Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive343

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

User:AeronPrometheus[edit]

This user is re-adding prod templates after I remove them. --NE2 22:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

The discussion is currently here - from AeronPrometheus's comments, I think there is possibly some confusion between proposing deletion and listing at AfD. Addhoc (talk) 23:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Was this really an ANI grade problem? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't think so. In other news, AeronPrometheus reported NE2 to WP:AIV, which obviously led to the report being rejected. Addhoc (talk) 23:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I've taken similar issues here in the past, and sometimes asked if this was an appropriate place with a positive response. Where else would I take it? It was quickly approaching 3RR, and I don't know if removing prods is an acceptable "excuse" for breaking 3RR. --NE2 00:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
It looked like it was posted here before there was enough time for them to reply on their talk page and discuss there, though they seem to have missed that for a bit during the reverting.
If they'd refused to talk or kept doing obstinate things for longer then sure, here's fine. But this seems like it was still in an early stage. I figure this is where we come if AGF and patience failed, or in case of serious urgent emergency... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 01:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with George, and notified the user. A bit premature. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
NE2 ignored repeated invitations to discuss the matter as adults. I looked up the proper procedure for this particular issue and reported is as advised by the help pages. Removal of a proposal without any reason given and refusal to discuss matter properly after being given repeated chances to was classified as vandalism so I treated it as such. My infraction, as it is being viewed, was brought to light by other members and I have agreed to back off. However NE2 seems to have gone to a lot of trouble to make this an issue that wouldn't have existed had he too followed the rules. Thank you to the other member of Wikipedia involved for being supportive and informative. AeronPrometheus (talk) 07:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

You must recover[edit]

I've just seen two different pages vandalized by several unrelated IPs, a new user, and a sleeper account with the text "You must recover." Has Colbert organized a new assault on Wikipedia or something? This just doesn't make sense to me. Someguy1221 (talk) 23:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

What pages? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Masahiro Sakurai and Super Smash Bros. Brawl so far (the former is helping create the latter, so maybe not unrelated?). Someguy1221 (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Fairly small number of distinct IPs related, it appears, i'm semiprotecting pages for a week and blocking the IPs for a week. If more show up let us know here. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 00:01, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I suspect this is a vandal reference to yesterday's Smash Bros. DOJO!! update, where a "Team Healer" item was revealed. Colbert hasn't been running new material for a while. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 08:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

UK v Britain[edit]

Resolved

75.70.133.186 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has some kind of a vendetta against the name United Kingdom. He's going around articles changing it to Britain, which is a disambiguation page and not to be linked to. One of his first edits was to erroneously alter the name of a book cited in a footnote. He ignored a note on his talk page asking him politely to stop linking to dab pages. He has made over thirty edits to Timeline of World War II, none of them helpful, including removing relevant information regarding the UN. No single edit is clear-cut vandalism, but the entire corpus, taken as a whole, seems to indicate some kind of agenda against Wikipedia policies. He has almost no edits that are not of this character. --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 09:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP vandal hasn't edited since yesterday, so hopefully this is a dead issue now. Please file a new report if the behavior starts up again. Ioeth (talk contribs friendly) 14:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Time and date of his last edit: 02:24, 20 December 2007, twelve hours before you posted this comment. Seems a little soon, to me, to assume that he's stopped. Anyway, he's gotten one very mild comment and one severe warning, so if you think I should, I'll wait and see if it starts up again. And do you consider this vandalism? I think it could be argued that it's good faith, but misguided.--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 15:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

LOLMAX (talk · contribs)[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.

Is it possible to get some more eyes on User talk:LOLMAX? Ever since people have been putting vandalism warnings on his page, he's been blanking them ([1], [2], [3], [4]) despite the fact that he's either not read them or is blatantly disregarding them ([5], [6]). -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 16:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

If he vandalizes after a final warning, it doesn't matter if the warning is present on the page or not. It is inappropriate to keep re-adding them after they have been removed, and I have re-blanked the page. I have noted this user on WP:AIV though, so that if they vandalize again it is known they had a final warning —Random832 16:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any vandalism since the LOL edit. How is this blatantly disregarding the warnings? And anyway, editors look at the talk page history to determine appropriate warning level or reports, right? Gimmetrow 16:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How is this not just a pure vandal account? Reported to AIV. Look at his main space edits. Blanking, adding the word flatulence, adding his own name to articles since December 3rd. Lawrence Cohen 16:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And he's blocked. Lawrence Cohen 16:49, 20 December 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.

Ferrylodge[edit]

Resolved

Ferrylodge (talk · contribs) is editing once again. Taking a look at this user's block log, it appears that he was banned on 2007-09-21 by community consensus, block implemented by FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs). Ferrylodge was unblocked on 2007-10-08 by Y (talk · contribs) with the following note: "To appeal community ban to ArbCom. Edits to any page other than ArbCom pages and relevant user talk pages will result in an immediate re-blocking." Ferrylodge is now definitely editing outside of the ArbCom pages. I cannot find a reference to his ban being overturned but it may well have been. Anyone know what is going on? If his ban really was overturned by ArbCom, perhaps could someone issue a one second block to make note of this in his block log? --Yamla (talk) 17:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ferrylodge#Ferrylodge to be unblocked.-Andrew c [talk] 17:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I just found that as well. I'll add a brief note to this user's block log. --Yamla (talk) 17:36, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for adding the note, Yamla.Ferrylodge (talk) 17:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm asking for some comments on this user. This user has repeatedly made significant changes to articles without consensus, altering active articles to his preferred version, despite several warnings [7] [8] [9] - these are just a short selection of his repeated changes to active articles, reverting them to his preferred version. He has received countless warnings and notices on his talk page, which he simply ignores and continues. I think a block is in order here, as his repeat reverting an editing without consensus despite warnings is becoming extremely annoying. Qst 13:14, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Haven't got the time to properly look at this now, but judging by this talk page we may also have a problem with unfair fair use here. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 18:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I may be one of the few people here who don't know the show, but edits 1 & 3 above seem pretty good edits, and the second one very much the opposite. I think the sequence is he makes a good simplifying edit, gets reverted, then tries to make a point by making things a great deal too complicated, gets reverted with an edit summary "this is the last straw" , and then tries to make a similar good simplifying edit. If this is a sample, it looks like he could improve some of the plot summaries. Some but not all of his most recent edits seem OK also. What's wrong with [10] or [11] ? DGG (talk) 20:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but he has been asked repeatedly not to do this, I rewrote the plot on Stewie Loves Lois when the article was pretty much dead; he then made minor edits, slowly changing it back to how it used to be, I rewrote it further for when it had its GA nomination, and once again, he repeatedly began reverting to his preferred version. Qst 20:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This user has frequently defied warnings about adding frivolous content, yet he continues to add nonsense to several articles including: [12] and [13]. The number of times he edits his sections and the amount of change is pretty significant, borderline original research. The Family Guy article contains a note for users to explicitly NOT add the section about a feature film series. He defied that note and added it anyways.Milonica (talk) 03:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand your comment, Milonica, & looking into what happened only confuses things further. First, it appears you are talking about Immblueversion, not Qst -- correct? (You have an unclear referent in your paragraph.) Second, the first edit you point to merely formats an existing footnote, while the second adds a extrenal link (which I did not verify) to a page at a newspaper site about the feature film series. That edit then is a content dispute, unless there is a note about not adding a section about a feature film series, in which case it could be arguably disruption -- but not vandalism. Which leads to my third point -- where is this note that explicitly asks users "NOT [to] add the section"? I looked on the pages you linked to, & found no trace of this on either Talk page. Please explain. -- llywrch (talk) 21:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I am talking about Immblueversion, and to help explain what is going on, the note about "not" adding the section should be in the actual article itself (if it wasn't deleted by another user). It can only be seen when making changes to the actual Family Guy article, visible underneath the "Feature Film" section. Also, the talk page for Family Guy does have a section about the film right here. I agree the edits are not vandalism but merely a disruption. Hope that helps clear this up. Milonica (talk) 01:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. It is far more persuasive to explain the matter as carefully as possible. -- llywrch (talk) 04:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin[edit]

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

I'm interested in hearing from administrators in relation to this user, who has been editing tendentiously on Satanic Ritual Abuse and Recovered Memory Therapy for some time. The user has consistently failed to AGF in relation to editors that do not share his POV. He has accused others of being sockpuppets, lying and falsifying information.

