Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive396

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Sesshomaru and Tyar[edit]

I don't even know what Tyar's problem with Sesshomaru is even after looking at his contribution history, but this sort of harassment and crap is unacceptable. Tyar was blocked for a week just now and I endorse it. Grandmasterka 20:39, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Sesshomaru has dealt with a lot of sockpuppets lately, mostly from banned user JJonz. Redrocket (talk) 20:46, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
He also is very quick to call things vandalism whether they are or not. A recent example involved User:Tylar, and is probably the origin of Tylar's bad behaviour, if yer curious.[1] 86.44.26.69 (talk) 02:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, but for the sake of discussion, the blocked user you're referring to is actually Tyar. Tyar was blocked yesterday, and has also been blocked again today as 75.183.4.204 for personal attacks and sockpuppetry.
Thanks! Luckily User:Tylar is a redlink. I'm sorry you disagree about the other issue. I came across three other examples yesterday before seeing this thread. Template:uw-vandalism4 had been added in two of them. It's not a good practice, misleads newcomers and leads to drama. Wikipedia:Vandalism is a good read on this. 86.44.26.69 (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with you that sometimes users jump too quickly to V4 warnings, thus biting the newbies. However in this situation, User talk:Tyar had already been blocked twice for edit warring and harassment. Redrocket (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Template:Emmerdale episodes[edit]

This might seem quite trivial, but none the less it's frustrating me somewhat. The template Emmerdale episodes is used as a running tally to record episode numbers. Because of constant inconsistancies in date, I decided to change it to use the FULLDATE template which grabs the day when a date is entered. However, another "editor" (I use editor lightly) is persistant in reverting my change, with his reasoning being that "he prefers it the American style". This has nothing to do with cultural differences, as the show in question for the tally is British, coupled with the fact that his change means the day doesn't show, which has pretty much created an edit-war somewhat.

Ok, so that's pretty much the issue. As I said, I know it's trivial and I couldn't really see it as "vandalism", or at least what is normally described as vandalism, but possibly falling into edits without good reason with disrespect towards my civillity (I have been civil on his talk page). What's the best way to approach this? Cheers. Bungle (talkcontribs) 21:15, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Is there a standard for TV episode stamping? Whilst Emmerdale doesn't fit into a numbering system per se, it's easier it all TV episodic shows follow the same guidelines. Minkythecat (talk) 21:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Cultural rather than television; per WP:MoS (which is 'pedia wide) British related subjects should use Br-En grammar etc. conventions. Project guidelines should generally follow WP where there are multi-cultural applications (not that I wish to suggest that Emmerdale is "cultural" in anything but the loosest sense of the word!) LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No idea what the situation with the episode numbering is, so I'll leave that for more informed people to resolve, but the matter regarding the date format can be resolved by recourse to WP:DATE and MOS:SYL. Have reverted to the last edit by Bungle and low-level-warned the other user accordingly. Note that my edit made some other change to the episode numbers - that may need to be looked at by someone else. Orderinchaos 04:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for raising the note about date formats and user-specific preferences. I don't believe there is a "set standard" for formatting with this kind of template, but as mentioned before, there is set standards and preferences for date formatting per geographical location. Orderinchaos, the actual numbering you mentioned is negligable to the problem and easily sorted, but my appreciations go to you for referring some useful and noteworthy policies, hopefully finding some resolution. Bungle (talkcontribs) 09:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just calling attention to this one - The user Wingard (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is sterile-reverting edits to this template, including my most recent attempt to resolve the issue. A couple of eyes on this one would be good - thanks. Orderinchaos 19:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

This still continues to be an issue and the user in question doesn't seem to be changing his habits or indeed acknowleging there is a problem. Bungle (talkcontribs) 19:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Hoponpop69[edit]


User:Firefly322[edit]

This user is getting much problematic including uninformed WP:POINT prodding of articles and personal attacks against other editors.

In response, he proded the article Corruption in India which I created without informing the primary contributor [4]. NPOV disputes should be solved by editing, not by deletion. This was a WP:POINT prod by this user.

  • Regarding Islamophilia, if administrators read my contribution to the deleted article on Islamophilia and the reference that I used, any scholarly assessement will conclude that my analysis of the material and my contribution were objective. My subsequent vote of Strong Keep were completely in line with the discovery of such material. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:07, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • As for proding Corruption in India, I can honestly say that it had nothing to do with Otolemur crassicaudatus's vote in Islamophilia. The events were far apart in time.
  • Personal attacks against User:Pedro. [5]
    • Both having concerns with adminstator activities and voicing them does shift the focus from topic, making things possibly and unfortunately personal. But such a shift, with reason, does not constitute an attack. Yet writing here "Personal attacks against Perdo" is an unspecified, general claim of a personal attack. To quote policy (WP:NPA): Accusing someone without justification of making personal attacks is also considered a form of personal attack. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Now there is a discussion about the article Jonathan Wheeldon in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jonathan Wheeldon. WP:ATHLETE says athelets will be notable if "Competitors and coaches who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports (who meet the general criteria of secondary sources published about them)". Which is not the case of Jonathan Wheeldon. While hovering AfDs, I voted delete in the article for failing WP:ATHLETE. In response he made this comment [6].

  • In Otolemur crassicaudatus and Jwire hovering my activies, they voted in a way that strongly seemed to be making a point. If there was a disruption (and I'm not claiming there neccessarily was), it wasn't in the message (i.e., don't shoot the messanger). Ideally, it would be better if such things didn't happen on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone look into the matter. Thanks. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also see this pointy vote at an AfD I started, after I deprodded Corruption in India (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit). Jfire (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
    • (IP edit, he logged in and fixed the signature in the next edit) And correcting my log-in error is a problem? How so? Seems like good etiquette, fixing my mistakes. Jfire is pointing out something good. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Fixing the signature is perfectly fine, I was merely pointing that out as it might not have been clear that the initial edit that I linked to was done by you. The problem is the appearance of a vote that seems to be tit-for-tat retaliation, backed by an argument that both misunderstands policy and accuses another editor (me) of being out of line with respect to said policy. That sort of thing, combined with the things that Otolemur notes above, is what brings up the concern that your recent edits have been somewhat WP:POINTy. Jfire (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I have notified the editor of both this complaint and the concerns raised here on their talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Note there is some commentary on my talk page at User_talk:Pedro#User:Firefly322 that may be relevant. Pedro :  Chat  21:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Again, as an administator, I would think that User:Pedro would not hover in on AfD's that I'm involved with (as Pedro has just done on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dennis Fairclough ). It gives the appearance of point making by an administator, which is especially troublesome to newcomers WP:BITE. This has been one of the things at the heart of my grievances with User:Pedro). Ideally, point making and the appearance of authority of one editor over another editor would not happen on wikipedia. --Firefly322 (talk) 15:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
* Regarding Islamophilia, if administrators read my contribution to the deleted article on Islamophilia and the reference that I used, any scholarly assessement will conclude that my analysis of the material and my contribution were objective. {emphasis mine}

Wouldn;t the phrase "My analysis" indicate insertion of an opinion ? F.U.R hurts Wikipedia 16:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia guidelines, each and every contribution made to an article on wikipedia is the analysis of some reference. Oftentimes the inclusion of the reference is overlooked when the analysis seems common sense or common knowledge. Every contribution someone makes to wikipedia is my or your or his or her analysis. --Firefly322 (talk) 16:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would think that User:Pedro would not hover in on AfD's that I'm involved with - Apparently you're not familiar with the idea of quality control. And as you're not a newcomer, how, exactly, does WP:BITE affect you in the slightest? --Calton | Talk 16:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:MacedonianBoy[edit]

