been left here there would have been constraints on its length and tone. The current discussion is like an RfC/U, but without any of the structure or policies. Unless there is a likely outcome I think the thread should be archived or moved back here. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ... and furthermore, I think that we should move fewer threads to subpages, for the same reasons. The threads drag on, and the dispute is merely prolonged. By this time, the thread might have been archived, we as a community might have been moving forward. But unless someone forcefully archives it and puts themselves on the line, it simply doesn't seem like it will stop. --Iamunknown 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Stop prevaricating. Answer the fundamental question who supported a block on that evidence. Giano (talk) 20:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Is it clear that anyone else actively reviewed the evidence and supported a block—as opposed to an e-mail having been circulated and no one having reviewed it and responded one way or the other, and Durova having mistakenly having taken that for support or acquiescence? Newyorkbrad (talk) 20:36, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes, Durova has stated "The responses I did receive ranged from positive to enthusiastic." [2] Uncle uncle uncle (talk) 21:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I never thought I'd say this to someone I otherwise respect, but: Giano - stop the bloody trolling. You're annoyed. Yeah, we get it. Durova made a mistake and should be hung, drawn and quartered, then the remains hung, drawn and quartered and finally anything that's left should be hung, drawn and quartered just in case. Alternatively, we could all get over ourselves and edit the damn encyclopedia. Yuh know, like wot we're here for an' everything like? ➔ REDVEЯS would like to show you some puppies 20:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
That's the best part about this place, there's always a helpful reminder to get back to work. Somewhere there's a very lazy chain gang. sNkrSnee | t.p. 20:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay, that's enough. It's time to file a request for comment over this issue and let the thread die. I would take the bold step of archiving the whole shebang right now, but I have to go out and couldn't monitor it correctly. --Haemo (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment = "an informal, lightweight process for requesting outside input, consensus building, and dispute resolution". Wanderer57 (talk) 21:13, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Ha! Like we need more comment on this anyway. We know what Giano wants, the answer is "fat chance", and probably just as well. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Funnily enough I made a similar comment here [3] - it is a fat chance you are right, but at least I can sleep at night! Giano (talk) 21:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Somebody put this festival of ego, recrimination, pride, vindictiveness and stubbornness out of itsour misery, please. (Carefully note that I have not specified to whom these attributes do or do not apply.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 21:54, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


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

User:DemolitionMan unblocked, 3-month topic ban[edit]

DemolitionMan (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • nuke contribs • logs • filter log • block user • block log) has apologized for his disruptive behavior on Indian Rebellion of 1857 and I have agreed to rescind his indefinite block. In return, he has agreed to a three-month topic ban on Desi-related articles. More information is available at this archived AN/I thread as well as User_talk:DemolitionMan#Last_straw. Ronnotel (talk) 18:52, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Diaboli‎ (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

I've just blocked Diaboli for one week this disgraceful personal attack. Telling another editor to go and die is quite simply not on. If someone could review the length of the block, that would be much appreciated. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't seem long enough for such a bad attack. I'd say a month to three, more towards the three since he is so uncaring about being blocked, except he admits to using a sockpuppet, so thats an indef right there--Jac16888 (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I don't mind getting a block for a few days or weeks or what ever says to me they wouldn't mind an indef block, to be honest. I wouldn't mind either. Tonywalton  | Talk 22:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Endorse. One week for that outburst seems about right since I don't see any other blocks or warnings other than the sock stuff. FWIW, I believe that sock accounts are indef blocked, but the sock master is assumed to be reformable. Ronnotel (talk) 22:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I was torn between one week or slightly longer, but given his prior good behaviour, I think a week is long enough with a firm warning that if this were to happen again, it would a lot longer. Ryan Postlethwaite 23:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Blocks are preventative, not punative. Good block. Daniel 23:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Jiggerdude[edit]

Resolved: Page protected by Haemo, comments unrefactored. BencherliteTalk 02:01, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

was recently indef blocked. In fact, my sage words of polly annalike butting in got added just after the block notice went on. User then proceeded to refactor my comments so that it looks like I'm spouting incivility. I promised to ask someone to block him from editing his talk page if he did that again. He did so I am. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 01:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

backlog[edit]

Category:Wikipedia_protected_edit_requests has a backlog.--69.177.187.90 (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

PalestineRemembered feels muzzled[edit]

Folks - back in August this year, the now discredited CSN board required me to find a mentor (I'd finally been trapped into the only offensive edit it's generally agreed I've ever made). I have such a mentor - the harassment of him started within 2 days, but he's now lasted a month without being driven off the way the three previous mentors were. (Details available if you've missed them). We've worked together very well (the only open issue is recent and nothing to do with Palestine).

However, there is someone else on my case insisting that he's my mentor (as well? instead?) and attempting to tell me there is still something wrong with my edits. His demand of me runs like this: "PR, as your mentor, I've been a little concerned about your recent editing. I see a lot of edit warring in your contributions (here's just a few: [4][5][6][7]) and many of your edits seem to be pushing your own point of view regarding Ariel Sharon. Can I please remind you that edits must be neutral point of view, and revert warring to push your point of view is clearly desruptive."

If this editor is finding something problematical, then he's going an odd way about drawing anyones attention to it, because each of the actions of mine he's challenged is handily covered by my summaries. I'd be the first edit-warrior in history to clarify everything carefully in both Talk and summary - and I don't edit-war anyway. As one of my mentor-harassers noted in the interesting tirades I documented here: "... PR has not made any "breaches of 2RR" (perhaps one)".

So what is going on with this interesting collection of interesting accusations - or is this just the final move to muzzle me?

I should add that it's possible I've crossed some red-line, perhaps it's wrong of me to quote Arial Sharon as if he were a notorious punisher of civilian populations (I've not actually said as much about him ever, but you know what I mean). Perhaps Wikipedia is simply not allowed to document what is/was happening to the Palestinians and I'll have to begrudgingly accept it. Perhaps this single purpose account was always doomed to be muzzled, and I should be grateful to the community for allowing me to make just a few corrections and improvements to articles. PRtalk 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

The CSN board was not discredited. Its function was re-merged back to this board. Corvus cornix (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't look like you mentioned this to Ryan at all, unless it was through email. Perhaps the best first step would be to talk to him about the situation. No offense, but it seems like you are overreacting to this. Another editor saw something problematic in your edits, so they brought it to your attention, which is the preferred first step in this community. If you disagree, open a dialogue with him and discuss your disagreement. If you disagree with him as to whether or not he is your mentor, discuss that issue with him first. Ryan's a reasonable guy - I'm sure this is a misunderstanding at most. Natalie (talk) 19:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)I'll give you a piece of advice. The purpose of mentorship is to pair you up with one or more experienced editors who understand how to edit here responsibly. The expectation is that you will talk things over with them, get feedback from them, and learn from them. Unless there is significant non-transparent and off-wiki communication, coming here was not a great idea, especially not as your first contribution after receiving a piece of feedback. As Ryan has previously told you "I would just check your edits from time to time and make sure there isn't any disruption from you, and like wise, you aren't bein bullied by other editors". The appropriate reaction to a comment from him is to talk it over with Ryan. Please go do that. GRBerry 19:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi PR, I wish you'd attempted to discuss this with me first rather than take this to the admin board. My concern with the diffs I cited was quite simple, I believe that you were edit warring to put your own personal view across, you don't have to break 3RR to revert war and many of your reverts have taken articles back to your own personal point of view. Whilst I see a lot of talk page discussion, I don't always see you using the consensus on the talk pages when applying your edits. As your mentor, it's my job to steer you in the right direction and if there are legitimate concerns about your editing, to make you aware of them. I'm more than happy to dicuss your editing with you, and why I said what I said - this just isn't the most productive place for that discussion to occur however. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryan Postlethwaite (talkcontribs) 19:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
His issue seems to be that his understanding is that someone else is his mentor, and he is taking offense at you saying you are. Any chance of a clarification on where he was assigned a mentor, who he thinks is his mentor, etc?—Random832 14:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Ryan politely took you aside, suggested that you need to calm down and edit in a manner that does not push your POV and did it in the relative privacy of your talk page. He's acted as a mentor should, instructing you and trying to get you to learn to edit in a way that follows the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. There is no problem here, beyond the thinly veiled attempt to slur Ryan's reputation, sometimes we all need a little muzzling when our POV takes over our reason. I look forward to the day when you "graduate" from mentorship, but based on this outburst, I don't think it is any time soon. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

PR again - I'm used to laughable allegations against my edits (which are usually good) and my style (which may be irritating, but cannot be all that problematical). But this case (the most glaring yet seen) is about top-down interference in a "Content Dispute", as if some kind of red-line has been crossed.