Particularly concerning is his pattern of stalking and harrassing another editor, Abuse truth. I've asked that he cease this pattern of behaviour but it has continued[14]. He has followed Abuse truth from one article to another ("I followed Abuse truth's trail of inappropriate spam here from his disreuptive edits on other articles")[15] whilst blocking dozens of Abuse truth's edits without seeking consensus[16] or establishing a any basis for the constant reverts. When challenged by Abuse truth, he admits that he is reverting AT's changes on 'suspicion' that AT is lying about his sources ("I have no idea whether you're accurate when quoting hard-copy")[17]. He has also accused me of being Abuse Truth's sockpuppet [18].

Recently, he deleted info posted by Abuse truth stating "I don't believe AT understands the concept of truth"[19]. He has also claimed that Abuse truth cannot speak English [20] and later claimed that Abuse truth is lying about his competency in English [21].

Rubin takes a particular interest in articles relating to child sexual abuse, and his POV on these matters is clear. As his userpage states, he believes that the False Memory Syndrome Foundation is "scientific, unbiased, and in support of children" [22]. It is clear that Rubin seeks to entrench this POV within the articles that he edits, and he has a particularly elastic approach to assessing credibility. In two instances where a source that supports his POV has been demonstrated as unreliable (for instance, by the substantiation of that sources link to a pro-paedophile organisation [23] or the False Memory Syndrome Foundation[24]) he claims that a "severely biased" source is not "necessarily unreliable", whilst elsewhere, he deleted information from a newspaper article on the basis that the newspaper itself was somehow "discredited" [25], and he supported an attempt to remove a reference to a book by a tenured professor on the basis of the political orientation of the book's publication house. [26]

It looks to me as though Rubin meets all the criteria for wiki-stalking and tendentious editing. A number of editors have expressed concern about his conduct on RMT and SRA but he has yet to modify his approach to the articles, or cease his attacks on Abuse Truth. Any advice or assistance would be welcomed. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 00:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In my experience, User:Abuse truth is a fairly provocative editor who makes a habit of pushing his POV as far as he can get away with. He is not deliberately disruptive, but many of his contributions are prejudicial, lack sources, or are sourced to (say) the "Leadership Council on Mental Health, Justice, and the Media", a small and fairly controversial group of therapists who work in the area that used to be called "Multiple-personality disorder", or to Feminista!, the online "Journal of feminist art, literature, social commentary and philosophy." To say nothing of his rather "aggressive" username (with concomitant double entendre). Reviewing his contribution logs, and reverting or discussing where appropriate, would not necessarily be out of line. <eleland/talkedits> 00:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
this topic has, not surprisingly, a long history of this sort of behaviour on all sides. As neither believes the opponents are acting in GF in the RW, what can be expected? I know I could not edit there on a neutral way, so I don't try to. DGG (talk) 01:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Eleland, it is not appropriate for you, or Rubin, to regularly review an editors contribution logs and revert dozens of changes en masse. Rubin has achnowledged that he undertakes this activity on suspicion that AT is lying or misrepresenting offline sources, but he has yet to actually demonstrate that this is the case.
AT is an inexperienced editor, and your confrontational approach to AT, and Rubin's pattern of harrasment, constitutes a failure of either of you to AGF and work collaboratively with him so that he's more effective in the future. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd like also like to draw admin attention to the two complaints have been made recently about Arthur Rubin's conduct on the RMT and SRA pages here [27] and [28]. --Biaothanatoi (talk) 01:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

As a courtesy, you should have left a message on Arthur's page about this report on WP:AN/I. It is quite novel for inexperience to be used to excuse poor editing by a new editor (adding unsourced material, removing sourced material) and to condemn the inevitable remedies from experienced editors/administrators as harrassment and wikistalking. You yourself have recently had your own contretemps with Arthur [29] over WP:BLP. Mathsci (talk) 09:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Abuse truth is a single purpose account, my first assumption was that they were an anonymous user to "Abuse the Truth". Their single purpose is to alter every article on child abuse, repressed memories, and articles on people who supported the concept that the day care abuse hysteria of the 1980s was a panic. AT has has been smearing the author of a book, Paul Eberle, and removing text that references the book, and heavily editing the Elizabeth Loftus article to discredit her. AT's tactics are to use fringe material and overwhelm the article with tendentious text. Most of the sources he has been using have been coming from a website called "Stop Mind Control and Abuse" see here [mind control and Abuse]. Although AT denies using the site, they have cut and pasted a typo from the site. The Associated Press articles they have been using only exist at that website and the text was verbatim, including typos. Thats why Arthur Rubin has been suspicious of sources used by AT. AT denied using this website but at least four references used in an article only exist at that site, and a typo was cut and paste from the site. Here is an example of AT using smear tactics to discredit the author of a book used as a source in the article: [[30]] by adding text to an article that uses Eberle as a reference. AT also relies on prosecutorial accusations made during trials and gives undue weight to those accusations. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 18:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Abuse truth (talk · contribs) looks like exactly the sort of tendentious single-purpose account-with-an-agenda that we should be a little more aggressive about restraining. Given this editor's contribution history, screening his/her edits for policy violations across multiple articles is hardly Wikistalking. MastCell Talk 19:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Indiejade, 76.230.237.117 and COI[edit]

This user (and her anonymous associate; let's be generous and assume she'd forgotten to log in) have been hitting open source, open-source software and free and open source software with an extlink to her site for the last week. A sample counterargument for leaving these links in from her talk page:

Are you writing your tirades from Internet Explorer in a Microsoft Operating System?

Anyway, yeah, it's not vandalism, but it is obvious COI and it's beginning to get annoying. Talk isn't getting anywhere. Chris Cunningham (talk) 01:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I find the best way to stop this type of nonsense is to blacklist the website. That will put an end to the whole tirade. Consider a report at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard as well. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I realized that WP:COIN isn't appropriate. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
If any further explanation about the logic behind the link contribution is needed, I'll be happy to offer it. If user ChrisCunningham read my question as a 'personal attack,' I do apologize . . . there was absolutely no intention for my question to be read as anything but a simple question, and it certainly wasn't directed at him directly. Read it in context. Seriously, people. Who really stands to benefit from a removal of the link? Perpetual Microsoft-fanboys, yes, but the article topic is open-source. Where is the actual discussion on this from the opposing side? Indiejade (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade and 76.230.237.117 are clearly the same user. The link was first added on 2007-12-15 by the anon, and has since been re-added serveral times by both of them. So yes, let's be generous about Indiejade forgetting to log in, but also, let's consider a block for violating the three revert rule on Free and open source software yesterday. RossPatterson (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Indiejade has been told both politely and more strenously that their website doesn't contribute to the articles that they have been adding it to. As I've explained to them:

Your website does not belong as an external link in Wikipedia articles. It adds nothing encyclopedic to them, it has very little content, and nothing significantly original. Please do not add it to any more articles. RossPatterson (talk) 18:29, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Indiejade revision of 14:29, 16 December 2007
Please explain what content at zentu.net is significant, notable, or not available at better-known and well-established sites. I followed every link I could find and looked at every page and observed none. The site is nothing more than collection of links to various open source projects, and not a particularly good one at that. Until it becomes something significant, please refrain from adding it to articles on Wikipedia. RossPatterson (talk) 21:21, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Indiejade revision of 17:21, 16 December 2007
The Wikipedia article List of open source software packages does a much better job of categorizing and enumerating packages than your website does. It also has both the advantage of being part of Wikipedia and of linking to the many package articles Wikipedia already contains. As a rule, Wikipedia prefers internal links to other articles over external links. RossPatterson (talk) 22:03, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
User talk:Indiejade revision of 18:03, 16 December 2007

After that I stood down, because it was becoming obvious that Indiejade was unable to discuss the issue and would continue to re-add the link endlessly. RossPatterson (talk) 02:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm being harassed by my old account[edit]

Resolved

When I first started editing wikipedia, I used the username User:Senang Hati but requested a rename after policies were pointed out to me. The rename was performed by User:Nichalp (17:10, 13 April 2007) [31], whom I've just notified of this incident. The account seems to have been resurrected to troll me concerning some of my more recent edits about the notability of things like tv episodes and characters as well as Dungeons and Dragons articles. I have commented extensively on the current arbitration case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters mostly on the workshop page.