Personal attack, impoliteness and incivility by User:MacedonianBoy here. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He is continuing: [7]. The Cat and the Owl (talk) 16:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow :| The user being discussed called someone "stupid animal" - rather full on. Orderinchaos 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
My thoughts exactly ... blocked for 24 hours. Blueboy96 17:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Good call, obviously. Note that this outburst was triggered by 3rdAlcove's complaining about what he saw as irridentist political propaganda on MacedonianBoy's user page, a topic that was only today independently brought up on my page too, (here. The issue of just how much Macedonia-related political ranting is acceptable on user pages has come up repeatedly. Comments welcome. Fut.Perf. 17:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I also directed him to the Serbian-language version of "no personal attacks" - have contacted a Macedonian admin to see if a translation is available in that language. Orderinchaos 17:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
So? Does that excuse him, Future? My comment was in response to -his- calling editors 'propagandists', I couldn't care less about what he puts on his user page (which I first noticed about a week ago or so, actually; notice that I didn't complain about it). Add to that his calling me a "subsaharian(sic) asshole" and older comments about "subsaharan Greeks" and "tatar Bulgarians". Since he has contributed a few articles (peppered with some ethnic Macedonian POV-pushing here and there, of course), I propose that no action be taken at the moment against him -if any would be taken, that is-. Next time he should be banned for as long as it takes him to cool down, though.
Edit: I just noticed the 24-hour ban. Ah well, it's not that long, anyway.
Edit 2: Sorry if I misinterpreted you btw, FPaS. 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No problem. I wasn't criticizing you and I wasn't excusing him. Just wanted to see if there's some more opinions about that wider issue. Fut.Perf. 18:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"I am ready to sacrifice my self for the truth and the facts. I do not care about your opinion at all." [8] - nice consensus-building style there :/ I am done there - I think the 24 hour block is appropriate and if future problems arise they can be dealt with in future. Orderinchaos 18:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a dog in this fight, but i must say that User:MacedonianBoy seems quite rude indeed. EraserGirl (talk) 16:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

In other words, that mean I am the only one so called rude one. I do not believe it. --MacedonianBoy (talk) 18:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Please tone it down. You are skating on thin ice as far WP:ARBMAC is concerned. Moreschi (talk) 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, but I do not want to be bad guy here, that is all. regards.--MacedonianBoy (talk) 19:47, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User:CarlosRodriguez[edit]

This user continues to make horribly POV edits to Jeremiah Wright after being warned numerous times about his actions. He was reported to AIV previously, but the admin declined because he wasn't really vandalising. But the admin did say to come here if the disruptive behavior continued - it did. Here is the warnings I gave to him on his talk page, with diffs as well:


Stop hand nuvola.svg This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy by inserting commentary or your personal analysis into an article, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Grsz11 04:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

yet more bullying with no specifics from a passionate edit warrior

[9], [10], [11]. You know quite well what I'm talking about. Grsz11 04:21, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I have commented the WP:AIV report, declining to block now on the grounds that it is - even though obvious policy nonconform - not persitent vandalism or spamming. However, if this behaviour continues, I will block you. Poeloq (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
I believe we can work towards a consensus on the talk page to include some of your material . Please join us there to discuss your proposed changes.--Die4Dixie (talk) 13:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

More violations: [12], [13], [14], [15].

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Grsz11 17:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)


You can check the page history for additional disruptive behavior. He refuses to acknowledge the significance of NPOV, consensus and original research, and takes it out through edit warring. Thanks, Grsz11 17:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

The edit warring behavior looks troubling to me and that history page has been consumed with reverts as a result of it.--Jersey Devil (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm worried about 3RR myself. Luckily, there's several other users there, and we've been pretty evenly undoing. Grsz11 18:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm actually concerned about the way the warnings read, and if they may have contributed to the problem rather than having helped. I think that working in tandem with others to avoid a 3RR block is gaming the system.--Die4Dixie (talk) 18:57, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Um, no, when everybody else realizes what he's doing is wrong. It isn't working "with others to avoid a 3RR block," it's keep the article safe from a user who wants to push his POV all over the place. Grsz11 19:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

CarlosRodriguez has a history of disruptive editing, as his own talk page attests and the talk pages on other articles, such as Blackface, confirm. Adding Black Hitler and other stuff CarlosRodriguez has attempted to the Jeremiah Wright article really is inappropriate. TheslB (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely. A quick history check of your own talk pages will reveal that you have both also been administratively warned for your edit warring on that page, and one of you has recently brought two unfounded complaints to this board in the recent past.Carlos is out of line, but some black pots are here too. Enough blame to go around for the three of you on that page--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please stop wasting space. This isn't about your ridiculous accusations against other users. Grsz11 19:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Also note, the warnings came about as a result of undoing this guys edits. Grsz11 19:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
No sir, from also undoing mine without talk page consensus and generally running roughshod over WP policies and your undoing ever editor with whom you disagree no matter what page you find yourself on. You are right about Carlos, but your tag team hit jobs on editors are noteworthy on any complaint that you make.--Die4Dixie (talk) 19:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
"You are right about Carlos" — then please do not make this about me and you. TheslB (talk) 20:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Sad that it came to this, Grsz11. Grsz11 has broken 3RR with 5-6 reverts per day. A quick look at the history page will show this: [16] CarlosRodriguez (talk) 18:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
If they looked they can see you greatly exaggerate. Over the past 24 hours, I've undid you twice, and Fovean twice. ThesIB has also had to undo your edits. There's a difference between edit warring out content, and reverting vandalism, which is essentially what your edits have become. Grsz11 19:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please link to one vandalistic edit that I have made on my talk page to sustantiate you claim. The warnings that you blank on your page attest to who the real vandal is.--Die4Dixie (talk) 20:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about you, I'm talking about Carlos. PLEASE stop wasting everybodies space and time with your rants against me. Grsz11 20:03, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Grsz, you have broken 3rr shamelessly and reverted most everyone's edits that don't adhere to your POV. I didn't want it to become an administrative matter, but now you've brought it here CarlosRodriguez (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Again, you've been warned several times about your POV edits by myself, and others. The diffs above clearly show that you are trying to push your opinion across on the article as fact. There's a difference between my reverting edits that I don't like, and reverting edits that have been discussed and warned against. Grsz11 20:31, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

All three of you, stop it now. AN/I is not the place for arguing. Wait patiently for an admin to have time to review the situation and decide if any action is necessary (unfortunately, I don't have time right now). If you really want to argue with each other, do so on your talk pages, but any incivility from any of you and you'll be blocked, regardless of the merit of your arguments. Consider this an official warning. --Tango (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tango. For the reviewing admin: please note a totally uninvolved editor reverted CarlosRodriguez' similar edits yesterday and reported them as vandalism here. This led to an ANI AIV admin warning CarlosRodriguez that if the behavior continued, a block would be forthcoming. TheslB (talk) 21:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Not being "Dense", but to which three editors do you refer, as four had weighed in in addition to a SYSOP?--Die4Dixie (talk) 22:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Please see Tango's statement above. I am not going to get into an argument with you here. TheslB (talk) 22:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Being able to count is not a prerequisite for being an admin. ;) --Tango (talk) 00:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I most respectfully deny that I asked you to. If you have anything resembling an argument, please post to your talk page which i have now added to my watchlist and I will respond there.Cordially,--Die4Dixie (talk) 01:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  •  Done User blocked for 24hrs for disruption and edit warring. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 21:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring by blocked User:Fredrick day[edit]

User:Fredrick day is blocked for vandalism and severe incivility. Coming in through identifiable IP, see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fredrick day and Talk for that SSP page, he is edit warring with removal of his edits. See Special:Contributions/87.113.2.240.

He is attempting to call attention to my behavior through this, but what I've been doing with another blocked user would likewise be legitimate with him. Another user is blocked for various reasons, but has a history of good contributions. He is being reverted practically automatically when his IP edits are found, which is legitimate. Then, any other user who sees these edits and who wishes to take responsibility for them, may bring them back in. This is not meat puppetry, it is reviewing the edit history of a page and deciding to bring back in removed material based on the content, not on the identity of the editor.