Do you want details? I promise you, the inclusion of this paragraph is only objectionable to died-in-the-wool defenders of Israel. Ariel Sharon really did threaten to hit and hurt civilians - Israeli-supporting RSs tell us he carried out his threats with a massive military operation (UN says 497 Palestinians killed), along with scandalising, wanton other destruction of the whole structure of a civil society. It's pretty shocking such words are removed with a claim that they're a "bogus quote". That's denial of quite a high order. PRtalk 10:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised that PalestineRemembered claims that, someone else [is] insisting that he's my mentor" [8] because it was quite clear in the last discussion on AN that the community supports Ryan's mentorship for him. [9] In fact, PR was about to be banned from Palestine/Israel related topics, if not indef blocked, but was given the !choice between being community banned or taking up mentorship as a last chance [10]. Since then he has continued editing in the exact same problematic way - for example, he repeatedly claims that his "mentors are under attack" (though he's been told to stop doing this this many times) and soapboxing about "defenders of Israel love/hate to..." in ways very similar to his previous "commentary" about Zionists (e.g. "the Zionist ethnic cleansers", "intentions of murderous racism" [11]), and basically edit-warring in extreme POV that doesn't conform with either WP:V or WP:NPOV. Now, when his mentor finally (and quite mildly) points out issues with his editing, he suddenly decides to reject his community appointed mentor. I suggest that User:Avi, is correct, that his behavior "leads me to believe that mentorship may no longer be capable of serving its intended function." [12]
I suggest a topical ban until such time as a PR commits to accepting the mentorship of a non-partisan mentor (and that would rule out Kendrick7, who shares his POV, which is why PR was so eager to seek him out as a mentor in the first place). JaakobouChalk Talk 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, I suggest you stop distorting things and interjecting yourself here - you aren't helping. We already know that PR did not seek Kendrick as a mentor, Kendrick volunteered. We already know that Ryan is a mentor. Let the mentors mentor and stop arguing for bans at every opportunity. Your continual interjections are themselves disruptive, and if you don't start attempting to work with PR I will block you on that basis. GRBerry 16:24, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
GRBerry, i'm not distorting anything. i feel you have been assuming a bit too much good faith for PR for a bit of time now.
p.s. i find your threat here most concerning - you can request me to take a step back, but bullying me away from commenting, considering PR has been harassing articles i've been involved in (drive by reverts, soapbox, calling me a war criminal), seems like you're saying i can't even give my 2 cents on how this mentorship process is going... nowhere slowly. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
As a sometime viewer of these threads, my comment is that until Jaakobou is restricted from interaction with PR or his mentors this disruption will continue. Are we serious about an encyclopedia? or are we interested in certian points of view being highlighted on certain subjects? --Rocksanddirt (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
User:Rocksanddirt, so you're saying stuff like Hated Google Test, repeated attempts to portray Israelis/Zionists as mass killers [13] and false edit summaries [14] are all my fault? ... and i thought this is an encyclopedia rather than a WP:SOAP WP:BATTLEGROUND. JaakobouChalk Talk 20:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Jaakobou, orany other concerned editor, should be allowed to civilly and occasionally discuss PR's edits with the mentors - unless/until the mentor(s) ask them to go away because of their own behavior. At this time, in Jaakobou's case, it would be better if those discussions were separate from the mentor's discussions with PR. Jaakobou, or any other concerned editor, should expect that by doing so he is also asking the mentor to review his own related editing. Most of the really problematic disputes at Wikipedia involve poor conduct on all parties, so reviewing the behaviour of all parties is necessary. GRBerry 19:04, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of comments - first of all, Ryan appears to have essentially appointed himself mentor without any real acknowledgement from the community that he is PR's mentor, so perhaps it would be helpful if that issue was clarified.

Secondly, I think Ryan's comments to PR on his talk page are inappropriate. If these were egregious breaches of NPOV I might support his comments, but they are not. The edits Ryan is taking PR to task over have been supported and restored by a number of other editors, so if PR is guilty of POV so are they all. Is PR now to be held to a higher standard than other editors?

The problem IMO has never really been with PR's mainspace edits, which I'm inclined to think are not noticeably worse than those of many others on these pages, but rather his tendency to soapbox and engage in troll-like behaviour on talk pages. That is what has got him into trouble in the past and that is why a mentor was appointed in the first place. So I think Ryan would be better off sticking to those issues. The Is/Pal pages are highly contentious and taking just one editor to task for alleged POV warring on them would seem just a tad farcical to me. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Let's face it, all the Is/Pal articles are a long running edit war. Just because some questionable edits by PR have been revert warred over by other editors (and I bet if I tried I'd guess which ones) does not make his controversial editting patterns any better or worse than the original edits were prior to the dramatic revert wars. A questionable edit is a questionable edit, regardless of if other POV-pushers support it or not. The tag team of Ryan and Kendrick was accepted by the community, PR really has no say in who his mentor is, it is not his choice it is the choice of the community. Noone jumped up and down when Ryan volunteered saying "Nooooo! Not you!" so by default Ryan got the nod. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Regardless, it's not his mainspace edits that got him a mentor, it was his soapboxing etc. on talk pages. So I don't see what purpose is served by trying to vet his mainspace edits, especially when POV warring is par for the course on this subject. It's just going to create unnecessary friction, and quite frankly I think there has been more than enough pointless drama concerning PR already. Gatoclass (talk) 12:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, his soapboxing is related to his mainspace editting patterns and I don't see why we'd separate the two. We might as well teach him how to follow NPOV in all his activity on the encyclopedia while curbing his soapboxing, incivility, victim card tossing, history drudging and other bad behaviors that caused him to be community sanctioned. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 14:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sambure and Porcupine[edit]

Resolved: For now, anyway. Guy (Help!) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sambure here is being disruptive, trolling, vandalising, making personal attacks and being incivil. I'm involved so I can't comment much further, but can someone deal with him/her? Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This user has a content issue with me. --Sambure (talk) 14:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's why I said "I'm involved", my sweet.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have to defense myself. I created a page then that user Porcupeleine put right away a tag. He didn't waited nor to improve or to work to expand the article. He had tried any means possible to threat me, to report me as vandal and other techniques. The article that I created is a part of more than other 100 articles.--Sambure (talk) 14:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I didn't knew that such an article Diplomatic missions of Romania‎ will create such a mess here. I'm sorry to meet such stupid by the rule people posting and filling my talk page with rules and citations from wikipedia rules.--Sambure (talk) 14:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Please be civil and don't be nasty.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Removing AfD notices is generally bad - contesting the AfD is usually better. On the other hand, I'd think it's bad faith to ignore a page under construction. I'd keep the AfD running which would solve all these problems - but this is a content dispute, so see dispute resolution. Please also take a look at WP:OWN and WP:AGF. x42bn6 Talk Mess 14:53, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Apology: I want to apologise to everyone, I'm about to use WP:IAR to trump WP:CIV. Will you just shut up, you stupid whining troll. I've deleted a harassment thread below about four bloody times: I'm not trying to cover anything up, the thread's contents are the same as those being discussed in this thread. Now just grow up or disconnect from the net! Thanks, and sorry again.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Too late, you already made such a mess, by imposing your threats on me. not to mention that you don't want to write but to delete my work. --Sambure (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you both log out for an hour or so, take a deep breath, cucumber slices and all, and try to stay cool. You might start saying things you'll regret later. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 14:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Comment - Since I'm patrolling newbies' contributions, I'd like to comment on this matter involving the two editors. Porcupine, you are definitely an already established editor, but your behaviour by attacking new editors and accusing vandal is not helpful. Okay, you tagged Diplomatic missions of Romania for deletion, which triggered Sambure as an author to protest. Sambure is a newbie, as myself, so (s)he might not know the rule of not removing AfD tag. It does not mean that Sambure is a vandal that you'd to report to WP:AIAV. You both are just having content disputes. Then for Sambure, please calm down. Let the AfD matter be discussed first and let the community reaches the decision whether the article should or shouldn't be deleted. So for both of you, put off the hostility and just work on improving articles. Dekisugi (talk) 14:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)The tag clearly said, "Please do not remove or change this AfD message until the issue is settled" in the box and the Wikitext. S/he was a vandal because she ignored that message and my two warnings.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 14:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
reply Why should you be so vicious and putting so many warning messages on Sambure's talk page including WP:3RR messages of edit wars that actually include yourself? Please calm down. Dekisugi (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Becuase s/he's adding vandalism, which is an exception to the 3RR. Plus, see this.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Reply to Porcupine - Please read WP:KETTLE. You are also engaging 3RR. Dekisugi (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
You should not lie about yourself also, people have seen you..--Sambure (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Originally from separate thread