The new incarnation of User:Senang Hati is tagging articles that I originally created such as Senang Hati Foundation with clean-up tags and has now nominated it for deletion Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Senang Hati Foundation. I would appreciate folks looking into this. Thanks, Jack Merridew 05:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

addendum: The same pattern is repeating on Smile Foundation of Bali; Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smile Foundation of Bali. --Jack Merridew 05:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

All fixed. East718 had already blocked your impersonator, and I've reverted and protected your former talk and user pages to point to your new ones. — Coren (talk) 06:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm wondering what should happen to the two AfDs that were started:
--Jack Merridew 06:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm especially concerned because with the redirect to my current user name these appear to have been initiated by me. --Jack Merridew 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
No need to worry, I've speedily closed them as bad faith noms (and reverted the mess of templates on the articles themselves). — Coren (talk) 06:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

He's back as Special:Contributions/71.212.42.88 - and I reverted him. --Jack Merridew 09:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now at: Special:Contributions/88.112.61.33 --Jack Merridew 10:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Finland... --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And at Special:Contributions/90.9.220.148 --Jack Merridew 10:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I see that 90... is in France, so he's brought in friends. I suggest that Senang Hati Foundation and Smile Foundation of Bali be protected for a day or two. --Jack Merridew 10:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Special:Contributions/87.65.176.152 (Belgium). This is probably being discussed on some off wiki-forum - 4chan? to bring on an assault of vandals. This has frequently happened to my user page; see the page history for tons of reverts of vandalism. I believe this is tit-for-tat for clean-up tagging of D&D stuff rather than tv Episode and Character stuff. --Jack Merridew 10:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/82.27.237.61 (UK) --Jack Merridew 10:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And Special:Contributions/24.205.138.236 (St. Louis) --Jack Merridew 10:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yup, 4chan; see [32] --Jack Merridew 10:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

s-Protecting the pages for a month.RlevseTalk 11:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
s-protected User talk:Jack Merridew for a short time as your talk page is being hit as well. — ERcheck (talk) 12:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • We should probably get a 'crat to forcibly rename the old account, the users blatantly used it because Jack changed names. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    I'm really surprised that this was even doable. I expected the old name to still somehow be 'taken'. If this happened once, it must have happened before... and should be prevented in the future. nb: Special:Contributions/Senang_Hati are edits that I did not make yet the user and talk pages point at me. --Jack Merridew 12:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    • I'm fairly sure it's not doable any more - it's happened before and I think that account creation is blocked for renamed users post a certain date. I could be wrong however. I'll have a word with a 'crat. Ryan Postlethwaite 12:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    If it's possible I would like the impersonator's edits disassociated from my name. I don't, however, see quite how that might work. --Jack Merridew 13:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    It was still doable recently - I had to recreate and protect my old account when I renamed. BLACKKITE 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
    You could move the account to something like User:Senang Hati (usurped) then create the account again in your name. Would need a crat to agree though. Woody (talk) 14:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
What you would want to do is have a 'crat rename the impersonator's account from Senang Hati to Senang Hati impersonator or Hati impersonator vandal or something similar. (The 'crat should chooose a name that makes clear that the impersonator isn't the original person, and isn't related to the Senang Hati Foundation.)
As soon as the account is renamed, Jack Merridew (or a 'crat, or someone else responsible) can recreate the Senang Hati account to ensure that another obnoxious individual doesn't snag it. Presto—the nasty edits are no longer associated with Jack or the Senang Hati account. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:08, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yep, that's what I said. The WP:BN would be the best place for it. Woody (talk) 15:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Obeoboy again[edit]

Per my previous report here, Oboeboy (talk · contribs) has come back off his previous block and has simply started adding the anti-death penalty petition to talk:Capital punishment again. Could someone try and explain things to him. Thanks. David Underdown (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for a second time. He sees nothing wrong with this despite the explanation to him which is as clear as it's going to get. Since I believe he'll just keep doing it, I've blocked him for 48 hours to prevent him from doing it again for a bit. Metros (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I reverted one of his earlier edits here at Day, but the unsourced information (an argument for biblical justification of the theory of evolution) was re-added by an IP here. Could this user be evading a block? And is this worth taking to Checkuser? ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
There was also a pair of edits to Pythian Castle by Oboeboy and the IP, where the IP added a POV section to the lead, and then Oboeboy copyedited it. It might be that he forgot to log in, but then again...? The diff is here. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Lurkers[edit]

Moved to Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). --Solumeiras talk 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it is a good essay - could an admin advise as to what would be an appropriate place to invite comments? DuncanHill (talk) 18:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Babytoysfor bill[edit]

Resolved: account blocked by User:Flyguy649. Tiptoety (talk) 22:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles Mordechai Levy and Jewish Defense Organization were both semi-protected because of persistent deletions by an anonymous editor. Now a new account, User:Babytoysfor bill, is making the same deletions, so I think that account should be blocked. --Leatherstocking (talk) 21:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Note-The account has been blocked. Tiptoety (talk) 22:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Good faith cut & paste for Jingū of Japan[edit]

I've encountered a good faith editor who did a cut & paste move for Jingū of JapanEmpress Jingu. I reverted this, and requested him to read WP:RM and Help:Moving a page.

He must be a new editor, and might be unwilling to listen to me. Can one of you please follow through and see to it that he moves the page correctly? Thank you.--Endroit (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

According to Ooperhoofd‎, that page has links to (or from) multiple articles:

Somebody may need to go in and clean this all up.--Endroit (talk) 22:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I renamed the page in correct way, since it is in consistency with all other Japanese emperors/empresses. `'Míkka>t 22:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin take a look at this image, and it's placement at 9/11 conspiracy theories[edit]

Resolved

Questionable Image

There are a couple of issues here, in my opinion. First, there's the copyright problem. Does this image even belong on Wikipedia. Then, there's the caption used at the 9/11 CT page about it showing the "fireworks" that brought down the WTC. Seems very POV to me. Thoughts? Mr Which??? 01:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Send to Misc. for deletion. Bearian (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Do you have a link for that? I've participated in AfD, but not sure where to find MfD. Also, would it be acceptable to classify the addition of such an iffy image as "vandalism", and revert on sight? If not, what would you recommend, as I've removed it once, and he reinserted it? Mr Which??? 01:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to show the actual explosives, nothing else, and the link is http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=6498070204870579516 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talkcontribs) 01:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC) And how can I know if it's copyrighted or not ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dim386 (talkcontribs) 01:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Copyright is everything for WP images. And the moving photo shows nothing like what you claim in the caption. It shows white flashes inside of a superimposed circle. Mr Which??? 01:41, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
It's copyrighted; it's footage from a documentary produced by 911 Eyewitness, and is therefore copyrighted under an non-free license unless specifically released under a free license or into the public domain. I've fixed the caption so that it's more reflective of neutral point of view. --Haemo (talk) 01:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
If it's copyrighted, and non-free, should it be speedied? Mr Which??? 01:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's copyrighted, but it might be released under a free license. It's currently tagged for "semi-speedy deletion" which should give people time to try and confirm the license status. --Haemo (talk) 02:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Can we call this {{Resolved}} then, pending the semi-speedy? Mr Which??? 02:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Seems resolved until then, yeah. Thanks for pointing it out. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination)[edit]

Could an uninvolved admin please reverse the non-admin closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Frogs in popular culture (2nd nomination), which was only open for one day? Corvus cornixtalk 03:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Done. --Golbez (talk) 03:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25[edit]

Resolved: User indef blocked Snowolf How can I help? 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Crawdad25 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Needs blocking. Obvious sock of User:Crawdad23, etc, all of which have been indef. blocked. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done, indef blocked. Snowolf How can I help? 04:52, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for more eyes related to Easter Rising and Tom Clarke (Irish republican)[edit]

There has been an edit war going on between (amongst others), User:Domer48, and admin User:R. fiend on the above articles. Domer DID violate 3RR on Easter Rising, and R fiend did block Domer, despite being in an edit war with him (I don't doubt the validity of the block, but there is no way that R fiend should be blocking someone he's in active editing conflict with, which R fiend apparently sees no problem with). The situation has since devolved, with R fiend violating Civility and personal attack guidelines with statements like this and this.