I have reverted Fd's edits, without regard for content (as is being done in the case he refers to.) Any legitimate editor may see these edits and bring them back in, I have utterly no objection to that. I happen to see Fd's edits because he edits pages I watch; then I check his contributions and am reverting on sight. Sometimes I note this in Talk to specifically call attention to the edit so that other editors may review it.--Abd (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • I hope someone blocks his IP soon. How strange that someone who appeared to be a legitimate contributor degenerated so quickly into vandalism and trolling. It seems like what you're doing is perfectly OK. I am reviewing his contribs now to see if anything should be kept. -- Naerii 17:51, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • He's back Special:Contributions/87.113.42.143. -- Naerii 17:59, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I rolled back all but one edit from the first IP that wasn't rolled back already--the only one I didn't touch was when he reverted an obvious BLP violation. In my view, about the ONLY circumstances under which block-evading socks can't have their edits reverted on sight is when there are obvious BLP or copyright violations. Can we consider him banned and be done with it? Blueboy96 18:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah I see no reason why their edits shouldn't be reverted on sight, but then again there's no point keeping incorrect content so there's nothing wrong with going through later and restoring any edits that are worth keeping. I seem to recall this being done in past cases? If it's against policy never mind I guess. I just feel a bit icky about restoring incorrect information and leaving it indefinitely until someone unrelated notices. -- Naerii 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That's perfectly fine--as long as the edits aren't in any way associated with a block-evading or banned user, you can restore them manually. Blueboy96 18:06, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Great. Thanks for blocking. -- Naerii 18:08, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks. What I'm doing is a solution to a problem that arose when User:Larry E. Jordan was blocked, but was also known for some very good contributions -- not perfect, but good seeds for articles -- in parliamentary procedure. He continued to try to make good contributions, but they were being reverted due to block evasion. Which is, of course, legitimate. After discussing this with the administrator doing most of the reversions, I came up with a solution, announced my intention to do it, waited, then started doing it. I looked for these reverted edits, reviewed them, and if they seemed solid -- I checked sources where possible, or flagged the edit if it seemed good but couldn't be immediately verified -- I brought them back in. I also listed what I was doing on the project page involved, and invited other editors to do the same, and one did, cleaning up everything I'd found. Fredrick day may be making some good contributions. So any other editor may review those edits and bring them back, if the editor is willing to take responsibility for them. I'd be careful though. This guy is positively venomous. But I'm not going to get into that. Any legitimate editor brings back his edits, I'm no longer involved in that content. (Unless it is blatant sock puppetry, another story.)

By the way, I'm pretty sure he planted that BLP violation removal, attempting to trap me with it. "See! He's removing necessary edits!"--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC) As I have time, I'm listing the IPs involved on Talk for his SSP page. Note that his IP editing predated his block, he was "good hand" Fredrick day, though I didn't think him so good, and very, very "bad hand" Section 31. He was nailed when he forgot he was logged in once, and linked Section 31 with his registered account, though KMweber had already pretty much pinned him.--Abd (talk) 18:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

He's back again, and leaving irritating posts [17]. Someone please block Special:Contributions/87.115.12.23, though he'll be back on another IP shortly I expect. -- Naerii 19:32, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps not a popular opinion, but...[edit]

I hesitate to point this out, because I do understand the aggravation that this banned user is causing. However, each of us has to bear in mind that we are personally responsible and liable for any edit we make. If we insert information that violates WP:BLP - for example, negative unsourced information about a person - we are responsible for doing so. It does not matter if one is reverting someone else's removal of that information, or one is inserting the negative unsourced information of one's own volition. The Wikimedia Foundation makes it pretty clear that we are on our own with respect to any edits we make to any article. The Foundation has provided user-specific information in at least one previous lawsuit without notifying the involved users, back in December 2007 IIRC. If you do not want to be personally liable for inserting negative unsourced information into an article about a living person, then don't do it, even by reverting a banned user. Our readers don't care who makes the edits, they only care that the information they read is correct. I'm sure the subjects of our articles feel the same way. Risker (talk) 00:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Libellous material and self-evident BLP violations should never be reinserted in an article, regardless of any other policy or procedure that might otherwise apply. Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
No policy states it should be, even WP:BAN states "When reverting edits, care should be taken not to reinstate material that may be in violation of core policies such as Neutrality, Verifiability, and Biographies of Living Persons". That's been thrown out of the window tonight though, with unsourced claims that a living person infected multiple people with the HIV virus being added back to articles, amongst other things. One Night In Hackney303 00:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Angrymansr[edit]

This user continues to attack and harass me. His behavior isn't limited to just my talk page, or his. His edit summaries as well have been abusive and rude. He's even gone as far as changing my comments (that are on his talk page) to make me look stupid. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest going to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts first. You'll probably get a quicker response there. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you in the right place? To report impolite, incivil, or difficult communications with other editors, see wikiquette alerts. --Pixelface (talk) 22:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Persistent, serious personal attacks by User:PetraSchelm[edit]

PetraSchelm (talk · contribs) has explicitly or implicitly accused other Wikipedians of paedophilia repeatedly. For example:

  • "It looks like the people who were most vocal in getting the articles renamed "sexual attraction to children" from "sexual abuse and pedophilia" were self-identified pro-pedophile. One of them states on his userpage that his "agenda" is pederasty articles, and has claimed that 13 year old boys can consent to sex. Another, Tony Sandel, clearly identifies himself as pro-pedophile on his userpage. I don't get the impression that that they think pedophile is an insult; on the contrary that is how they identify themselves."[18] These statements are false. The userpages in question are User:Tony Sandel and User:Haiduc, and both have made clear elsewhere that they are neither paedophiles nor pro-paedophile.
  • "I think you should actually read the lists which were named "Pedophila and Child Sexual Abuse in film/theatre/song/books, and have all been renamed by a small pedophile faction "sexual attraction to children in film/theatre/song/books"[19])
  • "The argument for changing the name seems to be that "sexual attraction" subsumes "pedophilia and child sexual abuse." Uh, only from the perspective of pedophiles."[20])
  • Etc.[21][22] [23]

The issue she is so incensed over is that several lists are named in the format of "x that portrays sexual attraction to children or adolescents," rather than "x that portrays child sexual abuse." As has been discussed on the talk pages of these articles, which Petra has neglected to use, this is so because many of the books, films, or songs do not include child sexual abuse -- the paedophile in Death in Venice, for instance, never acts on his attractions. This is clearly not pro-paedophile reasoning (though personally, I still disagree with it); Petra's attacks are unjustified.

She has continued after being reminded of our civilty policies.[24][25][26] --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