User tried several times to be uncivil, unpatience and very annoying by destrying my work. --Sambure (talk) 14:47, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

User tried 6 times to hide things about him http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=173105324&oldid=173105182 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sambure (talkcontribs)
Merged these two threads. Whole thing seems needlessly acidic. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Given Porcupine's history of incivility and flat-out rudeness (as Porcupine and under previous names), along with the blocks he's received for same, I am saddened but unsurprised that he hasn't really grasped that WP:IAR is not meant to apply to WP:CIV. I'm pressed for time and can't deal with this right now, but I would appreciate it if another admin could look at Porcupine's conduct at Diplomatic missions of Romania and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diplomatic missions of Romania. This certainly looks like a case where he's gotten WP:BITEy (and it's even a bad AfD nom) and then inflamed the situation by being rude to the confused newbie. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:06, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Section break[edit]

Again, I would urgently direct both parties to WP:COOL. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 15:07, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)As I see it, I reverted the removal of an {{afd}} tag - rightly or wrongly nominated, that doesn't matter. I was then generally harassed by this user, who insists on having a whole big template appearing in a talkpage where a link should - and does - suffice. I consider this disruptive.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC) An admin please should block this user who tries by any means to delete valid articles.Sambure (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I concur with TenOfAllTrades' diagnosis and hope that we can conclude this unnecessary spat with mutual apologies for the harsh words and no further action taken. Zocky | picture popups 15:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you guys please stop? Edit-warring on AN/I isn't the smartest play in the book. east.718 at 15:13, November 22, 2007

(ec)I think someone needs to explain to Sambure the following:

I'll leave this alone if someone does.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

This applied to you also. --Sambure (talk) 15:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I do understand them, though, honey.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Diplomatic_missions_of_Romania All people agree with me and not with you Porcupine. See the results. Don't you understand you can not propose to deleted valid articles from a large series?????Sambure (talk) 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(ec)Not the point here, love.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Sorry, this may sound a bit odd here on Wikipedia, but could the admins actually do something rather than vaguely and sporadically discuss doing something and then leaving Sambure to churn up this page's formatting a bit more? Thanks.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:19, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Disengagement - from both parties - would be very nice now. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
No personal attacks Porcupine please. You lost. --Sambure (talk) 15:20, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
New plan: I'm kicking both of you off AN/I for ten minutes. If either of you, Sambure or Porcupine, posts in this thread during that time, you'll find yourself blocked for ten minutes to enforce this. Find something else to do. Calm down. Back off. This is escalating to ridiculous levels over nothing. Grow up, people. – Luna Santin (talk) 15:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
(e/c) I will block both of you if you don't cease edit warring on AN/I. Seriously, could you have picked a worse place to get into an revert war? east.718 at 15:22, November 22, 2007

Sambure, your article is doing well on AfD, and there's nothing more to be gained from talking to Porcupine, so please stop now. Porcupine, consider yourself warned. Any more biting of the newbies, especially the very annoying condescending tone, will lead to a 24h block. Zocky | picture popups 15:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I've taken the time to give Sambure a very short potted explanation of what AfD actually means (it seems obvious that (s)he is under the impression that AfD means automatic deletion). I'll keep an eye on Sambure and attempt to guide them for a while. Hope this helps! Tonywalton  | Talk 15:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Summary: A new article was created by the newcomer User:Sambure and within 2 minutes, User:Porcupine sent it for AfD. Sambure (understandably) gets upset and removes the tag. Sambure then posts this (anyone understand this?), then an edit war over an AfD tag. Then there's things that hardly help the situation: [15] and [16]. I am a little concerned that posting a comment on a userpage, even if it is a little incivil, is considered vandalism. There's also the issue, I think, regarding newbie biting, baiting and at the very least, things that hardly help the situation. User talk:Sambure#Ony just a suggestion for you is probably a perfect example of this. x42bn6 Talk Mess 15:35, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bait there. Someone tried to defame me, and I was being quite mature about it rather than ranting, raving or deleting.--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what planet you live on, but you did rant, did rave, did delete, and your condescending use of 'honey', 'my love', and 'my sweet' isn't helping your case for civility either. Maralia (talk) 15:42, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
My use of the word "there" implied that I was actually referencing the thread mentioned in the previous comment, actually.

Sambure is a brand new user. Porcupine, AKA Rambutan and Circuit Judge (both indef blocked) has been around a long time and this behaviour pattern is nothing new (just check the block logs on all three accounts). His attempt to use IAR to trump CIV is ludicrous and misses the whole point of IAR, which is to be used when beneficial to wiki and ignoring CIV is never beneficial to wiki. If Porcupine doesn't cease and desist from this long term behavior pattern, I'll move for a complete ban on him.RlevseTalk 15:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan was a username change, the name was re-registered after I vacated it so you've indefblocked a poor innocent newbie there!! Check the logs...--Porcupine (prickle me! · contribs · status) 15:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I do understand [17]. Let's say we let it slide as a first offence in the heat of the moment, but Sambure, any more outbursts like that aren't likely to be tolerated. Zocky | picture popups 15:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked Porcupine for one month. His behaviour in this thread and the things surrounding it should have been more than enough, but this post[18], after being asked to cool down and back off, was the final straw. I'm soon off, so won't be available for discussion. Any change to this block should thus not be opposed on the grounds that it hasn't been discussed with me first (I may of course oppose it for other reasons :-) ). Fram (talk) 16:17, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I reverted this. Is User:81.169.128.183 Porcupine .. ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Fram. John Reaves 08:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Please someone do something. Dirty messages are now on my user page. --Sambure (talk) 16:23, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I blocked User:81.169.128.183 for a short time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Semi-protected the page for three hours; hopefully, that'll do. Shame things came to this. – Luna Santin (talk) 16:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Not done yet[edit]

I was very curious about what the Romanian sentence means, so checked on it with two translation tools.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Porcupine&diff=prev&oldid=173101441

Asculta porcule, nu-mi mai sterge articolul ca te bag in pizda matii porc ce esti.--Sambure (talk) 14:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The translation tool is very clumsy but the meaning of it is understandable.

1. Listen to porcule, dont erase articolul as interfere in you pizda matii what pig are [19]
2. Audition pig , non mi May sterge articolul ca yourself bag in pizda matii pig what eastern. [20]

--> Listen pig, don't erase and interfere the edits, what a pig you are.

Here is English Wikipedia, not everyone knows Romanian language. Sambure spoke the slur in Romanian to avoid getting in a trouble. I think Sambre should also be blocked for this insult to Porcupine --72.79.30.24 (talk) 17:59, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it was an honest mistake. He confused porcupine and porcine? Okay, I kid. Wikidemo (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
I have given him a final warning, because he continues to go after Porcupine. He was provoked and a newbie, so I am willing to let his mistakes pass with only a warning, but if it doesn't stop, blocking becomes inevitable. Fram (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I guesstimate that Sambure is User:Bonaparte. If so, he should of course be blocked. I'm not sure what, if any, bearing this should have on Porcupine's block. After all, he was biting a person who by all available evidence at the time was a newbie. Zocky | picture popups 15:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I was asked for clarification, so here goes: I'm not intimately acquainted with the Bonaparte case, but IIRC, the subject matter (e.g. Moldovan language) and the general excitability seem to match. Zocky | picture popups 15:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

MiszaBot VI (talk · contribs) - Imposter?[edit]

I stumbled upon the above user while patrolling newbie contributions. I believe this may be an attempt to impersonate User:Misza13. Whoever is operating MiszaBot VI copied both Misza's user and talk pages to the the new account. I left notes on Misza'a talk and the new account's talk to ask for verification on Misza's page, but nothing so far. I suggest a block of the new account until Misza is back to verify. Thanks. KnightLago (talk) 01:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked pending verification. —Kurykh 01:17, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Symbol note.svg I just noticed that this user seems to be included falsely in the Administrators category. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 02:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Because he has changed his username, perhaps? --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 04:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I just checked Misza13's page and here was his/her reply (copied directly from [21]):

VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

74.14.147.245 (talk · contribs) aka Political junky (talk · contribs)[edit]

Resolved: One user blocked, another warned. `'Míkka>t 07:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He is making personal attacks at Talk:Green Party of Ontario, and is adding bad citations, and keeps reverting without discussion. J (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for edit warring. The user just came off a twenty-four hour block for edit warring at this same article not too long ago and should not have gone straight back to reverting. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Does GreenJoe have explanations for this repeated revert? `'Míkka>t 07:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Political junky's referenced additions were deleted without any explanations from GreenJoe and GreenJoe must be warned about inadmissible revert war without explanations. `'Míkka>t 07:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I can explain. The <ref> left there was to the main website of Elections Ontario and not to any specific documents to which states that fact.  Avec nat...Wikipédia Prends Des Forces.  08:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Rotary International[edit]