There are two reports on WP:3RR by Domer about R fiend, one about Easter Rising, which Luna has since protected due to the edit war, and now about Tom Clarke (Irish republican) the first one was determined to be 3 reverts total, and the second one I'm not sure of (I can't be the one to do any blocks here). With some of the usual suspects chiming in (including User:Aatomic1 inciting R fiend to place Domer on an ArbCom enforced probation remedy here, I'm requesting that admins cut this incipient war off at the knees before it devolves into the situation that previously led into the uber-fan (dripping with sarcasm) "The Troubles" ArbCom case. SirFozzie (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

CORRECTION: I did not block Domer for 3RR on Easter Rising. It was for a separate article (Segi) I was not edit warring in. That block has been upheld by numerous other admins. -R. fiend (talk) 19:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction, R. fiend. The block was upheld (as I said, he did violate 3RR), but several people have mentioned to you that you shouldn't be blocking people you are in active confrontation with, even if it's on another article SirFozzie (talk) 19:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
This tiff is a bit silly. Both editors have sources on their sides; However the most recent work is by Charles Townshend and is the best and most up to date source. Perhaps the editors should both check that out. The argument seems to be about whether Clarke was in the Irish Volunteers and the extent of the secret society the IRB's invovlement in the 1916 Rising. In this case R. fiend is incorrect in his POV. User:Domer48is more correct re the IRB role. The IRB had different motives to the Volunteers and did not at the last moment believe that they could win. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
See Townshend, Charles Easter 1916: The Irish Rebellion Opiumjones 23 (talk) 19:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think we agree more than it seems, actually. In any case, this discussion belongs on the Talk:Easter Rising page. Care to get involved there? -R. fiend (talk) 20:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Having previously been involved in edit conflicts with Domer48 myself, I don't need to check the article histories to believe that he violated 3RR to preserve an Irish Republican viewpoint. That said, I agree that blocking him yourself was not appropriate. File a 3RR report and let an uninterested party enforce the policy. Dppowell (talk) 20:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I endorse SirFozzie's approach here. All parties need to remain calm and focus on improving the article(s). R. fiend needs to be careful about blocking editors he is in conflict with; next time getting an uninvolved admin to review and block if necessary would be better.--John (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My dealings with this editor have been very unpleasant. On the Kevin Barry article they abuse their admin tools , and then had to be warned about it. They follow me to the Segi and start there, adding thing to referenced text. They then go and block me]. Admin John was decent enough to provide the diff's. While other editors noted the COI, which is an abuse of admin tools, Fozz was the only one who would agreed that the Diff's did show they were for [different things]. I did not even get put on a 3rr report. I reported them for a 3 rr same situation, and they walk away from it. Now it has got to the stage were Fozz gave them a strong Fozz warning, which they ignore, and tell John to to leave it in. Regardless of all this they still can not be civil. It was as a result of being here that I learn that they have a history of this. Another Admin had to step in on Patrick Pearse. They Block on another editor, and thought light of it. And have been pulled judging from a page littered with civility. Now they have followed me to more articles Irish Volunteers Sean Huston. Having filed another 3 rr I notice they still have not been blocked for edit warring. And still the abuse gose on. To top it all of they abuse their admin tool now to edit an article which is protected with no agreement reached, and dispite being warned not to. It over to you now to sort this out, because what can I do. --Domer48 (talk) 20:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Ah come on he is editing a protected page after being warned not too by the admin who put template on see Domers statement above. He seems to be on a rampage disregarding warnings and the 3RR rule today BigDunc (talk) 20:43, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
So he was specifically requested by Luna to NOT edit a protected page because he was in an edit war, but did so anyway? Is that what I'm reading? I thought if an admin was in an edit war, they shouldn't be editing the page period, even if they claim it's a change worked out with the other party. I have to research what happened (and if Domer actually agreed to the change he made), but this smacks of REALLY bad form to me right now. SirFozzie (talk) 20:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notice the way they slipped their POV into the edit, while supposed to be removing a sentence. Bad form, bang out of order. --Domer48 (talk) 21:19, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a Joke, look at his buddy on the Irish Volunteers article now. Weasel word, POV and spouting I have a PhD. Will I ask for a reference, or take the usual advice, just walk away and let them get on with it. --Domer48 (talk) 21:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
For now, let other eyes have a chance to look at it. --John (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the Easter Rising article edit, I'm really disappointed in R. fiend's actions. I am very tempted to revert back to the post-protection version, but considering that would be a wheel war, I need to ask for consensus. Does anyone have a problem with undoing that edit, especially considering his edit summary states that it's a compromise worked out with Domer on the talk page, and it's now apparent that it's not? And would any one have a problem with full protecting Irish Volunteers? This is threatening to spiral out of control, and I think needs to full-stop NOW, before we head off to ArbCom again. SirFozzie (talk) 21:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unless someone can point out a problem with the edit (so far no one has) there is no reason to revert to the inferior version. But I'm open to discussion. It should probably take place on the article's talk page, however. -R. fiend (talk) 21:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This comment is condescending tripe, and I view it as a breach of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. They done the same thing on Segi article. Now lets stick with what I'm used to, page protect it on their version. In fact page protect every article on WP: IR. The diff is there to show that the edit on the Easter Rising article was wrong. The edits on Irish Volunteers are wrong. Referenced information is removed, and replaced with POV. It is obvious no one want to use the policies, so whats the point me quoting them. --Domer48 (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Domer, you did notice that the diff you provided describes an edit made by a different editor? If not, or if this comment was made in error, you might want to adjust your comment above. --John (talk) 22:14, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

No John, its the right link, check the Segi article. They are getting brought into this as well now. Now that said are they breaching our policies on WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. --Domer48 (talk) 22:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've no apologies to make. I know what history is and how it should be written. I believe I've improved the SEGI and Irish Volunteer articles. Indeed I was thanked for the copyediting on the former.[33] Nobody else has complained about my behaviour, which is something you cannot claim. You really need to look yourself here. Who is attracting controversy from so many quarters? Who is involved in a permanent state of reverting? Who believes that his references are of greater importance to all others? Who believes that "referenced material" cannot be altered in any way?--Damac (talk) 22:21, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Not that I'm sure it will help his case much, but I am in full agreement with Damac here. -R. fiend (talk) 22:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the advice of John, I'll let the Wiki admins sort it, and I do know some of them don't like editors blowing smoke up their... Kind Regards --Domer48 (talk) 22:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Its a contensious area of history. Emotions should calm!!!! Read the books!!! Argue it on the talk pages before edits. This won't stop without mediation and in the end someone will change again !!!!! read the current litreture and merge with older ideas and versions for a truly good article. PS both editors have 3RR violations but they should be encouraged to speak to each other. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 22:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I use referenced sources, not comment or opinion. But thanks for the advice re the book. Now as to the 3rr, ye I did make a report but no admin seem to want to take it on. Though I got blocked without a report on a bum rap, but that was ok to. --Domer48 (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Your sources were good. It is a matter of digging deeper when COI re POV occurs. The work exist to strongly side with you but the other user also has sources so a historiographical section should be included to show those diverging opinions. I teach this but even grads still have their bias. C'est le monde de l'research . Meda Ryan vs Peter Hart stuff. Take a break and come back with banging up to date refs and arguments based on published work.In the new year i can send you both v good bibliographies. PS was in the colour guard at the Liam Mellowes commemoration on the 9th in Castletown. Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:28, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Re 3RR both of you should mediate and try to avoids blocks by agreeing to that as you are both valuable if headstrong contributors.Opiumjones 23 (talk) 00:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thats sound Opiumjones, but this is all about the abuse of admin tools, and incivility by an admin. The content issue, I can deal with no problem. --Domer48 (talk) 08:49, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Serious case of article ownership[edit]

Resolved: No admin input required at this stage. Will continue to monitor. --John (talk) 17:58, 21 December 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.