It's evident from Petra's contributions that she is either a sockpuppet or at the very least a single purpose account. Within just a few days of registering she's found some of our most esoteric policies, managed to nominate several articles in one of the most contentious regions of Wikipedia for deletion, and especially, articles that themselves are the result of a remarkable consensus effort between editors on both sides of the pedophilia equation; while at the same time managing to brand other editors as pedophiles or pro pedophiles, or even tolerant of child abuse. SWATJester Son of the Defender 22:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
(ec)I have left a strongly - and hopefully comprehensive - warning at her(?) talkpage below your notice of this section. While not specifically noted, it should be regarded as a final warning should the editor continue making these comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
That seems fair enough, and I have also tried to explain to her why this is so and hopefully this will be the last we hear of it. Thanks, SqueakBox 22:38, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I see you explained to her that calling people pedophiles on flimsy grounds was generally frowned upon, but that it is acceptable to accuse them of promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint [27]. That's very helpful of you, and certainly contributes to the atmosphere of camaraderie and peaceful discourse that surrounds those articles. May I remind you, though, that people have been blocked for exactly that (purportedly promoting a pro-pedophile viewpoint, that is), and that it might be polite to refrain from such deleterious claims as well? "Thanks," Bikasuishin (talk) 23:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought SqueakBox did tell her that. Regardless, if it wasn't him, it was someone else because I definitely remember someone having mentioned that. And even so, Less Heard vanU referenced it in their final warning. SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Yup. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I mean in the same way one would accuse another editor of editing in a pro-cannabis way or a pro-US army way, concentrating on the content and slant of the edits but not saying the uiser is stoned or whatever, we all have our POVs but we must not edit wikipedia to promote any POV. Indeed all I have been trying to do is get this particularly online (ie working with us constructively|) and unfortunately I seem to have failed. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:11, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm convinced that you mean well. However, people usually don't get blocked for editing with a pro-US military viewpoint, unless, I guess, when it gets particularly egregious and disruptive. A pro-pedophile bias or any semblance thereof, on the other hand, is something that gets editors indefinitely blocked, so it might be best to exercise proper circumspection before branding a fellow editor with such a label. I'm not sure a remark like "this editor promotes a pro-pedophile viewpoint" really qualifies as "commenting on the contributions rather than the contibutor", even if it is meant that way. Anyway, sorry for this slightly off-topic comment. Bikasuishin (talk) 23:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Unfortunately, she's responded by affirming her claim that Haiduc is pro-paedophile.[28] For the record, the statement she interprets as supporting this is: "Agenda: To promote accurate and comprehensive treatment of LGBT history, in particular of pederastic homosexuality, in its sexualized as well as chaste manifestations." --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 22:40, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
This user has been consistently disruptive and unresponsive to discussion or reasoning. I too am of the opinion that he is a sock, and while I could not care less about the personal attacks the fact remains that his constant attempts to introduce a political agenda are inappropriate. As long as this kind of behavior persists unchecked it is corrosive both to the work that we are doing here and to the atmosphere of collegiality and reason that needs to be cultivated. Haiduc (talk) 22:54, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week for personal attacks re this edit. See AnotherSolipsist's reference above. I've also warned that since this is a very serious accusation, next block will be significantly longer. Given the suspiciousness of the account, that should not be unreasonable. SWATJester Son of the Defender 23:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Her block log is empty.[29] ? --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 23:21, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Likely a bug, she is clearly blocked, see [30]. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
It is well that this user is blocked, but what happens to his disruptive votes in the many AfDs he has been involved in? Haiduc (talk) 23:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
I think unless it can be proven she is a sock of a banned user then they should stand as they were made before bing blocked. Thanks, SqueakBox 23:46, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Correct, this is a block, with no allegations of being a banned user, the votes stand. Regardless, even if they were to be removed they'd make no difference in the outcome. SWATJester Son of the Defender 00:26, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, Wikipedia is not a democracy.   Zenwhat (talk) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Reverting on WP:COI[edit]

Over the last few days, editors have been discussing the "tension" between WP:COI and the principle that editors should be allowed to edit pseudonymously. One site of discussion has been on WP:COI, in relation to text stating that "Revealing the names of pseudonymous editors is in all cases against basic policy." As was pointed out, this seems to contradict text in the same paragraph recommending that editors approach COIs directly, as well as the general practice on WP:COIN where identity is somewhat regularly discussed as necessary. Discussion of this went on for a couple of days between Crum375 and myself, with some others coming in and generally agreeing that there is a tension here which needs to be acknowledged in one form or another. Crum375 has argued in contrast that there is no tension and that discussion of COI should never involve identifying an editor who does not identify themself. Crum insisted in turn that because WP:Block states that editors may be blocked for revealing identifying information, WP:COI must state that identifying a pseudonymous editor is in all cases against basic policy. Of those discussing on the page, Joshuaz and I directly disagreed with this, while Privatemusings sought a compromise. When it became clear that views on the page were not being further developed, and that editors generally agreed that the change was necessary, I attempted to reinstate the original edit.[31] Crum reverted,[32] but Joshuaz replaced it noting agreement on the talk page.[33]

My concern is that, following this, both SlimVirgin and Jayjg arrived in the next hour to revert back to the original version. SlimVirgin had left a comment earlier but had not stayed around. Jayjg had not commented at all. Elonka then arrived and protected the page for 48 hours. The issue, of course, is that it seems inappropriate to me for two admins to arrive on a policy page and revert in this fashion without attempting to participate in talk. The general pattern of these editors working together, recently discussed on this page here, also seems relevant. I raise it here for discussion. Mackan79 (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan, you are forgetting that lots of editors have the policy and guideline pages on their watchlists. In addition, SV had commented several times on WT:COI prior to her recent edits. The issue is very simple: outing is prohibited. That COI allegations somehow trump the blocking policy which prohibits outing, is not anchored in any policy or guideline. There is a wide consensus on WP that outing is unacceptable, and it conforms to the existing policies and guidelines. I don't think in any case that ANI is the place to discuss policies, but your assumption that people must be actively engaged in talk page discussion prior to preventing edits that they see as contradictory to long standing policy is simply wrong. Crum375 (talk) 02:32, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I raised the policy issue here only so far as is necessary for background. In my view, if editors have a history of working very closely together across unrelated pages, they should take particular care not to show up and revert for each other without any comment on the talk page. I think this is particularly the case if the discussion has been quite involved as it's been here. Mackan79 (talk) 02:39, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I see no evidence of any such "consensus" that "outing is prohibited" as alleged by Crum375. One relatively small group of users (SlimVirgin, Crum375, JzG, and a couple of others) favor this position. Another relatively small group of users (Dan T. and Cla68 come to mind here) object to that interpretation of policy. The vast majority of Wikipedians don't really give a damn. That is pretty much the definition of no consensus. *** Crotalus *** 02:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am in agreement with Mackan79 that it's a bad idea for an editor to just show up and revert, without participating at talk. When I saw that the page was getting yanked back and forth, I took a look at the talkpage, could not see a clear consensus either way, and opted to simply protect the page. I am offering no opinion on which version of wording is better, but edit-warring about it is not the way to go. --Elonka 05:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Re Crotalus, there is certainly also an issue with Crum375's tendency to frame issues in ways that seem to justify any amount of reverting. This happened recently in an arbcom case, where Crum was blocked after first reverting the evidence page 8 times against multiple editors and admins entirely by themself,[34] without ever stopping to discuss the issue (and causing a minor uproar), and then returning after the page was unprotected to do this again.[35] Crum was blocked for this by the ArbCom clerk, despite the lone claim that it was a BLP issue. Here, Crum managed to claim that removing the disputed statement about "basic policy" was itself a violation of policy and therefore also beyond community consensus, justifying Crum in reverting twice against two editors and then a third time after SV and Jayjg arrived. I don't know how JoshuaZ feels about the issue, but all of this was after he noted that Crum was becoming tendentious,[36] and I noted that believing you alone are right does not justify continual reverting.[37] It seems to me someone might clarify to Crum375 that this approach isn't generally considered productive. Mackan79 (talk) 11:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not taking an absolute stance either way at this time. There are times when one may draw a reasonable inference that an editor is conencted with a subject, and that does not necessarily violate their privacy, but we should be absolutely firm that publishing anything that is not trivially available from a user's own comments is at the very least extremely problematic. Outing pseudonymous individuals as a way of gaining an advantage in a content dispute, or in revenge for your POV failing to achieve consensus, is unlikely to have any good result. I don't think we need new policy to cover this, I think judicious application of Clue should be sufficient. Inferring a connection between User:BigJim and his article Big Jim's Steak House would hardly qualify as "outing". The most obvious example I can see here is user:THF, who asserted that if he had not revealed his RWI, no COI allegation would have been made. I dispute that, as his edits were often tendentious. I also have a problem with anybody who is more active in improving Wikipedia Review than improving Wikipedia making any kind of comment about outing, especially when said person seems to dispute the existence of harassment of editors. If he'd like to answer my 3am hang-up calls from a certain banned user, he's more than welcome. Guy (Help!) 13:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If you're talking about Dan Tobias; he has already answered your accusations that he supposedly disputes the existence of harassment. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Guy, this is similar to what people were saying on the page. If your last comment is directed at me, however, I can't be sure how much of the page you read. I think harassment is a serious concern here, specifically the serious concern, which isn't furthered by saying we can't discuss obvious conflicts, even as we do. I think other problems are also caused by that approach. But that's the policy issue, which isn't what I intended to raise. We could tie it to even bigger issues of who is on the right side of what; I think it's fair, however, simply to raise whether editors who almost constantly work together should show up and revert for each other in this way. It's a difficult issue, yes, but I don't think one that benefits from tag team revert warring. Mackan79 (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Mackan79, I had already commented on this exact issue in quite a few places, including two different noticeboards (e.g. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Policy_question, [38]), as you were well aware. It's not my fault if you and others try to spread your attempts to unilaterally overturn policy over multiple venues and multiple policy and guideline pages, and then complain when I haven't shown up to repeat my objections at the new spot chosen to re-hash this. Jayjg (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm aware that we had been discussing a specific policy issue for three days with Crum375 as the lone dissenter on the page, and when Crum375 was reverted by a second editor, both you and SlimVirgin appeared not on the talk page, but by adding two additional reverts. The fact that the page was then protected should, I'd think, indicate to you that this is not appropriate editing; should an admin need to enter a page to protect it due to the actions of two other admins? I don't think they should. Mackan79 (talk) 03:26, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think editors should try to make guidelines contradict policies, nor pretend that the edit wars they start when attempting to do so are someone else's fault, nor pretend that because those admins only protest these policy-violating changes in 4 out of the 5 places they were raised, it means they don't object to them. Jayjg (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Jayjg, is the idea really that if you object to an edit and you think you've offered reasons elsewhere, then you can ignore discussion and revert at will? If I went around adding second third or fourth reverts for friends because I'd expressed my opinion elsewhere, you wouldn't have a problem? If editors on the page wanted to proceed, were we expected to go find you on your talk page and offer a personal invitation that you join the discussion? I would think at some point you'd realize the problem with this approach. Mackan79 (talk) 04:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where this belongs - USERPAGE: EBDCM[edit]