I've decided to back away from the long-running edit war at Rotary International. For a long time I've tried to protect the article from the somewhat bizarre editing of User:PierreLarcin: but the article isn't in any of my fields of interest, I only got involved in the first place by answering an RfC, and I'm sufficiently tired of the whole issue that I've decided to back off. Anyway, I think it might help if one or two admins could add the page to their watchlists, since I'm taking it off mine. AndyJones (talk) 08:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I don't blame you. I just read through the talk page - anyone else think that Larcin should be topic-banned? Most of his work is "this person is evil, this person is a rotarian, therefore the article on Rotary International should reflect the fact that rotary is evil" Guy (Help!) 09:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • No comment!!! AndyJones (talk) 11:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Agree with JzG; this kind of long-term disruption of an article is unacceptable. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

user: Normastitts - spamming[edit]

Resolved

User is spamming by adding the same picture adversiting some movie to lots of pages. There may be some other accounts. Please check the image for what links here. User contribs: Special:Contributions/Normastitts--Dacium (talk) 10:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked the user, deleted the image, removed the edits. Unacceptable username will do as a block reason, if the spam and the copyright violation wasn't enough. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 11:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomasfrancis117 (talk · contribs), Francis117 (talk · contribs)[edit]

This seems to be a blatant case of Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. The first account was used to create article Altered addiction which was speedy deleted under WP:CSD#G10. He is now using the second account with the obvious username to recreate the deleted article with no additional information as to the notability of the subject. He has also created an article about himself (Tom Francis) and, when he created the first username, he started his userpage with the following: Thomasfrancis117 is the writer for the band altered addiction. Currently, he has no idea whats going on, or even if this is a personal profile or article. SWik78 (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

DYK way overdue, should have been updated twice already but not even done once[edit]

Resolved

DYK is the Did you know section on the main page. It's an important feature because it is on the main page, encourages others to start new artices, etc. It is to be changed every 6 hours. The update is way overdue. In fact that update was supposed to be updated too (it is 7 hours late, 13 hours since the last update).

Usually, I do not bring this up on ANI. However, it is an urgent, time sensitive matter and it is very, very late. If it is only a little bit late, I say nothing. If moderately late, I only contact the people who frequent the board. Only administrators can move the next update page to the main page. Thank you. Archtransit (talk) 16:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for raising it and getting the update page all ready to go. WjBscribe 17:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Phoenix741 does not believe in fairuse[edit]

Ok, a little bizarre. What to do with a user who does not believe in fairuse rationales and continues to remove them from images? Image:Ult x4 1.jpg was uploaded by User:whipsandchains over 18 months ago. I added a basic needs fairuse rationale warning, warned the uploader. User:Phoenix741 decided to remove it[22] without explanation. I explained to Phoenix that it was still needed [23], and after a little reverting, basically the response is "I don't believe in the whole idea for fair use". I am concerned because this user has also uploaded a number of fairuse comics [24]. Can someone else calmly explain to Phoenix that "I don't believe in the idea" doesn't give someone the right to go after someone else's images and say that the fairuse rationales aren't needed? I'd support a 24-hour for vandalism but I just want to leave it for other opinions. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 01:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I've given him a polite note. If he doesn't stop, I'd endorse a block. --Haemo (talk) 01:49, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
He may actually need that vacation he referred to when he comes back to his talk page. --WebHamster 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I refactored it so he won't be dealing with like 15,000 words of "WARNING NO FAIR USE RATIONALE". --Haemo (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Not quite as impressive, but definitely more bandwidth friendly. --WebHamster 04:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
That's not really removing fair use rationales from images but rather not adding them to images and just being disruptive with the whole tagging for deletion.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Is "disruptive" a new euphemism for maintenance? His weren't the only images that were tagged by me last night, for not having FUR. The dealing with the removal of FURs is an admin function, notifying the lack of them is a maintenance function. I went through a lot of comic and music pages and came across his, I then found his user page with a convenient list of images, it was during tagging them that I noticed the comments on his talk page. I'd make a suggestion that you WP:AGF instead of jumping to conclusions. There were 41 images that were missing an FUR, the fact they were uploaded by him is immaterial, they would have needed doing at some point anyway. --WebHamster 10:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
(deindent) I know you probably didn't have any unkind intentions, but you've got to understand how it looks — a user says "I don't like fair use rationales", and shortly afterwards dozens of his images come back with notices for deletion for lacking a rationale. I could reasonably see why he's thinking "I'm being targeted". When I see people having an issue about something, I try to step off for a while to ease the pressure off them — it's not required, but it's an accommodating thing to do. Anyways, we've been talking and we'll see what happens. --Haemo (talk) 19:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't give a flying frisbee either way about his arguments, if I did I would have joined in the conversation with my opinion which is that there is no valid reason for him to be the only one who doesn't have to stay within the rule. Likewise for reasons that may be apparent from clues on my user page, the 'personal' aspect of diplomacy is a mystery to me. It's a very simple equation to me, if there's a copyright licence on an image page with no accompanying FUR then it gets tagged, I don't care whether it's 1 image or 41 images. I wasn't doing it to make a point, even though I can see that may be a reasonable conclusion, but the way I see it he put the copyright notice on the image, if he can't be arsed to read it and comply with what it says then that's his problem, not mine. On the other hand, it's not my usual MO to spend the best part of an hour with boring repetitive work just to make a point. I didn't leave any non-templated replies on his page because it wasn't a personal issue for me so had nothing to say. I mentioned it in passing here as it may have been relevant to the discussion. Also, wise-ass remarks are a habit with me. This is why I have a "doesn't want to be an admin" userbox, I'd suck at it as I have no concept of tact and diplomacy and even less desire to actually use it. --WebHamster 20:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I didn't think, or want to imply, that you were being malicious or vindicative here. However, I know for a fact that some users will (and have) mass tag images as a kind of "retribution" and it's not totally unreasonable for someone to misinterpret actions along those lines. With that said, it's not a big deal, and you don't have anything to worry about — however, in the future it can be helpful to just keep a light hand when you know an issue is sensitive. If we wanted blind policy enforcement, well, we have BetacommandBot (Joke, joke!) --Haemo (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

User:Beh-nam harassment[edit]

Resolved

This user is harassing me on my talk page, while I have never been engaged in any discussion or edit with him. He insulted me for a second time [25] today. The previous attempt was in September [26]. Atabek (talk) 14:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

He's already blocked for some related nonsense. I think he "gets it". --Haemo (talk) 19:48, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Patrolled newpages[edit]

A lot of pages have been marked patrolled in the last minute or so, quite a few which I thought were speedy or PROD candidates (which I hadn't tagged, because they were only a few minutes old). I know of no way to check who marked a page as patrolled, to check who has marked these pages, and to see if there is any 'foul play' going on, but the patrolled status suggests something is going wrong. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Look at Special:Log/patrol and the pages' logs. Patrolling is logged the same way as other actions. Note that pages should be patrolled once marked as speedy, to prevent other patrollers having to look at them as well. --ais523 18:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah thanks, I missed that one. people seem to be going on a patrole rampage (getting their patrole count up?). I didn't know of that log, but can now contact them to discuss patroling. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 18:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
By the way, go back 2,000 pages or so to see all the pages that haven't been patrolled. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Resolved

Removal of CSD tags and unwillingness to discuss[edit]

Resolved

Refering to the revision history of Mediocrity and the discussion on my and user:mindrakers talkpages. Mindraker created an article, from which he keeps removing CSD tags. The discussion on his an my talkpages indicates he is not willing to discuss it, and only accepts discussion with administrators. I believe his conduct is uncivil, disruptive, and in violation of policy. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you deleted the article. I'd like to request for it to be WP:SALTed aswell, as it has been recreated many times now. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 19:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Salt on next recreation. —Kurykh 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Back up, this wouldn't have gotten to the admins in the first place if JohnCD hadn't brought the article to the admin intervention ( [27] ). If you guys want to drag this through the admins *again*, go ahead. Mindraker (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is having a {{wi}} page at Mediocrity a big enough problem to warrant this much nonsense? Guy (Help!) 19:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    • Irony was desired. —Kurykh 19:37, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
      • Like I said, guys, if you want to drag this through the mud, go for it, I'm willing to sit back and watch. Mindraker (talk) 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
        • We're done, unless you want to go through it again. Hence the "resolved" tag. —Kurykh 19:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Problematic editor[edit]

Resolved

Please investigate Try This One (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

False use of pp-dispute?[edit]

Resolved
  • Yes, people can falsely use {{pp-dispute}}. He's not an admin, so he couldn't protect the page. There's nothing to do about it except remove the tag. Also, there's a bot that does it automatically, IIRC. --Haemo (talk) 22:06, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
    Durr... -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 00:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Incivility?[edit]

I stumbled up on this post by EliasAlucard (talk · contribs): "[...] there's no such thing as "modern Aramaeans". Aramaeans do not exist today. They are all self-hating Assyrians.".