User:DCGeist has totally dominated the punk rock article, so it is almost impossible to introduce necessary copy editing improvements and NPOV corrections. Almost all the edits to that article in the past several weeks (if not months) have been by him, and he pretty much automatically reverts most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity. I do not know if he is technically violating any specific Wikipedia rules, but he should definitely be asked to back off from that article a bit, since this is a serious case of WP:OWNERSHIP. I'm guessing that his behaviour has chased off a lot of good editors from contributing to that article. One major problem with the article is that it is full of opinionated quotes that are presented as if they are objective neutral fact. Another problem is informal, unencyclopedic wording and awkwardly-structured sentences. Another issue is that some of the sections suffer from list creep (in the form of paragraphs), of non-notable bands that don't even have Wikipedia articles. Any attempt to majorly address those flaws have been reverted by the editor mentioned above. Spylab (talk) 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the future, before making claims of "awkwardly-structured sentences," it might be helpful for you to familiarize yourself with standard American English style, in which "-ly" adverbial phrases are not hyphenated. You should also be experienced enough to know that the existence or absence of a Wikipedia article is no measure of "notability." The verifiable sources cited in the article establish each band's significance to the topic. As a largely underground movement in the United States, it is not surprising that many of the early punk rock bands outside the country's major media centers do not yet have articles written about them. The same is true for the redlinked bands from non-Anglophone countries.
As for the quality of the various edits of the article, I will direct other contributors' attention to my latest revert ([34]) of what I assume you believed to be your "necessary copy editing improvements." In fact, both of your edits detracted, if slightly, from the quality of the article. As noted in my edit summary, your desire to identify The Diodes et al. as "Other early Ontario punk bands" is unfounded, as no Ontario punk bands have previously been identified, just one protopunk band. Your desire to change "Punk rock was already beginning to give way there to the anarchic sound of what became known as No Wave" into "Punk rock was already beginning to give way in New York to a newer sound that became known as No Wave," is poor on several grounds. It is inaccurate--making a claim about New York in general, when the previous and now-restored version of the sentence described what was happening at CBGB specifically. It is unnecessarily redundant--mentioning New York for the second successive sentence. And it is less informative--the description "anarchic" telling the reader substantially more than "newer." I believe the record shows that many, though by no means all, of your edits are similarly poor or, at best, unnecessary.
As for ownership, the amount of work I've put into the article no more gives you the right to claim that I own it than it would give me that right. I preserve those edits that I believe improve the article, modify or revert those that don't, and attempt to explain in every case where explanation seems helpful or is asked of me. You will note, for instance, that I did not contest your edit removing the adjective "celebrated" from the description of D.O.A. and The Subhumans. I believe that adjective did serve a purpose--efficiently signaling which were the most notable of the scene's bands--but I accept the logic of that edit, as I did your perspective on the Bad Brains sentence (which I further edited and to which I restored the necessary period). I'm happy to address any further concerns that are posed here or on the article Talk page.—DCGeist (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
looking at the page history, not the quality of the edits, both parties seem very near WP:3RR by now. DGG (talk) 23:49, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
In response to DCGeist, it's not just about one or two edits, some of which have been justified; it's an ongoing pattern of dominating the article and reverting most changes by other editors, regardless of validity. In response to DGG, it is not true that I am close to reaching 3RR, as the edit history of that article clearly shows.Spylab (talk) 23:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do have some concerns too about DCGeist's well-meaning tendency to WP:OWN this article. Although he is a good writer and the article is also pretty good, I too was annoyed a while back when he reverted changes I made to bring the article into compliance with our policy on non-free image use, weasel words, and various MoS issues. You may see my detailed suggestions at Talk:Punk rock; there really must be a way to allow other editors to improve this article further without alienating DCGeist. See also the recent messages I left at User talk:DCGeist, both before and after I realised this was being discussed here. More input from sympathetic and experienced editors would be welcomed, at least by me. --John (talk) 02:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
As John knows, I do appreciate his concerns—while, of course, we agree on the best course in some instances and disagree in others. We do fully agree, on a conceptual level, in "allow[ing] other editors to improve this article further." Other editors bring both knowledge and perspectives that I do not. The issue is this: the well-meaning contributions of some editors tend to improve the article, while the well-meaning contributions of other editors tend to degrade it—perhaps subtly, but quite definably.
As I noted in the article's Talk page not long ago ([35]), Grant65 is an editor whose contributions, I believe, clearly improved the article. I have never corresponded with Grant65. I do not know who Grant65 is in real life. I do not have a clue if Grant65 is someone with whom I share many aesthetic, ideological, and semantic predilections or not. What I do know is this: Grant65's edits substantively enhanced the quality of the article. My response to his edits belies Spylab's claim that I "pretty much automatically rever[t] most changes by other editors, regardless of their validity." Indeed, as I've detailed above, my response to Spylab's own edits belies his claim. I believe my recent correspondence with Wwwhatsup on two separate issues (Talk:Punk rock#UK Proto and Talk:Punk rock#Leeway) and the edits that resulted also belie Spylab's claim, at least on a philosophical level (and check the latter thread to see what role my accuser played). In sum, I don't imagine that I do or could "own" punk rock. I do believe that I've dealt properly with Spylab's edits over the past months—i.e., in a way that best maintains and improves the article.—DCGeist (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with your first point; as I've said I think you are a good editor and a good writer, and that your intentions are good. I do think you revert too readily though, and that the article would potentially benefit stylistically from your taking a more laissez-faire attitude to it. I personally have been put off contributing to it by your zealous defence of your work. No big deal, as I said the article is pretty good and there are plenty of others to edit. Maybe as a couple of people have said these things to you now you can internalise some of it. All that said, this is hardly an issue needing admin attention and I propose archiving this, unless anybody else has anything to say. --John (talk) 06:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I'll a little concerned DCGeist that your response to WP:OWN complaints is "look, I didn't reverted this person because I liked what he did." That isn't the proper attitude to take. If someone else edits the article, you should let it be for a while and go back and discuss it later if you want. Everyone else shouldn't have to justify their edits to you. Either way, I haven't look extensively into this; nothing more than just a quick glance at this thread. I agree with John that this is a content dispute (which doesn't belong here) and you might want to consider WP:3O and the rest of dispute resolution options if there is a particular point of contention. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 21 December 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.

WP:FICT and personal attacks[edit]

WT:FICT can get pretty heated at times, but I felt this comment was in particularly bad taste, and removed it. (calling the page, and those who supported it "an idiotic circle jerk"). Another user had since replied to him, so as you can see in the diff, I left the a diff link that would show people what he said, but somewhat minimizing unneeded attention to the inappropriate comment. The comment has since been restored three times by other users who believe that comments should not be removed (the last one saying "I sympathize, but the most asinine of comments shouldn't be removed by 3rd parties"). Any help would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 05:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking carefully at the comment, I think it could be seen as a legitimate, if poorly-worded and impolite, expression of a user's frustration with the goings-on at what seems to be a rather contentious policy page. The "idiotic circle jerk" bit seems more like a comment aimed at characterizing process than characterizing people. Since it is actions that seem to be being commented upon and not individual editors, per se, I would leave the comment be and let the participants in that discussion respond to or ignore the comment as they see fit. {EDIT:] Looking further into a couple of other other incidents where The Norse (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) has gotten him/herself into trouble for similar trespasses against propriety, I think it's clear that these comments are not in the same class as the kind of deliberate trollings that would qualify for summary removal. It seems this user has a history of responding to perceived confrontation by getting confrontational, so perhaps a better response to the comment would be to politely contact the editor, let him or her know why it's a bad idea to characterize (most) Talk pages as idiotic circle jerks, and ask him or her to strike the comment him- or herself in the interests of keeping the peace. Just summarily removing the editor's contribution to the discussion, jagged as you may feel it was, might actually provoke more of the behavior you're trying to attenuate. --Dynaflow babble 06:00, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough. -- Ned Scott 07:13, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with the removal. Anchoress (talk) 06:08, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
He complained that the argument on the guideline has been going in a circle and getting nowhere, using an unfortunate metaphor. But everyone on both sides has been saying just that, and a RfC has been filed by the supporters to try to get additional people to look at it. Bad language, but not outrageous enough to be removable. Stands out a little, because everyone else has so far been reasonably polite, considering the degree of disagreement. DGG (talk) 14:59, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Curious Blue[edit]