Had it on my watchlist to see the outcome of the block (not sure what happened to the ANI thread on it?). I noticed that today QuackGuru erased the users userpage completely. EBDCM noted on his talk page that he is taking a wikibreak until monday. I don't think we should be erasing his userpage in the meantime - or is this normal when someone is blocked? (diff) DigitalC (talk) 03:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

If he's been indefed then he's persona non grata. Blanking a user's page isn't unusual. HalfShadow (talk) 03:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Some previous discussion has been archived at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive394#User talk:EBDCM unblock review. --Newbyguesses (talk) 04:15, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It is normal practice to put an indef-template on a userpage for an indef-blocked editor. EBDCM is being incivil again by claiming it was done in poor taste. QuackGuru (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Live mirror[edit]

Sorry, wasn't sure where to report this. [39] appears to be a live mirror. Stevage 04:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia's material is freely available per the GNU license, what is particulary relevant about this mirror? - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
It appears to be "live", based on the frequency of updates. Anyway, looks to have already been reported at meta. Stevage 04:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
C.H.Q., the content is free but the bandwidth and server space are not. It is recommended that sites wishing to use our content do so by storing a static copy of the pages they want, or by importing a database dump if they want to use numerous (or all) articles. — CharlotteWebb 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I know vote soliciting is frowned on, guidance please[edit]

User:Doc glasgow/BLP watch I know vote soliciting is frowned upon. Is there a policy or guideline that addresses vote soliciting? An essay? If so, could someone direct my attention to it? I looked. I can't find it.

If not, let me lay out the disturbing circumstances.

Two years or so ago a nominator admonished me for leaving some heads-up on the talk pages of some people who said, "if another article like this gets nominated, let me know". I didn't know this was frowned upon. And I haven't done it since. The nominator who admonished me showed me how to use the deletion sorting project.

Now, if I understand this issue, the use of the deletion sorting project is not considered vote soliciting because it is conducted openly and transparently. In particular the person who places a note about the deletion, or whatever, on the deletion sorting page, they put a link back to the deletion sorting page in the forum. I found someone I disagree with has used a similar mechanism, to draw the attention of people to a formal procedure discussion, but, in this case, they did so silently, and did not add a link back to their watch page in the discussion. I am concerned because this does not seem open and transparent to me.

Note: I did not mention the name of my correspondent, or the venue of the discussion, on purpose, because I am sure regular readers here would appreciate that discussion not slopping over here.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

You could read up on WP:CANVASS and WP:MEAT. I'll check back in an hour or so, got to go to class. Grsz11 13:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I transcluded it into this section. Your starter for ten and no conferring: which way are we asking you to vote in each of the debates? Bonus points if you can spot the words "keep" or "delete" anywhere in the template. Geo Swan seems to be sore that Ahmed Adnan Muhammad Ajam was deleted and looks set to be endorsed, and that Muhamad Naji Subhi Al Juhani is vulnerable to a similar deletion, with a majority for keep being overwhelmed by WP:BLP and the fact that the sources are not about the subject but about the processes in which he has been involved. As I said in the close of the Ajam debate, keep !votes adequately establish that the detention camp, and the detention of this individual, are notable, but not that the detention of this individual is notable individually, distinct from other detainees, and not that the detainee is himself notable. No significant sources independent of the detention are provided. The knockout blow in the Ajam case is the lack of any secondary biographical sources, and the same applies for most of the Gitmo detainees. Lots of articles about the camp, the perfectly valid criticisms of the US government for engaging in detention without trial and abrogating its responsibilities under the Geneva Convention, but no actual biographical sources primarily about the individual detainees. DGG says at deletion review that this accurately reflects consensus, but in his view consensus is wrong. I can entirely accept that there are people who accept while disagreeing with consensus that living individuals notable only for one event, should be covered as the event not as biographies. We can disagree on this in civil terms, one of the many philosophical debates on Wikipedia at any one time. Still and all, it seems that Geo Swan considers that the consensus is wrong and listing debates related to the consensus is also wrong. That is a more contentious view. Guy (Help!) 18:36, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if you did it the old-fashioned way, and not on a protected sandbox page in Doc's user-space, this practice might not be so poorly received. Something like {{subst:delsort|Living people}}, i.e.

would blend in perfectly with the others and nobody would care too much. Amid the growing BLP pandemonium I'm surprised this hasn't been created already. — CharlotteWebb 21:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

All the Crazy™[edit]

Heya, I am dealing with some rather "interesting edits" in the Fitna article. Some pretty aggressive behavior in the article discussion page, which is translating to some edit-warring in the article. I was going to request semi-protection as there appears to be some sock-farming going on there. Aside from the socking, a lot ofthe folk contributing there are pretty new, and its a bit Wild West-y there. A wikiquette alert report was filed (against me) complaining about my Obtructionist behavior in not allowing flagicons and whatnot, and I am increasingly of the opinion that the tone of the article discussion is being run on caffeine and aggro, and maybe even some good, old-fashioned oversensitivity. Maybe someone with deep boots could one-stop-assist with a semi-protection tag and a bit of that calming balm of an admin post suggesting folk cool their jets? - Arcayne (cast a spell) 15:20, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I took a look at the conversation between you and the IP. Protection would be the worst action here, as it would prevent the IP from editing - and other editors have opined that it's a dispute between you and the IP. Your concerns about the use of a sock are valid, because one editor is using several IP addys to edit the article. His admission of such does not alleviate him from all responsibility because it is very confusing for all editors involved. Feel free to file a sock-report and if you are not happy with my unwillingness to protect the page, you can go to WP:RFPP. Other than that, I don't see a need for administrative action. the_undertow talk 18:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Consistent edit warring[edit]

 Done

User:CarlosRodriguez has made several identical edits over the course of the last two days. He's been warned about these edits, that serve to push his POV by numerous users: [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47]. Thanks, Grsz11 16:31, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this the same issue as WP:ANI#User:CarlosRodriguez (above)? --- Barek (talkcontribs) - 21:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and that didn't get attention because another user turned it into an attack against myself and other user who was trying to show support for the complaint. It was resolved. Grsz11 21:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

IP 71.138.49.121[edit]