There seems to be other examples in the thread. I do not know if the argument had manifested itself in article namespace.

I'd like admin review.

-- Cat chi? 00:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been watching the discussion. It's just a content dispute that's a little bit hot under the collar. Someone dropped him a note before about this, and though he's arguing somewhat passionately, he's definitely improved his tone. I don't see any benefit in playing civility police ATM. --Haemo (talk) 03:10, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I would probably use a different word than passionately to describe all thats going on there. But hey then again I do not have much of a vocab. :) -- Cat chi? 03:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Passionately seems to be used with more than a bit of sarcasm. —Kurykh 03:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
No, I meant it honestly. Perhaps "strident" would have been better? --Haemo (talk) 04:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Warn that user that flaming leads to being block from this project, and that's it.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 06:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Stephen Popescu[edit]

Resolved

Can someone please do something about this article above? I keep tagging it as speedy, but keep getting reverted by User:Vrakattack. Thanks! Lankiveil (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC).

Article deleted and user blocked, since his only edits consisted of vandalism. --W.marsh 06:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Harassment from User:Orangemarlin[edit]

Per the advice of users User:Arichnad and User:Dorftrottel upon my request for editor assistance, I am recording an unpleasant incident with user User:Orangemarlin here. Since making that request for editor assistance, Orangemarlin continues to harass me, accuse me of being a sock puppet for some account of a user he really must have a vendetta against, and threaten to get my IP banned. I'm ready to drop the whole thing ("Forget about them. ... Do not escalate the conflict" etc. [28]) but I just want to make sure that this user's behavior is noted somewhere so that if he acts this way with other users, the pattern can be identified, and action can be taken.

The content I had posted to editor assistance page, which I believe adaqutely describes the situation, follows.

Thanks for your consideration of this request.



Hi. I recently had and incredibly un-pleasant exchange with user Orangemarlin. I'm looking for editor's assistance in determining what to do about it.

(Note: I don't know Orangemarlin's gender, but herein I will refer to the user as 'he' for simplicity.)

I'm probably taking Orangemarlin's exchange with me too personally (though, granted, he did engage in personal attacks against me) and perhaps I should just let it go ... However, he's threatened to ban me, which I don't want to happen, and I'm also concerned that if he regularly engages in this kind of boorish behavior, it's going to harm the Wikipedia community. I'm no Wikipedia veteran, but if I were more of a n00b and got a message like this I would certainly not ever bother with editing an article again. ... Try to make an edit in good faith and then having the f-bomb thrown at you is hardly a very rewarding experience.

In any event, without a doubt, I'm sure his portion of our exchange violates the Wikipedia:Civility policy.

What I'm hoping is that Orangemarlin's violation of the civility policy can be recorded somewhere so that if he engages in this type of behavior in the future with other users, a pattern can be easily identified and dealt with appropriately. Is this possible?

Thanks.


An overview of our exchange follows:

Background

As the Objections to evolution article currently stands, the final sentence of the introduction reads "However, these arguments have been rejected by biologists and are not accepted by the scientific community". This sentence is followed with a citation footnote to a PDF document at the URL http://www.aaas.org/news/releases/2006/pdf/0219boardstatement.pdf. (Statement on the Teaching of Evolution. American Association for the Advancement of Science (2006)).

While I personally agree that a consensus of the scientific community rejects these arguments, the PDF document given as a reference for the statement does not support the claim of the sentence. My understanding is that claims made in Wikipedia articles need to have citations, so I edited the page, putting the this sentence and it's citation in a HTML comment (<!-- ... -->) and added a note that for this sentence to be included a more accurate reference needed to be provided.

The goal of my doing this is that someone would go out and find a more accurate reference. Orangemarlin, however, apparently assumed my goal was to change to the POV of the article. He reverted my edit and edited my talk page, indicating as such. I then edited his talk page attempting to explain my rationale for my edit. His response to my explanation was rude, contained foul language ("Learn to fucking sign your comments too"), and accused me of being a "creationist", a term he used pejoratively and assigned beliefs to me ("You are flatly wrong, but most Creationists are.", ".06% believe in your crap.").

(I don't even "believe" in Creationism!!!!)

I was just temporarily trying to remove a claim without a legitimate citation until a legitimate citation could be provided. *SIGH*.

User-talk page thread with OrangeMarlin's Incivility
Additional note on OrangeMarlin's "VacuousPoet" accusation

I'm not sure how a traceroute would reveal something like this. If I have the same IP address as someone used to have, please be aware I'm accessing Wikipedia from home via a cable modem. I've only had this current IP address since October 15th, 2007. (I access my home computer regularly from my workplace, so when my IP changes, it causes me a lot of headaches, which is why I know this.)

In any event, I'm not VacuousPoet.


74.67.180.75 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I have notified orangemarlin about this discussion. It seems clear that Orange did not assume good faith here, as well as being pretty uncivil, [29], [30], and making unverified accusations, [31], wheras in contrast, the Ip doesn't hasn't been offensive in their edits.
Looking at the article and source in question, the source does not appear, as far as i can tell, to back up the statement, so the IP seems to be correct in that respect.--Jac16888 (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about, OrangeMarlin has never been uncivil to anyone. Not even once. I challenge you to show a case of being uncivil on his part. Ya know what, this proves that you should be permanently banned for Anti-Semitism...! 18:58, 23 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Da REAL Tony Clifton! (talkcontribs)
Okaaaay. Heres a few tips. First, read the diffs i provided, they show incivility, second, i am NOT anti-semitic, and i'm disgusted you're accusing me of being so, third, even though its none of anyones business or of relevance, is orange even jewish? and finally go back under the bridge you came from.--Jac16888 (talk) 19:04, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Please do not feed the trolls, even if you have lots of turkey left over from yesterday. :) --ElKevbo (talk) 19:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Say what? Turkey? huh. Sorry about feeding though, should have known better they just made me mad with that comment--Jac16888 (talk) 19:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday was Thanksgiving. Apparently an American joke that forgot its limited area of humor. —Kurykh 19:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I played the odds (that Jac is American or least aware of Thanksgiving) and lost. :( --ElKevbo (talk) 19:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
You didn't bother to click on his user page to see that he comes from the UK, didn't you? —Kurykh 19:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Turkey? Lurkey? Murkey? Perky! WTH are you talking about, I don't have any turkey! Why did you say that to me? What is this anyway?Da REAL Tony Clifton! (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
No one was talking to you. Now stop trolling. —Kurykh 19:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

(I have just indefinitely blocked User:Da REAL Tony Clifton! as a vandalism-only account. If by any chance i have misunderstood the situation, feel free to unblock. DGG (talk) 05:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC))