This person is probably just bs-ing to waste other people's time, but a blocked account is claiming he has a sockpuppet at RfA. Fireplace (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The fact that one of his socks got caught in an autoblock would suggest to me he wasn't trying very hard to mask his activities by using proxies. So a checkuser (which has already been performed on him, but another could never hurt, I suppose) would probably have no trouble uncovering his good-hand account, if it even exists. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
All socks that were able to be found via checkuser have been blocked so he must be bluffing. John Reaves 09:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Rickdrew[edit]

Not sure what I to do with the user: [36], [37], and [38] could an uninvolved person check over these diffs and suggest an action to take. Thanks, VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 09:51, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Meh. Suggest suggesting he calm down a bit and take things less personally. He seems to be a new user who was just caught off guard by a new page patroller (and may have put the article up prematurely). It's not unusual for new people to react this way when this first happens. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 09:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I figured as much, but thanks for checking it. VivioFateFan (Talk, Sandbox) 11:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Destinyefine[edit]

Destinyefine (talk · message · contribs · page moves · edit summaries · count · api · logs · block log · email)
This user uploaded Image:Efine.jpg (history · last edit), a blatant copyright violation, both text and image, of non-notable Nigerian hip-hop artist E-fine and recently created the article E-fine (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (restore|cache|AfD) that User:Pegasus speedily delted per WP:CSD#A7. Destinyefine then vandalized Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Free licenses. (diff)
Would a Wikipedian experianced in these matters please advise what should be done in this situation? Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 11:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

On December 21, 2007 at 11:27, User:Angusmclellan deleted Image:Efine.jpg, per CSD G11, blatant advertising. (log). I've left a message on both admins’ userpages. Taric25 (talk) 17:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Technical glitches[edit]

Resolved: No admin action necessary.

There have been some weird goings-on here at Wiki lately. Yesterday, an individual diff I could clearly see had been made, failed to show up for several minutes on the mainpage, and I was not the only one to notice this very odd delay.

Just a few minutes ago I made a small edit on the RAF Fylingdales page, which was just the addition of the term "so-called" along with a couple of apostrophes - but the diff shows up as me having made a couple of dozen edits right through the article!

Is anyone else experiencing technical problems like these? In my opinion they are potentially quite serious, I wasn't sure of the best place to post about this so I thought I'd post it here. Gatoclass (talk) 13:40, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I haven't seen anything like that. Even if someone else was adding material as you were editing, there would have been some sort of edit conflict. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 13:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oops, egg on face, I think I know what must have happened on the previous edit. I think I may have opened an earlier version of the page and edited that without realizing it. That's what you get for staying up too late and failing to notice the red warning signs :)
The delay thing yesterday was weird though. I guess that just happens now and again, although I haven't experienced it before. Gatoclass (talk) 13:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I've certainly done that before - No worries. The worst is attempting to revert the last edit, and ending up reverting someone else's revert, so I ended up adding the vandalism back in. I thought maybe something happened here, where there had been an edit and your edit undid it, or something. Like I said, no problem. The lag on the other edit might just be a database thing - depending on time of day, there may have been some delay. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Leyla Pınar and User:TRWebmaster[edit]

I originally tagged the article Leyla Pınar for notability, and a case was made for her notability. So far, so good. But the article is a major mess, with the entire text of a lengthy interview with her (possibly copyrighted) and a mass of non-wikified material (I think I put in what few wikilinks the long article has). But the above-named editor has some kind of ownership thing going on (he[?] may, I suspect, also have a COI of some kind). Instead of improving the article, he simply deletes the "wikify" and other clean-up tags I've added, repeatedly, with no explanation in the summary. I even added a request for expert assistance, and he deleted that too. I've put a note on his talk page, to no avail. Could I get some backup here?--Orange Mike | Talk 15:06, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

The press review section was indeed copyvio, taken from this link. If it's the author's site (indicating the COI you suspect), or if the author has the rights to repost it, I see no evidence to support that. I've removed it and left a note on the article's talk page, as well as a warning at the user's page. ZZ Claims ~ Evidence 15:16, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Removed most of the text, given that it was taken verbatim from [39]. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 15:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161[edit]

Articles
Magnonimous has changed signatures for 24.36.201.161 to his own [40], so I'm assuming these are the same person. He's a WP:SPA that's been edit-warring in Coral calcium from his earliest edits. While his edits probably qualify for WP:AN/3RR, I thought it would be better to report here since the situation is complicated and involves WP:OWN and WP:FRINGE issues.
I'm an involved editor here. Once it became clear Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 was going to edit-war no matter what I said on the talk page, I've tried to restrict my edits to the talk page other than to tag problems and properly main tags. (Yes, some of the edit-warring is over tags). --Ronz (talk) 19:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Rebuttal Re
Magnonimous
User Ronz has overstepped WP:FANATIC guidelines 2-6 on repeated occasions. I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article. My contributions have been undermined repeatedly by outright deletions with questionable reasons. The fact that Ronz keeps coming up with new and creative ways to justify these deletions, leads me to believe that he is more concerned with blocking content that he disagrees with, than maintaining the integrity of the article. I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense, I do not currently subscribe to ownership of articles, but I do believe that complete deletion of contributions is not constructive to articles, and I may react accordingly. Magnonimous (talk) 19:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
"I believe Ronz may have used sockpuppetry to disguise some outright deletions of my contributions to the article." Please provide evidence for such, or remove the accusation. I've made no other edits to Coral calcium or Talk:Coral calcium, through another account, an ip, etc, nor have I asked anyone to do so. --Ronz (talk) 19:53, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I believe I have acted in an overly defensive manner at times. In my defense... Sweet Mother Irony, what would humor be without you? JuJube (talk) 23:08, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to forgoe some diffs here unless asked for, as Magnonimous's tiny contribution history (he only appeared just recently to push his content changes to Coral Calcium), as well as having all his edits confined to the article in question and its talk page, makes it very easy to see what he's been doing. Magnonimous is attempting to add content to Coral calcium on purported health benefits. The primary issue at the moment, in my opinion, is that these studies don't mention coral calcium. Rather, they are about calcium supplements in general. I've explained to him that making his claims about coral calcium constitutes content forking and original synthesis, but he has comitted to push his edits anyway, and doesn't see a problem [41]. He has also professed to be driven by a somewhat unusual conflict of interest [42]. Someguy1221 (talk) 20:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The only question is whether these studies can be applied to coral calcium; and the only difference between all calcium supplements is how much calcium is made available to the body. This amount, or percentage, is called elemental calcium. Example: "If a tablet contains 500 milligrams of calcium carbonate, it contains only 200 milligrams of elemental calcium. This is because only 40% of the calcium compound is elemental calcium". -Calcium Supplement Guidelines, VERONICA A. MULLINS, M.S., R.D. and LINDA HOUTKOOPER, PH.D., R.D.; [43] It's not: What amount of coral calcium provides health benefits?, it's that coral calcium provides health benefits. Magnonimous (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Additionally, There is prominent research that suggests that coral calcium is actually better than calcium carbonate for preventing colon cancer.[44] Calcium carbonate was used in the original study. Magnonimous (talk) 00:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
No. Nobody on this noticeboard cares for content disputes. Take it somewhere else. east.718 at 02:24, December 18, 2007


Continued edit-warring[edit]

Magnonimous continued to edit-war after commenting to this report, and after calling for a "TRUCE": [45]. --Ronz (talk) 02:59, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "TRUCE" applied to me and you only, and stipulated that both points of view be included in the article. Magnonimous (talk) 18:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
"I will agree not to add any more to the article." This clearly implies that I would not add more than I already had. Magnonimous (talk) 18:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
Magnonimous, while we do not care about content disputes, we do care about things like WP:3RR. The edit Ronz pointed above brings you a hair's breadth away from the electric fence of that policy. I strongly encourage you not to reinsert this material into this article again unless you can obtain a consensus on Talk: Coral calcium. -- llywrch (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Update[edit]

"

  1. 02:59, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents‎ (→User:Magnonimous/24.36.201.161 - continued edit-warring)
  2. 02:52, 18 December 2007 (hist) (diff) Talk:Calcium‎ (→Coral Calcium Merge - Oppose)

"

  • User Ronz enlists the help of a respected colleague: User Someguy1221 to help him resolve this edit war in his favor.
  • Someguy1221 Gives good advice including the fact that parts of this article may be a content fork.
  • User Magnonimous takes advice to heart, and proposes reintegration of content fork into main calcium article.
  • Ronz opposes proposal based on advice of his friend, and then proceeds to retaliate by claiming the edit war continues, in his tireless quest to ban his arch nemesis, who's only crime is to have a differing opinion, and to express it, with sources to back it up.