Resolved: Blocked for one month Herostratus (talk) 03:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This user is perhaps the single most persistent person I've come accross. Numerous attempts of contacting him have been made (with little or no result), he has been warned numerous times, and he has been blocked numerous times (check e.g. User_talk:71.138.49.102, User_talk:70.137.65.163, User_talk:Markfish, User_talk:70.230.215.18, User_talk:71.134.211.156, and User_talk:69.232.66.4). Recently, under IP 71.138.49.121, he has been active on Greg Bahnsen ([48], [49], [50], [51], [52]), eventually leading to a block ([53]), and it appears he has kept away from that article since. He is still very active in another article, cichlid, which he first set his eye on more than a year (!) ago. For a small intro into the situation regarding this and associated articles, check this on the talk page for WikiProject Aquarium Fishes, and this on the talk page for cichlid. While the issue of changing numbers in cichlid may seem like a small thing, his persistent doing so without being willing to provinde any sources at all (indeed, changing the numbers within a fully referenced sentence, making it appear as if "his version" was supported by the ref's) has also been at least part of the reason for valuable contributors just loosing interest in the article, as indeed evident by the abandonement of List of things to do prior to going to FA. Following recent changes by him in early March ([54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59] and [60]), leading to several warnings ([61] (two warnings there), and [62]), and eventually the article was semi-protected ([63]). Following this, I forwarded a note saying I was fully willing to add "his number" if he could provide a reference (see entire section in green here), but as usual this has been met with complete silence from his side. Unfortunately, just a few hours after the one month semi-protection ended, he returned ([64]), and has been going on from there ([65], and [66]) despite warnings ([67], and [68]). How can we deal with this? The semi-protection of cichlid evidently did not stop him, and based on the timing of his edit after it was lifted, one can only suspect he simply was waiting for that day. The temporary block seems to have resulted in him keeping away from the Greg Bahnsen article, and as this most recent IP seems fairly stabil (he evidently has had it for at least a month, since March 4 ([69])), I therefore request a temporary block of this IP. Alternatively, are IP range bans from certain articles possible (as I suggested here)? RN1970 (talk) 17:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • If the lack of response indicates that I am posting this in the wrong place or doing something wrong, I would greatly appreciate a hint from a more experianced wikipedian (I'm still fairly new at this). Since my last post, he has been there again. RN1970 (talk) 00:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
    • No this is fine. This is a very odd case, but this kind of vandalism is insidious. Blocked for a month. Herostratus (talk) 03:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Covington and Covington's Customs[edit]

Jerry Covington has been editing disruptively, using all of the following user accounts in the past few hours:

He has been edit warring on Jerry Covington with various user names, and has been recreating Covington's Customs over and over again, despite the fact that it keeps getting speedied. Two of his accounts have already been permanently blocked, but much more drastic action is required here. Qworty (talk) 18:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Protected Covington's Customs for a while to prevent recreation. seicer | talk | contribs 18:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've also indef. blocked Random667 for recreation of other blocked accounts. seicer | talk | contribs 18:23, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Comment. I am not sure it is Covington himself, an employee, or a fan, but yes, whoever it is, they have been edit warring and generally being disruptive. Maybe worthwhile protecting Jerry Covington too for a short period. – ukexpat (talk) 18:13, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That article sucks very badly. Hopefully any fix will not prevent it being improved, preferably by completely rewriting. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Return of problem editor A B Pepper[edit]

Resolved: IP blocked for 1 month

A B Pepper has been a problem editor off and on over at Christian views about women. He's very disruptive, uncivil, and inserts POV against consensus into articles. He received a 3-month block followed by an indefinite one for this behavior [70].

He's recently shown up again as IP 97.88.222.103. His behavior and POV are identical. For an example, compare this edit from the IP with the edit summary from one of A B Pepper's old edits here.

This guy will probably continue to be a problem off-and-on for a while. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:52, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Note Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/A B Pepper. 75.132.95.79 is also blocked as this editor. Reviewing the history, I agree that this editor is now using IP 97.88.222.103. This version of their deleted talk page (admins only) expresses their reason for being here, and Durova's comment on it explains the behavior issues that have recurred. I'm not sure what, if anything, we can effectively do about this editor. We can play whack-a-mole every so often when he or she makes his or her identity clear. Unless they learn to avoid the personal attacks, by the time the identity is clear there will also be reason to block. Can anyone think of a way to mentor this editor? Or are we doomed to another whack-a-mole game? In the meantime, blocked. GRBerry 20:29, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, I doubt he could be convinced to accept mentoring. His behavior leads me to believe he's not as interested in building an encyclopedia as he is in proving his superiority to everyone else. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:57, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
If he turns up on that IP once the block expires, just block it again for 6 months. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

User 216.125.163.43[edit]

Resolved: Schoolblocked 2 months

User_talk:216.125.163.43

Has been repeatedly blocked in the past and has started on a new string of vandal edits. Dialectric (talk) 20:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Maternity clothing[edit]

I've been reverting edits to Pregnancy and Mother by Danmasri (talk · contribs) and 71.249.69.142 (talk · contribs) that added Maternity clothing to the See Also sections. At first it was annoying. Then I determined that maternity clothing was just an advertisement for, guess what, maternity clothing retailers. I put that up for speedy delete. But I'm going to get hit for WP:3RR on Mother, because I keep making the same edit. Can someone block these two (I assume they're sockpuppets of each other), delete the Maternity clothing article, and let me go back to editing? Thanks. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend not to hang around this page very much, but I had to find out what the heck you were doing with maternity clothing, Orangemarlin. :-) Glad to see it's merely an edit war with spammers. I'll keep Mother on my watchlist too. Risker (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Looks like the speedy worked. I doubt if anyone would clobber you on WP:3RR for reverting persistent addition of links to, essentially, spam. However, I'll watch Mother, if not Watch with Mother. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, it's nice to know that AN/I watchers have a sense of humor. Do I dare click on some of these links? OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

On a more serious note, why do we not have a proper article about maternity clothing? — CharlotteWebb 23:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Why should we? It's not important in either Star Trek or Pokemon. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I thought we did: Loose Fit and Baggy Trousers for a start. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:28, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Dude, don't come whining to us when a pregnant admin blocks you for life. :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 01:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

3RR doesn't apply to removal of spam (Wikipedia:3RR#Exceptions). But I suppose there's no harm in being on the safe side. James086Talk | Email 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I've begun a stub and will edit it as time allows. Cheers. Gwen Gale (talk) 02:05, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Amjikian[edit]

I think calling a user a 'douche bag' is enough for a indef block, he was reported before by me and another user before. He is most likely a troll, who is not helping wikipedia but adding POV. Especially regarding the Armenian Genocide, he was trying to insert false images...

personal attack newest...

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Myotis&diff=prev&oldid=203726600 --Namsos (talk) 01:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have left a warning on his talk page. Cultural differences, and that he's a new editor, may mean that he does not understand the gravity of this, so I am giving the benefit of the doubt. However, he is on notice. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 02:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Can't add notice to user talk due to spam blacklist[edit]

Resolved

I can't add the {{subst:di-replaceable fair use-notice|1=Lead acid cell.jpg}} ~~~~ to the uploaders page. It trigers a spam bot? (See image:Lead acid cell.jpg for more details) --CyclePat (talk) 03:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Here is the message I get:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save. If you are attempting a section edit, note that this block may even be due to spam links in other sections. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page. The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted.