Why am I wasting time with this crap. But here goes. I am Jewish. Tony Clifton above is referring to an incident about 6 months ago where we got a pretty atrocious editor banned for hurling anti-semitic sentiments my way (so, this begs the question on who Tony Clifton is). Once someone claims they are not a creationist, 97.3% of the time they are. The edit was incorrect on the anonymous editor's part, I gave a standard warning, and then I get attacked. My tolerance of anonymous POV warriors is minimal, you can check my 10,000 or so edits to confirm that my tolerance is minimal. Civility, being a judgement call, is usually a methodology for POV warriors to silence opinion. So, I don't really care about it, and I never accuse anyone of incivility (just in case someone wants to accuse me of hypocritical behavior). And this gentleman is VacuousPoet, Raspor, Rbj, or any number of other sockpuppets who have attacked me or vandalized my page. I'm not wasting my good Thanksgiving weekend working the horrific system that Wikipedia has created to deal with sockpuppets, so I'll just let this anonymous and obviously experienced editor have his way. And if you want to block me, go for it. I'm sure you can find about 20 admins that are chomping at the bit to fuck me over. Just read over my user page history and I'm sure you can find one in about 5 minutes. However, once I make the final determination of who the anonymous sockpuppet is (VacuousPoet, probably, Raspor as a second thought, Kdbuffalo is the third), you will all be embarrassed. The writing style of the anonymous sock is exactly like someone I accidently AGF'ed a few months ago User:ImprobabilityDrive, who I thought I had treated harshly, then apologized, then I discovered his being a sock. Writing style of that sock is exactly the same as this one. And yes, I studied styles as a professional endeavor, so it's pretty easy. So, this is my rather civil and nice response. Thank you for your consideration. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 20:28, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that the edits that started this ever-so-useless excursion into banality do indeed look just like those of a banned user, and given that this user refuses to get a nick, and given that the nickless user seems to be incapable of signing his posts (a trait shared by some of the users OM mentions in his reply) I can see why OM considered that the nickless anon might be a sock. Gee, see how easy that was? One need merely look at the evidence in a forensic manner, and voilà. Ain't science cool? &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 22:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
And speaking of AGF, why the hell am I spending any time defending myself to a whiny anonymous sock, who has a grand total of 7 edits, 6 of which are used to attack me, whereas I have 10,000 edits, an FA or two, a few GA's, and significant contribution to this project. What a waste. The editors who support this anonymous sock should be defending me, who has given a lot to this project. To paraphrase Colonel Jessup, " I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for the anonymous sock, and you curse the scientist. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That the anonymous socks treatment, while tragic, probably saved this project. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves this project. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me kicking the sock's ass, you need me kicking that sock's ass." OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, i just want to make it absolutely one hundred percent clear that i had no idea/ or had even thought about orange marlins religion, and even if i did know, it would not have made the slightest difference to my post above, as far as i'm concerned race/religion/gender/age etc make (or should make) no difference to how editors interact. Secondly, i was aware it was thanksgiving yesterday, but forgot since we obviously don't celebrate it here in old blighty, although, Happy Thanksgiving. Thirdly, with regards to what this discussion is supposed to be about, Orange you did not assume good faith with user, their edit seemed legitimate, even if you did not agree with it, i very much doubt you can recognize a sock after so few edits without proof, and without proof, you can't just accuse them of being one. And i am not supporting the anon, just like i am not supporting you, i just took a look at the situation, to help out admins reviewing this. Finally, contributing a lot to the project does not make you immune to the basic rules like being civil. --Jac16888 (talk) 01:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, I made no accusation or was even slightly concerned that you said anything about my religion. And as for eating Turkey, don't worry, it's a stupid American holiday anyways. It's just a good time to get the American populace fatter than it already is. Lastly, define civil? Didn't think you could. It's a subjective definition. If you were American, you'd know that Californians are different from New Yorkers in how people are treated. Not sure one is better than the other. And yeah, you are not giving any good faith, considering I know what the fuck I'm doing on this project compared to a whiny anonymous sock who, despite a significant amount of knowledge of Wikipedia, refuses, suspiciously, to register, and who has a grand total of now 8 edits, 7 of which is wasting this project's time making baseless and frankly bullshit accusations against me. This anonymous sock is a sock. And yeah, I can tell in precisely 1 edit. I knew the guy was a sock of VacuousPoet, Raspor or others based on that one edit. I can't file an RfCU or Sockpuppet charge, because I'm not going on a fishing expedition. I'll figure it out soon enough, at which time I'll have him permanently banned along with his other socks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, yes, Orangemarlin's tone may not always be perfectly civil, but in the context of his very positive efforts, and that POV pushers usually trigger him in the first place, it's forgiveable. I dorftrotteltalk I 02:19, November 24, 2007
I don't even go for imperfectly civil. LOL. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 07:16, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Hi. This is the Anon/IP again... This has grown to be much more of an ordeal than I ever intended.

How I wish this whole thing would have played would would have been as follows:

  • Orangemarlin suspects I was trying to inject POV into the Objections to evolution article; reverts my changes, comments on my talk page
  • I reply, explaining my case; why I made the edit; and that I wasn't trying to inject POV [32]
  • Orangemarlin thoughtfully examines the case I lay out, and in response:
    • apologizes for the POV accusation
    • finds an accurate source for the sentence of the article I called into question, restores the sentence in the article with the new accurate source

Had that been the case, Wikipedia grows in quality, and there's no harsh feelings.

Unfortunately, I was met with harsh accusations and profanity.

I have no interest in seeing Orangemarlin blocked/banned. All I hope for is that he'll be a bit kinder/more civil in the future. The Wikipedia:Assume good faith policy is exactly what I'm hoping for from Orangemarlin in the future.

Looking through Orangemarlin's edits, I see the bulk of the work he does is reverting the work of vandals/trolls. That makes me a bit more understanding of why he treated me how he did. But I'm not a troll, or vandal, or sock puppet (and please stop insinuating I am one; it's not true and growing wearisome), and I'm sure there will be others that edit pages Orangemarlin dutifully guards against vandalism that will make edits like mine but also not be trolls/vandals/socks, but simply infrequent contributors acting in good faith. Allow me to simply submit that going forward, if Orangemarlin will simply act with civility and treat editors (even us anonymous ones that only make edits occasionally) in good faith, things will go much more smoothly. No tempers will flair, and he can spend his time more productively improving Wikipedia rather than commenting on the ANI page.

Thanks. 74.67.180.75 (talk) 07:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Plaudite, acta fabula est! &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 17:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

problem (please read all the way through)[edit]

I'm not even sure if this is the right place to make a complain... but here goes:

My name is Annabelle, and I recently joined wikipedia and created a page called 'Clarendon House Grammar School'. This was all well and fine, until I added a colloquilistic term reffering to the school. I and another user, User:Owain.davies had what I later found out was an edit war, as I kept adding the term and they kept deleting it, telling me I couldnt use it until I proved it, and calling me a vandal to my own page. However, we shortly solved this issue after I was informed of the rules (which I was not aware of before due to my nouvellity to the site).

However, after we stopped, I then received a message from User:SteveBaker talking about the edit war, which I and User:Owain.davies had already sorted out. When I went to User:Owain.davies 's profile, I found a message from User:SteveBaker talking about the edit war we had, and saying that that user and I were going to break the 3 revert rule or something, which was all fair enough because it was true that we were having an edit war (although we had just stopped anyway). Anyway, User:SteveBaker expressed sympathy for the other user saying he was probably "unaware of this rule". He then however went on to express his belief that I would probably have no respect for Wikipedia's laws even if I was aware of them: "In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care" (I am 'Iamandrewrice' by the way). In addition to this he referred to me as "an especially annoying person," having had no previous contact with me before, and simply judging on the helpful edits I tried to make.

I was obviously enraged by this, and demanded that he apologized for this at once. However, he did not, and stood by his view, simply continuing to bring up the edit war that me and another user had conducted before we became aware of the rules. I pointed out to him that this was not what I was talking about, and that what he was saying was slanderous. However he still failed to accept that it was, and then after that, I ended up getting a 24 hour block from User:Jc37 for accusing another user of slander. However I do not even understand why I was the one who got this block, and why truthfully saying that he was slandering me to another user would make me be deserving of a block anyway.

That is more or less it... please tell me if I am the one who is mistaken here, but I am pretty much sure I am in the right. Oh, also another thing, I was later accused by User:SteveBaker of threatening sockpuppetery or something when I said that if he was going to block me since I told him that I was going to complain, that I still hav proof of his slander because I have saved the entire conversations, and would instead have to utilise one of my friends accounts to make the complaint (if it be the case that he block this account throught threat of making a complaint).

Please write back to me soon. Give me your help and direct me what I should do, or could you please take the action yourself. Thank you everyone.

xx

Iamandrewrice (talk) 19:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

  • Anabelle, this is only a website. Please try not to take things so personally, and do remember that we get a lot of edit wars and a lot of editors who get carried away and have to be blocked for short periods of time. If you had responded a bit more calmly instead of ALL CAPS WITH EXCLAMATION MARKS! on Owain's talk page in the first place, I doubt you'd hev been perceived or described as annoying. My suggestion is that you chalk this up to experience. Guy (Help!) 19:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


You may be right; however, my caps locks did not put me in the wrong, whereas verbally insulting me to another user in such a way was certainly wrong of User:SteveBaker, yes? Even after all my asking him to apologize for his rude behaviour against me, he still refused to back down that he was in the wrong. Surely he must therefore learn that talking in such a manner against another wikipedian is not allowed, and should serve due punishment. You have also missed something... the reason I was blocked was not for the edit war, but instead for pointing out that this user had slagged me off! which i still am unaible to see the reasoning of.