Magnonimous (talk) 06:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:AGF and stop wasting our time. Thanks --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are attempting to have me blocked. As in a court of law, I am allowed to call your character into question, to weaken your credibility, as it pertains to your objectivity in this matter. Magnonimous (talk) 17:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
You are operating under some severe misconceptions here. The administrators' noticeboard isn't a court of law, and "calling someone's character into question" is usually a personal attack, and can be a good way to get yourself blocked. --Carnildo (talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Now creating a content fork[edit]

While Magnonimous clearly understands what content forks are (Talk:Coral_calcium#Content_forking) he's decided to create one [46]. --Ronz (talk) 20:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And is now using this new article to continue his edit-warring [47] --Ronz (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I've boldly deleted the fork as a clear creation of a page to circumvent a discussion at an existing page. If anyone has strong reservations about this deletion, I would be willing to list it at AFD, but simply moving content that is being edit warred over to another article isn't a good way to deal with the core issue of the content. Please note this action is only based on WP:FORK and is no judgment on the content and it's worthiness to be at Coral calcium; that is a decision that should be reached on the article talkpage.--Isotope23 talk 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, is this chap doing anything constructive?[edit]

Or should we apply a topic-ban from anything related to calcium? Admittedly, he's only been here a week, but he's packed months of disruption into that brief time. Moreschi If you've written a quality article... 11:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

He's been editing since 5 December 2007 through the ip address. --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Defense[edit]

I don't believe this; all I ever did was try to balance this grossly biased article. And now you're all talking about banning me?? You've deleted my contribution. Deleted it again when I found sources for it. condemned me for even suggesting we should merge this obvious POV content fork back into calcium (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Rallied against me when I suggested a compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Confused me into creating a proper place for the POV content by not contesting my compromise (Talk:Calcium#Coral_Calcium_Merge). Deleted the new article even though it was balanced. And are now trying to have me banned for good.

It seems patently obvious that you aren't concerned with factual accuracy, neutrality, reliable sources, content forking, of the original content of the article. Only when I try to add something new. Could it be that you are averse to change??? Which is particularly stupid when you consider that this is a wiki, which changes constantly.

Or are you all just intolerant of other views that happen to conflict with your own. You obviously care about this wiki. You aren't overtly malicious. What is the motivation behind all this??? Magnonimous (talk) 14:20, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

This is a collaborative project. As such, collaborative behavior is prized. Editors whose activity is limited to advocating for a specific controversial viewpoint are not necessarily disruptive, but when such advocacy takes precedence over Wikipedia's policies or collaborative editing, then there is a problem. More simply, Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Change may very well be resisted when it is imposed by edit-warring and vitriol. Without commenting on the validity of your proposed changes, I would suggest taking a couple of days, reviewing some of the core policies, and remembering that there is no deadline. It is extremely unlikely that you will force your desired changes into the article by "winning" a war against the other editors there. It's much more likely you'll be able to incorporate your viewpoint if you discuss the issues at hand calmly and collaboratively, and pursue dispute resolution in the event of a problem. That's all the unsolicited advice I have for today. MastCell Talk 19:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Polbot[edit]

User:Quadell decided to expand the function of User:Polbot without getting permission to do so, without posting any notice on the bot's user page describing the fuction and without monitoring the edits to see if they were being done correctly. This is totally unacceptable behavior. The added function which was the addition and editing of FUR's has very little in common with its other approved functions. An administrator has blocked the bot. Many of it edits have been reverted as vandalism. This kind of behavior should never be tollerated. Bot operators have a greater responsibiliy to comply with Wikipedia guidelines and need to be held to task when they so blantly violate them and even more so when the operator is also an administrator with over three years as an administrator. Dbiel (Talk) 03:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion forming at User talk:Quadell but I informed him of this discussion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
True, but that discussion is basicly a discussion of the problem with the bot, this is more of an abuse of power issue; of not think that expanding a bot's function needs approval, of not monotoring a bot when it is given greater functionality. Of forgetting that as an administrator you need to take even greater care not to blantly break the rules and damage pages in the process. Dbiel (Talk) 04:05, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I was not impressed at the wholesale reverting of the bot's edits without any check to see if the changes were valid -- isn't that what the bot was accused of doing itself?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 04:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I would agree that the wholesale reverting was not the best approach, especially in light of the fact that much of the material added is of a usable nature, but since that is being done by another agressive editor, I was simply commenting that it was being done. Dbiel (Talk) 04:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Wholesale reverting is a common approach when a bot makes a large number of possibly broken edits; on its own it isn't problematic. If the bot is fixed, it can make the same positive edits again. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:41, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
The problem was that the bot was adding things that it shouldn't have been guessign at without human intelligence. I don't see what other way there is to fix the problem, except for humans to individually go through the thousands of edits it made and check them all over again, which, to be honest, won't be happening any time soon. In any case, it wasn't reverted wholesale, or at least no one finished all the reverting yet, as there are still literally thousands of Polbot's edits that are the current revision, starting with all its contributions on December 17 [48] continuously until it was blocked a couple days later. Dmcdevit·t 13:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
DerHexer and I have reverted a couple of thousands of the bot's edits, but we stopped since we encountered the overlapping of the article backlink. DerHexer said he'll work a solution today. Snowolf How can I help? 14:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Some bots and bot operators are given more latitude than others. As far as this incident goes, the bot was blocked, its edits reverted, and Quadell has committed to open up a discussion for approval of the new task. I don't think there's anything more to address. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 04:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Very true, but when that latitude is abused, turning a bot loose and not monitoring it, it needs to at least be noted as a serious violation and acknowleged as such, not called a simple mistake. If an administor is not held accountable for his actions, then there is absolutely no grounds on which one can hold an ordinary user accountable for his. The minimum that should be expected is the acknowledgement that is was a serious break in protocol and judgement and the committment that it will not happen again. Without that, some of that extra latitude needs to be withdrawn. Dbiel (Talk) 04:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on. I'm sure it was a mistake. Maybe he just forgot to get the permission or something. I just don't think this AN/I post is hugely necessary, given the fact that he's a long-time editor and admin who likely just made a mistake. No reason to grill him over it. Maser (Talk!) 04:09, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not getting approval is one thing which could be looked to as a simple mistake. But turning a bot loose with new functionality and not monitoring it, that is another totally unacceptable action, not a simple mistake. Dbiel (Talk) 04:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
People who believe in the "flawless administrator" will never, ever find him or her. Administrators are trusted editors who have access to an extra set of tools to assist in maintenance work on Wikipedia, and they are also human. Therefore, even the most respectable administrator is liable to human misjudgement, such as mistakes and the occasional bad judgement call. Maser (Talk!) 04:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I do not expect to ever find a "falwless administrator". But I do expect that when one make as SERIOUS mistake that he would acknowledge such and commit to not doing it again. So far the only acknowledgement has been for not getting approval. The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it. Dbiel (Talk) 04:58, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I think Polbot is/was doing a good service and after Quadell gets the correct permission, I hope Polbot can continue to add fair-use rationales to images in need of them. If anything, it would cut down on work for deleting them, mass postings on talk pages and the "hundred or so" discussions on BC Bot a week.
Having a bot that adds F-URs is a damned good idea. Quadell made a mistake not getting permission, no biggie. We all screw up. But let's give Polbot and Quadell a second chance. What it is doing is a good idea. - NeutralHomer T:C 06:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
(full disclosure: The above user is not an admin, but an editor voicing an opinion.)