Return to User talk:JustinWick.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JustinWick" --CyclePat (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Humm... Aparently that spam bot didn't even want to let me add a link to this page. What is this page? --CyclePat (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com was posted on the page in question. I've broken the link with a space so you can be free to post again. Next time when you get that warning, edit the page and do a Ctrl+F for the site in question. Best, shoy 03:14, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Shoy. Thank you. You've been a great help. --CyclePat (talk) 03:17, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Last I checked, the spam blacklist behaved unintelligently when the offending link is not part of the section you are editing or creating, so to remove it you kinda have to copy the comment you were about to save, then open an edit window for the entire page so you can look for and remove the "spam" link while posting your comment. I'm sure there's at least a few bug reports about this. — CharlotteWebb 03:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Jacker45[edit]

This is one of those gray areas that isn't really vandalism, but also not outright intentional disruption. I think we're talking more clueless than malicious. This user has been creating contentless stubs about albums by a heavy metal band, one with an article. The articles are nothing more than track listings in some cases, taxoboxes and track listings in others. He/she keeps removing deletion notices and doesn't respond to anyone's concerns whatsoever. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 03:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

An article with an infobox and a track listing is not "content-less". Most articles do start as stubs, please be patient. — CharlotteWebb 03:28, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Meanwhile after a look at the user's talk page, the apparent copyright violations, 3rr and unwillingness to respond seem to be trying editors' patience. Gwen Gale (talk) 03:33, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd also like to point out that adding links to pages here might help you out in the future. SynergeticMaggot (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

User "A bad cat" should be stopped before it's too late![edit]

The user "A bad cat" has vandalized the Japan article, but quickly undone it. He also vandalized the Treo 90 article of which I have not removed all damage but can be seen in the history. Much damage has been caused already and I suggest that he be stopped before more damage occurs. Ginbot86 (talk) 04:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Resolved: Blocked as vandalism-only account --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 05:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ku Klux Klan[edit]

Ku Klux Klan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
God Save the South (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
GordonUS (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Hersfold (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

This needs some uninvolved admin eyes. My involvement is that I declined an {{unblock}} request from User:GordonUS, who had been blocked for 3RR. Today, I removed some racist POV pushing from the article. User:God Save the South, who has uploaded photos that he took at several Klan rallies and thus presumably an inference can be drawn there, added on several occasions today some pro-KKK POV to the aforementioned article. It was removed by several editors including me. I made a 3RR report and the user was blocked by User:Rudget for 48 hours. I would think that would be a non-controversial block. User:Hersfold removed that block without discussing it in any way - before or after - with the blocking admin and imposed instead a 48 hour article ban. He then threatened to block User:Baegis, a valued editor in good standing, for questioning this action. This needs review all around - the unblock needs review and admins are needed to keep an eye on the article to keep it from being whitewashed. --B (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article until these disputes can be sorted out. I removed some KKK associations with the Nazi's yesterday on the basis that they were wholly uncited (edit warring had occurred previously on that topic), and I returned to the article today for another review and found it to be full of uncited original research... and a lot of pro-KKK POV. This crap is kind of getting old, so protected it shall be until the edits can be fully discussed. seicer | talk | contribs 05:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note to tell that I was on the unblock IRC chan when the User:God Save the South made his unblock request. Rudget definitely sought input from us before lifting the block. The spirit was that since the user was blocked for not communicating, and was requesting unblock for being able to edit the talk page of the article (the unblock request was clearly implying he wouldn't edit the KKK article during the remaining time of the block), it was a win-win situation considering the amount of edits that were happening on this page (since the block was made to prevent this user from editing the article). -- lucasbfr talk 09:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Just a note, I think you meant I sought input before lifting the block - which I did. Lucas has made a good summary of the reasons for the unblock, which I have further elaborated on here. I would also note that I was not informed of the opening of this thread. Hersfold (t/a/c) 17:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Just a note for any still concerned, hours after the situation seemed to have cooled off, OrangeMarlin has been blocked by Firsfron (link to block log). Happily, the user:God save the whatever, is free to do as he pleases (well, maybe he'll abide by the gentlemen's agreement not to edit the KKK article for the next few hours). That is all, R. Baley (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
  • This was an extraordinarily ill-considered block, which I have reversed per WP:CDB and just plain common sense. The situation was gradually winding down and a block such as this would only serve to revive the flames. Raymond Arritt (talk) 00:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
The situation was certainly not "winding down"; as little as an hour ago OM was still hurling insults at the unblocking admin. However, if a block made less than an hour after the last insult would "fan the flames", it should be reversed. Firsfron of Ronchester 00:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
As for me, I'm trying to decide what was more extraordinarily ill-considered, Hersfold's unblock or Firsfron's block... El_C 06:34, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I've read the talkpages involved and I don't see OM "hurling insults" at anybody. He certainly seems aggrieved, but blocking him for saying that a member of the KKK is a racist would probably be upsetting to anybody. This looks like a simple statement of fact, rather than an insult, since I would think that by definition all members of the KKK are racists. Its like blocking somebody for saying that Nazis are antisemitic. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You don't see this, Tim? It says "You support racism. You get neither an apology or retraction, so keep your racist supporting attitudes off my user page, please". That is directed at Hersford, not the KKK member. I certainly wouldn't block someone for writing that a KKK member was racist. I wasn't the only one who thought some of OM's comments were over the top. Krimpet said so, here. Blake Kite said so here and here. Shoemaker said so here. Cas tried to calm him down here.
OM responded to Hersfold with "So the loser group of editors who elected you in the first place is going to recall you. You make me laugh. How about you voluntarily resign and let us re-elect you? Oh, you're too much of a coward to do that? You'd rather attack me instead? Demand an apology? You make me laugh. I pity your moral reasoning." These were clear personal attacks, directed at Hersford (who is not the KKK member), after repeated warnings.
I am well aware that OM is a popular and charismatic editor, but he was asked to step back many times and chose to continue repeatedly personally attacking Hersfold with "coward", "racist", etc. It went too far. Firsfron of Ronchester 14:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

breeched name[edit]

Resolved: User blocked. GlassCobra 17:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My user name has been hacked. It says i editted something three days ago. Well, the only problem is i have been away from my computer for a week. I believe user named Jakew is probably responsible. I think he had problems with my neighbor and he's taking it out on me. I swear! I havent even been home for a week yet it says i editted something on april 5. This is IMPOSSIBLE. What do i do? I already changed my password. Mayday2010 (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Assuming your story is reliable, there's nothing much for admins to do, here. You're responsible for the security of your machine and your account. If your account's been compromised, changing your password is one step; you may also want to disable any "remember me" features or otherwise protect your physical security. Mostly, though, take this as a lesson learned and be more careful in the future. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:42, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Also, make sure that the user who broke into your account can't get a new password e-mailed to him/her. Open your preferences, and make sure that if there's an e-mail listed - that it's an e-mail under your control. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
You'll also want to secure your wireless network using WPA (not WEP) if you haven't done so already. Additionally, avoid public wireless networks when possible. If you do not do so, someone can hijack your session by sniffing for your session cookies and/or sniffing your login information. --slakrtalk / 11:17, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
This is slightly confusing, because eleven minutes before you wrote the above message, you made an edit in which you said that you did make those edits. Five minutes after that, you deleted that message, and then a minute later you left another message for the same user saying that you didn't. Perhaps you could clarify the situation? Jakew (talk) 11:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Mayday2010, I also don't see where User:Jakew harrassed you - perhaps you could point that out? Because at the moment my finger is hovering over the block button for that edit. Black Kite 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I would also point to a similarity between the edit summaries of Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 - the use of tildes in the summary. I wonder if there should be a RFCU between Mayday2010 and the ip, and Jakew (just to be on the safe side). I am not inclined to get further involved in this, since I am considerably irritated by the messages now on my talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of good faith we're assuming here. User:Mayday2010 and User:70.114.38.167 are so obviously the same person, and so obviously out to harrass JakeW, that the only reason I'm not blocking Mayday2010 indef myself is that several admins with more experience than me have reviewed the situation and declined to do so. Please review the early history of User talk:Mayday2010; they were caught in 70.114.38.167's autoblock, and multiple admins declined the unblock request; I don't have time to wade thru the block logs to figure out how Mayday actually got someone to undo the autoblock, or who the unblocking admin was, but before I leave WP for the day, my suggestion is to block the sockpuppet. Not only is it a sock, but it's being used to harass. --barneca (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
In fact, I'm going to trust my instincts. I'm blocking Mayday2010 indef. as a harassing sockpuppet. Anyone who thinks there's more than a 0.1% chance Mayday and the IP are not the same person is welcome to revert without discussing it with me; I'll be offline for several hours. --barneca (talk) 13:27, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you were correct to do so - I didn't do this earlier since I was peering through a red mist, and I didn't want to make a mistake. Thanks for your actions. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry I did not see this yesterday. This was the correct decision to indef block. I made the original block on the ip for harassment several weeks ago. Mayday's edits on site are not compatible with the email explanation he sent me and the comments on my talk page when he started this new account. After he started editing, I wanted to give him enough rope to make it perfectly clear he was here to disrupt. Now we know and will act accordingly in the future. FloNight♥♥♥ 14:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Flo, at the risk of exposing my ignorance to a wider audience, where is the log of your unblock? I looked yesterday so I could talk with whoever unblocked Mayday's account originally, but couldn't find it in the usual place. Anyway, glad you concur; I would have left you a courtesy note if I had been able to find the right log entry. --barneca (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Not I! ;-) I did not unblock this account. I was watching it after he started it and emailed me that it was blocked from editing and said it was an unfortunate mistake. After he left a post on my talk page his first edits were okay, so I decided to watch until he showed his intent. From my cu today, he Edited from a differnet ip. The original block of the ip is still in place. Thanks for promptly blocking this account when it was clear that he was here to make trouble. FloNight♥♥♥ 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki linkbot removing valid links[edit]