Thank you, and keep the help coming please... xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

We don't "punish" people here. None of the admins here are going to block punitively; that's just not how we work. You were blocked for accusing someone else of slander, which is a legal accusation — and is considered an oblique legal threat. While I'm not sure this accomplished anything here, since it's (now) clear you weren't planning legal action, you have to understand that the Foundation takes legal matters very seriously. Sometimes, people saying mean things about you is just mean things — you would do best to just move on, and put it behind you. --Haemo (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

By punishment, I mean I would like you to talk to him and deal with him in the appropriate manner. And yes, I do intend to take legal action and go as high with this as possible. And I still stand by my accussation of slander, as anyone reading his message to the other user will see that this is entirely what it was. xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay, then you're going to have to take a break from editing until your legal case is terminated. Contact the Foundation official, because our policy requires you to be blocked until your legal case is over. --Haemo (talk) 20:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Indefinitely blocked. End of discussion. —Kurykh 20:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Notso fast; they were confused, so I've unblocked them. Hope this is okay! --Haemo (talk) 22:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry people, by legal threat I misunderstood the term. I do not mean taking him to court if that is what was understood. I mean making a formal wikipedia complaint against User:SteveBaker. Of which my complaint still stands...

xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 09:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Denying that you made a legal threat looks like explaining away the obvious. It's not the accusation of slander, provocative enough as it is, but this: "I AM NOW DEFINITELY GOING TO TAKE LEGAL ACTION, AND I CAN VERY MUCH ASSURE YOU THAT YOU SHOULD FIND YOURSELF SOME LEGAL ADVICE." Just how is that not threatening a lawsuit? Because Wikipedia has a limited budget and does not want to get dragged into court, it takes a zero tolerance policy against anybody threatening to sue anybody here. The flame war that preceded this was completely unnecessary, and off the charts for Wikipedia drama. Please consider yourself lucky to have your block removed and realize this is a place to build encyclopedia articles. If you truly want to write and improve articles, that's the best way to spend energy. Plenty of conflicts and differences of opinion arise, which is natural. The only way this project works is when people make an extra effort to get along rather than an effort to defend themselves against perceived insults and opposition. Wikidemo (talk) 12:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Sure, you can do that. If you can state the complaint in neutral terms and can find other people who have had a similar experience then you can raise a request for comment, but it may be better just to ask nicely that he not do it again. Or walk away, since that might cause the whole thing to flare up again. Guy (Help!) 11:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


As I have already mentioned, I did not mean anything of the sort with regarding a lawsuit. I was unaware that was what 'Legal action' meant.
I simply implied that I would be formally complaining against him on this site.
If you read my talk page you would realise that.

And I have already asked User:SteveBaker to apologize but he still stands firm that he was in the right to insult me. Therefore this is the only way in which I am able to put the point accross by handing the case to a member of higher authority on the site.

xx
Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • There is always the time-honoured way of preventing being described as "annoying", which is to do one's best not to be annoying. However your preferred method appears to be to go in the opposite direction. Can I just add my own voice to the number of older and wiser editors who have suggested that you leave it be, move on and learn from the event. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebHamster (talkcontribs) 14:43, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Iamandrewrice, it's a bit disingenuous to say you don't know what "legal action" means when on your user page you claim English is your mother tongue. I have read through Steve's talk page, and found him to be remarkably patient with you. Much more so than I would have been. You are now taxing the patience of the community at large by perpetuating this. Hadn't you best just quietly edit some articles, or even better, read some of the policies that another user helpfully left on your talk page? Then you'll learn how to avoid such situations in the future. Jeffpw (talk) 14:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that the best way forward would be for Iamandrewrice to drop the matter completely and edit some articles. I must say that I find it quite implausible that someone who has the education described on her user page (English language, English literature) is unaware of the difference between legal action and a complaint on a website. Just chalk it up to a learning experience and be done with it. Happy editing, Chaz Beckett 14:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • However, User:SteveBaker had no right to insult me in such a manner, and until a final result with an input from him is achieved I am afraid I will have to leave this complaint open.

And yes, as you said yourself, 'someone who has the education described on her user page'!
If you have read my user page you will in fact realise that I have not taken law!
So you are still missing the point; it is not me that is choosing not to discontinue this, it is User:SteveBaker for not accepting responsibility for his actions and insultations. xx Iamandrewrice (talk) 14:57, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

    • You don't need to take a law course to know that a legal action involves courts, lawyers, lawsuits, etc. Arguing this point isn't helping your case any. I agree with Jeffpw that you're definitely approaching the limits of the community's patience. I strongly suggest that you let any past wrongs stay in the past. All you have to do is drop it and it's over. Chaz Beckett 15:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Why am I the one 'in the wrong' according to you here, when I am just informing the public of the insults that User:SteveBaker used on me when speaking on another users page. I am simply standing up and pointing out that this is not allowed and he should be made aware by someone authoritive that this kind of behaviour is not acceptable towards another wikipedian.

And regards to your point on the legal action, I am just telling you of what I thought it meant. What? Do you want me to lie and say that I am taking him to court or something?! Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • May I suggest that you quit now whilst you are ahead, because if you continue in this vein SteveBaker's comment will have evolved from a mild insult to an accurate portent. --WebHamster 15:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • No. I am not going to allow myself to be subject to this kind of behaviour by another user just through to his power. My complaint stil lies against him. My main problem is that he does not seem to realise that insulting me in such a manner was wrong. If he made a formal appology and recognition of his behaviour, then I will be more than happy to end this. However, utnil that time, I see no other method to show my dilemna to the public than to leave the complaint standing.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Look, Iamandrewrice, I'm going to be blunt, because as far as I am concerned, being nice to you isn't getting anyone anywhere. First you came to Wikipedia, behaved badly and got nicely reprimanded. Then after you took umbrage at being told you were out of line, you started making threats. You got blocked. Then after you got unblocked, instead of learning from your mistakes you came here and repeated them. You got blocked again. At this point you're just farting in public. While others may not want to point that out to you, out of embarrassment for you, I am not so shy. Stop farting. It's annoying. Or do you want someone to give you some anti-flatulence medicine? Jeffpw (talk) 15:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I assure you that your complaint has been noted, as evidenced by the numerous responses in this section. Your attempt to extract an apology from Steve Baker through arguments is almost certainly not going to end well (for you). Let me very clear in my advice: nothing benefiting you will be accomplished by continuing this argument. If you're heer to edit articles, no one is going to stop you. If you're here to argue about admin behavior, well...I wouldn't recommend that. Chaz Beckett 15:38, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well thank you User:Jeffpw for your oh so nice phrasing there. I am glad to see that Wikipedia is full of such nice mannered people. I am sorry but I am not going to discuss anything with anyone who is so unabled to speak English with even an attempt at decency. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


  • Thank you Chaz for your concern. However, I choose to stand by my principles and await a sincere apology from User:SteveBaker, for as far as I can see, it is him who is in the wrong. And with regards to your point on trying to edit wikipedia... well try having a look at the article i made on GHD hair irons... including all the quotes I this time found (having learnt from last time) that I would be needed to make. Good Hair Day. It seems to me that wikipedian editors only edit things that they have heard from their own ears, and if there is something that does not seem likely to them (as in this instance, hair tongs), then they out of personal discretion, place their own oppinions on the matter, without actually knowing anything about the matter at all. Iamandrewrice (talk) 15:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
    • FWIW, I'd support blocking Iamandrewrice indefinitely at this point as she seems much more interested in perpetuating the wiki-drama rather than contributing to the encyclopedia. Many attempts to give her advice, ranging from quite friendly to rather blunt, have failed. Chaz Beckett 15:52, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Well after some consideration I feel that SteveBaker's description was wrong, you aren't "annoying"... yet, you are merely "irritating". For someone to behave like this against all advice and common-sense just has to be a troll. --WebHamster 15:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I will be medium-blunt. You have gone well beyond "informing the public". You participated in an edit war, then a flame war, then a legal threat (the claim that you did not mean what you said is moot - it's forbidden either way). Now you are arguing against our unanimous and patient advice. Whether or not someone was mean to you, your reaction overshadows the initial affront. It got so messy and unpleasant that it doesn't seem worth the brain cycles to figure out who started it. Yes, although we try not to be too mean to newbies we give the benefit of the doubt to administrators and long-time productive contributors with good reason. If I may be forward, reviewing your contributions to date it seems you are by choice getting into drama and involving other people in it. If you continue in that spirit you will quite likely have another incident soon and with this one as a background people will not be as patient next time. This is an encyclopedia, not a family breakdown. For everyone's sake including yours, please take a deep breath, drop this matter, and move on. Your complaint will stand - it is here on this page, and once nobody edits this section for 24 hours it will be a permanent part of Wikipedia's archive. In the meanwhile nobody is going to take any further action so it's a waste of time to pursue it further. Wikidemo (talk) 15:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