Based on this, is it now OK to block bots that you see making mistakes while they tag images at speed or delete images at speed (without having a human reviewing the process)? Those bots or scripts have at least as many errors as Polbot was generating, if not more. Equally, can a bot run be reverted in its entirety if you find a few mistakes? I think that would justify reverting all the edits ever made by... No, I won't go there. Carcharoth (talk) 08:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

My view is that reversion of removal of content should always be reviewed by a human (you need to look at what you are re-adding). But reversion of addition of content is generally OK, as long as the removal doesn't make something less OK in terms of copyright, sources and rationales. Carcharoth (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I think you're overstating your case here, Dbiel. I didn't think to get approval to run this bot, and I have apologized for that in multiple places. But you claim "The greater mistake was turning it loose and not monitoring it." Isn't that just a negatively-biased was of saying "running a bot"? – Quadell (talk) (random) 13:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the attitude that bothers me. The idea that it is OK to assign a bot new functionality and turn it loose, allowing it to make countless edits without checking to see if it is working correctly and calling that simply "running a bot" and "overstating your case". That is just plain wrong and also, totally a violation of Wikipidia policy. As far as not getting approval, that issue has been handled and apologized for. The failure to monitor your bot is another issue, which if I am understanding what you have written, you are saying that it is not your responsability to make certian it is working correctly before turning it loose. Unproven bots should NEVER be left to run unattended. Dbiel (Talk) 14:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I've never said that, and I don't see how you read that into what I've said. – Quadell (talk) (random) 16:20, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
To me the issue seems resolved. The unapproved task has stopped, Quadell has apologized several times, it's the first time (AFAIK) that such an issue happens with Polbot. I've also unblocked the bot. Snowolf How can I help? 13:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Agree with Snowolf, the issue appears to be resolved. FWIW, I hope the bot gets approval, because it would be very useful. Addhoc (talk) 14:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: A BRFA has been opened for the task, see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Polbot 7. Regards, Snowolf How can I help? 15:51, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hey, wait, was User:Dexter authorized to simply undo every single one of Polbot's actions? Because he did, making literally thousands of reverts within the space of a few minutes, most obviously using a bot (a human cannot make 4000 contributions in one hour). I find it interesting that, in order to undo someone who has done something against process, we now have an administrator doing something even more against process: running a bot on his main account. Anyone care to address this? The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:45, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't you mean User:DerHexer? 4494 edits in 112 minutes (40/minute) seems implausible but I managed 8.5/minute for 18 minutes while reverting massive spam (see this AN post) with Twinkle and a 256k/64k connection. Admin rollback is much faster and I believe DerHexer has access to real broadband. Then again, it was 3x faster than what Wiki.java 0.11 can do (13/minute). MER-C 12:43, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Rollback is in fact much faster because it only requires one click (so, with a tabbed browser you can open many without waiting for the result) and only downloads a tiny page confirming it worked rather than downloading the whole resulting rendered html of the reverted version of the article. It's not often that the situation comes up where a large number of contributions from one user need to be reverted, but when it does, 40/minute seems like a very plausible rate at which it can be done with no automated assistance. Also note that, while DerHexer did not do this in this caseI can't tell if DerHexer did it in this case, there is an option to make such mass rollbacks set the "bot edit" flag on both the rollback and on the edit being reverted, in order to hide it on recent changes and watchlists: see Help:Reverting#Bot_rollback. —Random832 20:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 probation[edit]

Resolved: Probation stays per [49]. Will (talk) 00:36, 21 December 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.

[50] I have removed myself from probation as this was not in accoirdab=nce with the ruling. Aatomic1 (talk) 19:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, you cannot remove yourself from probation, Aatomic1. The probation was valid. Alison was in no conflict with you, and ArbCom endorsed the rights of admins to place those users under the status of probation. You were only placed on probation for one month. The terms of the ArbCom case state that we can apply that probation indefinitely. SirFozzie (talk) 19:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

is this acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:33, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Hereis the section that clarifies the ArbCom ruling, Aatomic1... that specifically states that the admins who were involved in the Troubles case but NOT involved in any edit warring CAN place people under Probation. SirFozzie (talk) 19:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to state a couple things here. First of all, the two edit summaries cited are certainly sarcastic and snarky, but are not personal attacks. One was dismissive of what I considered trolling on my talk page (keep in mind WP is not censored) and wasn't directed at anyone. Also, when I blocked Domer for his Segi edit warring, I was not involved in an edit war with him. That developed later. Finally, Aatomic1 did encourage me to take actions against Domer on my talk page, but I have done nothing about it and don't intend to. That much should not be an issue in regards to me. -R. fiend (talk) 19:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Unfortunately no actual arbitrators commented in cited thread discussing the meaning of "uninvolved." I suggest posting a Request for clarification at WP:RFAR, unless some admin here wants to unilaterally lift the probation. However, the probation placed by Alison remains in effect until otherwise lifted. Thatcher131 19:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Please note Sir Fozzie has also tampered with the mediators decision aswell as removing my comments from this ANI] Is this really acceptable? Aatomic1 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I have brought it up, Thatcher. Considering past history with admins Tyrenius and myself placing users on those remedies without any problem, I think it's rather clear, but agree that an unequivocal clarification of the remedy would be useful. And Aatomic, considering I was praised by the mediation cabal for rephrashing the mediator's decision without attempting to make it seem like it was an official ruling, I think it reflects better on me then you.. (who was placed on probation specifically because you ignored the mediation and continued to play silly buggers with the Birmingham pub bombings article. SirFozzie (talk) 20:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
  • If you are saying I ignored the mediation the you are a liar Sir Fozzie. You delibarately tamperded with the mediators decision to back up Alison. Your comments were subsequently amnded by the mediator Aatomic1 (talk) 20:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please remember WP:NPA not the way to go about things. BigDunc (talk) 20:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I was well aware of WP:NPA when i made the above comment. Aatomic1 (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Well could you adhere to it instaed of callin other editors liars. BigDunc (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Since you want to impugn my honesty, Aatomic1, let me walk you through it step by step, K?

Step 1: Here's the original decision of the mediator Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list."

Step 2: Addhoc, another member of the Mediation Cabal, changed it to just plain closed, and the reason was (trim comment to avoid appearance of giving a judgement or ruling)

Step 3: I change it slightly to indicate the mediator's suggestion, while making sure it did not appear to be a judgement or ruling.

Step 4: Addhoc Thanks me for rephrasing the mediator's comment, saying my suggestion was much better, then just leaving it as closed.

So. Would you like to apologize for calling me a liar, or would you prefer to add hypocrite to your resume? SirFozzie (talk) 20:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Step 1: I note you have said Decision: Closed as "Do not add the list. My reading is Comment: Closed as "Do not add the list... Aatomic1 (talk) 21:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
You are correct in that (in fact, it was Addhoc who tried to make sure that it wasn't taken as an official decision) . However, you are incorrect that I tampered with the decision: What's the differnce between Closed as "Do not add the list... and, Closed: Mediator's suggestion was "Do Not Add The List" (besides a couple capital letters and making sure that it was posted as the mediator's suggestion? SirFozzie (talk) 21:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So what was your motive for this slight change? As far as I can see, you deliberately tampered with the comment to undermine a valid edit of mine. The mediator was not satisfied with your edit and yet your edit was used by Alison to undermine my defence to her ultra vires placing of me on probation. Aatomic1 (talk) 21:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, your "facts" don't support your theories, Aatomic1. It turned out that folks decided that no the mediation wasn't done, and argued the mediator into reopening it afterwards, so the mediator reopened the case. Please note that two INDEPENDENT admins took independent looks at the decision by Alison to put you on probation,