Vina-iwbot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is deleting a large number of valid interwiki links (see [71], [72], [73], etc.) in its attempt to remove deadlinks. I have left a message for its owner at zh.wiki, but someone here should shut it off before it does any further damage. --Dynaflow babble 03:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I confirmed two examples of interwiki links just removed that are valid links, so I blocked the bot. Left a message for the owner. EdJohnston (talk) 04:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Unblocked after discussion. User:Vina will run the bot without '-force' so it will not remove any links. EdJohnston (talk) 13:08, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Angry Video Game Nerd/Nostalgia Critic[edit]

A user named DevinCook keeps deleting all mention of the Nostalgia Critic on the Angry Video Game Nerd's page. While I certainly don't think the NC is nearly popular enough to deserve his own page, the fact that the AVGN has discussed him with third parties (meaning he was NOT simply responding to a fan) makes him seem relevant enough to deserve at least passing mention. Can I please get an Administrators opinion on this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.2 (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Oh, and on another note, the AVGN has acknowledged that he is a fan of the NC. This is certainly relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.140.93.2 (talk) 06:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Content disputes are outside the remit of this board. Talk with DevinCook. -Jéské (v^_^v X of Swords) 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

DataTreasury and related articles[edit]

Resolved

DataTreasury are a company who patented some electronic check system or something. There's a lot of lobbying going on at the moment, it seems, to do with whether banks should be exempt from infringement claims against such patents. This lobbying has found its way onto Wikipedia, in my view, with edits to that article and the Check 21 Act article which pushed an overly negative view of the officers of the company, DataTreasury.

User 66.65.156.251 has admitted to being a lobbyist, or at least somehow connected with this whole issue and I've managed to persuade them not to edit the article in view of a COI. However, I now wish I'd also warned them about making personal attacks since this editor has consistently done so against any editor who makes edits they don't like.

Here are some of the edits and users in question:

I've already sought help from BIO of LP related people to try to keep the article neutral at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Request_for_assistance

However, this anon editor's edits are becoming disruptive.

Can an admin please cast an eye over all this and decide whether 66.65.156.251 should be warned against disruption and or blocked. GDallimore (Talk) 07:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe these edits could concieveably qualify as personal attacks - the IP seems to be suggesting the three editors above have a conflict of interest. I can't tell if these accusations are baseless or true, but they aren't personal attacks, or even particularly disruptive. I will ask the IP to raise his concerns at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Neıl 09:41, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
He's not suggesting, he's accusing without grounds. That's a big difference. The issue with EdColins may have been a COI issue, but then the attacks against myself and Nowa were simply based on our affiliations with Ed, and NPA says: "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views".
If you can't recognise that this editor is being agressive, rude and disruptive, you need to look at the article talk page more carefully. The disruptive edit is the one I linked to under "disruptive". GDallimore (Talk) 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hence I have asked him to take his concerns to the COI noticeboard where they can be assessed - this is better than unproductive toing and froing on the article talk page. Neıl 10:39, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Please look again. This anon IP has just woken up and as well as shouting on mine and his own talk page about my impartiality has been undoing edits removing unrefenced material and vandalism. This is clearly disruptive, he acknowledges he is a lobbyist and therefore there is a clear COI on his part (not anyone who is accusing of bias) and action really needs to be taken. GDallimore (Talk) 15:20, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 24 hours for disruption. I told him to take it to the COI noticeboard, he chose not to. It's a static IP, so if he continues, the blocks will get longer. I hope this will make him use the noticeboard as he was asked. Neıl 17:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, it's much appreciated. Although I still think that advising a self-confessed professional lobbyist to take his grievances to the COI board is an unusual tactic... GDallimore (Talk) 17:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I think we would rather that than see them edit the article. They can give their grievances, note that they do have a conflict of interest (the fact the IP did reveal their COI is what inclined me to give them some benefit of the doubt initially), and ask for completely uninvolved parties to investigate. Neıl 17:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Fine. I can understand that. Thanks again and happy editing. GDallimore (Talk) 17:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat from Lowrider Editor (talk · contribs)[edit]

Just a heads-up concerning a legal threat made here. I have blocked the user in question, per WP:NLT. The user in question appears to feel aggrieved that the article in question was deleted by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't that talkpage be deleted under CSD G8? SQLQuery me! 10:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it should. Just noticed its recreation on my watchlist. Thought it best to bring it to attention here first. --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 10:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I am a 100% sure that this guy is another one of Serio's socks. - Caribbean~H.Q. 10:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Not that it matters, but is a legal threat from someone who talks like an ese credible? ^_^ JuJube (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is going on[edit]

Resolved: AfD and DRV are elsewhere.--Tikiwont (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Future timeline of Earth - can anyone tell what is the reason behind this AfD. On the other hand Timeline of the future in forecasts is indiscriminate collection of information because it does not focus in any particular topic, it is a hodge podge ranging from events in sports to space. In Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeline of the future in forecasts everyone is saying the article is not indiscriminate collection. When these craps will go and when the good article will come. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 11:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This is a noticeboard for incidents requiring administrator attention. If you have an opinion on an article at AFD, then the correct place to voice that opinion is on the relevant AFD discussion page, which you can find here. Neıl 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't quite follow your question here. It looks like both articles were brought to AfD in good faith and the first article you mention was closed with a merge and redirect, not a delete. If you have an issue with the procedure used to determine consensus you can bring the first article to WP:DRV (deletion review) but keep in mind that deletion review is not a forum to continue the arguments posted on the AfD, it's intended to review how the consensus was reached.--Torchwood Who? (talk) 11:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Legal threat to wikipedia[edit]

User:Reneeholle has continued to make legal threats not only against myself [77], but this time it is wikipedia itself.[78]. This is in addition to calling people mad [79]. User:Reneeholle has clear conflict of interest with the subject,[80],[81] I am trying to work on, [82], She has nominated the temp page, in my user-space, for speedy deletion initially, when the request was rejected [83], she tagged the page for MfD [84]. Now Sethie is not letting me do any work in my own user-space., and is simply reverting any work that i am trying to do in my own user-space.[85], [86],[87][88]. This is done while ignoring advice of neutral observers, at this notice-board itself [89].--talk-to-me! (talk) 11:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

fwiw, those first two aren't legal threats. Saying, "I think that leaving this material up exposes Wikipedia to legal action" is different from saying "I am going to take legal action against Wikipedia. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 11:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
  • More Wikilawyering from Cult Free World. I see evidence of obsession and POV conflict here, but it's not from "everybody else". Guy (Help!) 12:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
This should help!!--talk-to-me! (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2008 (UTC)


There's been a lot of commotion on this matter, and I think I've been punk'd.