Ok, so now I'm a lier, because I apparently meant that I was going to 'take a user to court' over the internet... hmmmm, yes thats right isnt it?!!!!
And excuse me?! Am I to blame for the flame war, when I was the one that was verbally attacked?
I just dont understand any of you... I came to wikipedia to help, only to be given insult after insult, which have really been hurtful, and only for the continuation of some 'drama' for you!
No matter what I do on here, I come across someone who either starts some sort of 'war' with me, or says my articles aren't good enough, or deletes my articles, or insults me... You have just made me very unhappy that I am unable to even contribute to Wikipedia without the all so many of the nasty editors here having some sort of attack at me... Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, my prediction came true as I was writing the above post -another hour, another drama. Good Hair Day does indeed appear to be a notable company but the article is rudimentary the point of being deletable. Guy, one of Wikipedia's most senior administrators, advised her that it was deletable under CSD A7 as it is indeed unsourced and makes no claim to notability. He was in one of his friendlier modes, and rather than taking his advice on how to write articles properly she uses the incident to accuse not only him but Wikipedians in general of not knowing what they're talking about. I try in various ways to counsel her and she lashes out at me too. I don't think she will last long here absent a drastic improvement in attitude. She seems incorrigible. I wouldn't object to an indefinite block but I do think that's premature. The initial incident that gave rise to this is done. Simply being difficult and refusing to take advice isn't by itself disruptive. She has to actually do something wrong, right? Wikidemo (talk) 16:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Well to put things into some perspective... countless words used and time spent complaining about someone's accurate assessment of her vs 1 line of text in one article. Hmmm. One wouldn't have to stretch too far to get to WP:POINT methinks. I'm just glad the kisses have stopped! --WebHamster 16:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I did not 'lash out' at you thank you! oh em gee... its like talking to a brick wall!!

I tried my best on that GHD article! :( But now according to you, I'm not even allowed to give that...
so now im also in the wrong for ending my comments with kisses?!
wow you lot really are a nice bunch arent you!
)':

Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"so now I'm a lier"..."nasty editors"..."brick wall"...."nice bunch arent you!" Incivility and WP:AGF violations, perhaps? I'm out of here. Nothing more I can do to help. Wikidemo (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • How about the murder of the English language? "I am able to converge almost fluently in French". Yup, I know, I'm heading off track. I'm supplying no more meals for the troll. Will someone kindly put up the resolved sign and switch off the lights before leaving? --WebHamster 16:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I have tried so hard on here! I made 2 articles! I tried extensively to develop them, but everytime, I have come up against so many people that don't even understand! I have received some very hurtful remarks, some of which have actually brought me close to crying. I strongly suggest that you reconsider your manners and behavioral conductions, because eventually, you're going to come up against someone who won't be as helpless as me...

and no this is NOT resolved! and in fact is even worse now, as even more insults have been directed at me! Iamandrewrice (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, i am not an admin, but i think that most of the admins that have commented here have been rather harsh with Iamandrewrice, she's just a kid that wants to write an article about her school. Why don't you block her for a week and give her some time to read other articles and discussions? She has been ranting on both of those user's talk pages and here, isn't that enough? Too much unnecessary drama is going on here.-Yamanbaiia (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm not sure I can be bothered with Wikipedia now... Everything I do is not good enough anyway... Iamandrewrice (talk) 17:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I think this thread is just generating more heat than light now. User:Iamandrewrice, if you want to continue editing, please read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and feel free to improve the encyclopedia. If you don't, then don't. ELIMINATORJR 18:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

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

A constant act of vandalizm of the Russians page[edit]

Resolved: generic vandalism

Someone who obviously hates himself and his nation, tries to feel better by constantly vandalizing the Russians page. While people work hard on the article, someone vandalizes it. The user has a variety of IP numbers and nicknames.

Examples:

[33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51].

As you can see this user has many nicknames and IP's, but does the same thing. We were patient to much just reverting him back. I dont care if he feels the nation he came from is small and not important so he vandalizes the Russians page, i dont care if his bored. This must stop. We were quite about it to much. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It could just be a bunch of vandals. "Russians are crazy" is not a very unique, though unpleasant, insult, and the types of vandalism are all over the map here, so I don't think it's one person. I think you're looking for requests for page protection here, in the future. It's not going to help, since the vandalism is relatively infrequent. You'll just have to live with it I guess. --Haemo (talk) 20:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Most often the same remarks come from differen't IP's. It's obviously one person. Protection will prevent not only the vandals from vandalizing the page but also the regular editors to make it better. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 20:34, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
The vandalism edits made are generic bland insults. Any person can make those. Lumping them all as one is unrealistic. —Kurykh 20:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Different IP addresses usually imply different people. For instance, in the diffs you've linked here, the IP addresses come from New Jersey, Calgary, Estonia, New Zealand, and Mexico. There is no common thread to the vandalism (some of them are not even insults; some are pro-Russian, some are anti-Russian) and the addresses come from all over the world. It's not one person. --Haemo (talk) 20:40, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
It clearly is not. Just a quick glance at a few of those edits and I see 2 edits in the United States, 1 in Canada, 1 in Great Britain, and 1 in Estonia. All one person? I don't think that's quite right. Also, I have taken out on of the diffs because it's clearly not a vandal edit. Metros (talk) 20:41, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Anyone run the IPs through TORstatus? Relata refero (talk) 22:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yeah; I did a TOR check on a few. Didn't see anything. --Haemo (talk) 01:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, if those are different people, which i doubt since today with programs anyone can change his IP, could you at least make it that only registered user could edit the page? Most of the vandals are unsigned users and it will really make the thing better. No Free Nickname Left (talk) 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There's not enough recent vandalization to justify protecting it. The vandalistic edits aren't frequent enough. Metros (talk) 13:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside perspective re: Johnny Sutton please[edit]

In a discussion over at Johnny Sutton, administrator Irishguy has been consistently removing the comments of one side of the discussion.

The latest has been reverted by Agamemnon2 here [52].

I have asked that Irishguy stop doing this [53]. My reasoning is that the current behavior of administrators and editors that have acted so far does nothing to lower the temperature of the debate in an already contentious subject. Continual behavior like this is inevitably going to either provoke someone into doing something wrong, or else is going to drive one side of the discussion away.

Given the nature of the discussion and the fact that the page is locked, I have seen bad behavior on both sides of the aisle. I have attempted to speak up to ask those involved to calm down and look rationally and reach a compromise (please see [54] and note that the first section is not my edits but merely restoring Irishguy's ill-advised deletion of comments) but so far, Irishguy has refused to speak on the talk page.

He also appears to have been involved in editing the article (or at least reverting it) as well as having blocked someone with the claim of sockpuppetry, the evidence of which is that a user reverted to a previous version by another user, which is odd given that Wikipedia provides the History tool for precisely that purpose. It is also worth noting that only one side of the argument has been sanctioned for edit warring, despite both sides being involved in it.

For the moment, I am going to assume good faith and presume the least dangerous explanation, which is that Irishguy has gotten a bit too close to the subject matter and a bit overzealous and perhaps needs cool-down time.

Any outside perspectives that could be brought would be greatly appreciated. There appears to be a great deal of work that needs to be done, especially since there are rapid updates in the ongoing case of Sutton vs various border patrol agents (including an appellate court hearing scheduled for December in the cases of agents Ramos and Compean), and that cannot happen as long as this behavior continues from either side. As the situation currently stands, the article is unfortunately locked in a very un-encyclopedic state.

Kudos to Irishguy for following the unbreakable tenets of WP:BLP and for refusing to kowtow to a slew of single purpose accounts with an agenda. His removals of personal attacks should be applauded. Corvus cornixtalk 01:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that the article is becoming more a right-wing soapbox and less an encyclopaedic biography. There's already far too much weight given to his cases than there is to him. Irishguy's reputation is that of a fair-minded admin with no axe to grind, his actions on this article do nothing to change that. --WebHamster 01:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

FixtheBorder, BorderGuard3022, and FriendofBorderPatrol all reverted to that same version as well as call other editors liars repeatedly for reverting them. [55] [56] [57] [58] They were single purpose accounts that did nothing more than push their website and their own agendas. I haven't edited that article beyond reverting the BLP violations and have no personal opinion of the article subject at all. IrishGuy talk 02:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

  • I note that the rather obvious puppets are now blocked, and FixtheBorder's unblock request makes a good case for this person being congenitally unable to comply with Wikipedia policy. After his one week block expires, my money is on further disruption and insults Guy (Help!) 10:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure what to do[edit]

Resolved

Matter is being looked into by authorities, nothing left to report here. — Save_Us_