Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive425

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

Noticeboard archives

Contents

Template Warnings[edit]

How do I stop this user persistently adding a 3RR template to my talk page. This is getting extremely annoying now. Nouse4aname (talk) 20:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I've left the user a message here. xenocidic (talk) 21:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And I've blocked them both for edit warring. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
You blocked the guy for edit warring on his own talk page? Toddst1 (talk) 21:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I think the original edit warring was on an article, and then it spilled onto the userpage. xenocidic (talk) 21:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Ah. Toddst1 (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Demos from the Basement to be exact. xenocidic (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Somehow this spilled onto my user page a bit, too. Looking at the recent contributions of Nouse4aname (talk · contribs) & USEDfan (talk · contribs) reveals that the two revert each other fairly regularly over a number of articles. Check out the histories of Shallow Believer, Demos from the Basement & Paralyzed (song). These guys need to go to WP:DR...edit warring blocks look perfectly appropriate. — Scientizzle 21:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Good call on the block for USEDfan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I would have blocked longer, given this stance on edit warring and his numerous 3RR vios. -- which I have all but extended my last bit of good faith towards.

  • [1] (have fun reading this one)
  • Edit warring @ The Used over genres of all things. I put an end to this by protecting the page (twice...) and eventually went for consensus on this. Despite consensus and a lack of reliable sources for his edits, he replies with [2] [3] [4] [5]
  • USEDfan cannot count his number of violations in his previous 5RR, which I overlooked in a stretch of good faith @ The Used -- I locked the page and allowed them to discuss it on the talk page. [6] [7] [8] [9]
  • And quite frankly, I can't comprehend half of the comments that are made, such as this. I would endorse a lengthier block, perhaps one week, based on the edit warring of the past and the lack of communication (that is understandable). seicer | talk | contribs 04:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User :90.196.3.2 [edit]

Please check User 90.196.3.2 He is making repeated disruptive edits. [10][11] [12] [13]

Also check his edit history. He is same user [14][15] [16][17] Mahaakaal (talk) 02:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe WP:RFCU is where Requests for Check User go. :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Finaldrive[edit]

Any administrators looking for a 10-minute job? I've got one.

In responding to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Finaldrive it became clear to me that Finaldrive was blocked for repeatedly posting an article about a band that he says is notable and admins say is not notable. He is requesting an unblock for the second time, and his unblock reason is that (surprise!) the band is notable.

The smart thing to do is to resolve the underlying content issue. Once the content issue is resolved, we can worry about the user's behavior if he continues to cause problems.

To that end, please unblock User:Finaldrive and start a deletion review for Final Drive where he is allowed to comment. Note that the second user in the SSP report may be someone else but should be considered involved with respect to a DRV discussion. Shalom (HelloPeace) 04:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

As the admin who deleted the article, I have unblocked the user and set up a deletion review. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:58, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tagging by User:DAJF[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.

Resolved

User:DAJF recently tagged the article Anti-tobacco movement in Nazi Germany minutes after its creation with refimprove, orphaned and uncategoirzed despite the fact I added "underconstruction" template in the article. When I removed the tags with this edit summary, he issued me this. This kind of tagging is not constructive and unhelpful. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 05:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I left a note on his Talk Page about this thread. I don't think he was being malicious about it. He probably didn't notice the under construction tag or it didn't occur to him. I'd suggest just ignore it and continue working on the article :) <3 Tinkleheimer TALK!! 05:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, I was surprised to see that such a minor incident got raised here. My actions in tagging the article certainly weren't intended to be malicious, but I was well aware of the "Under constuction tag" at the top of the page. Marking a new article as "Under construction" does not magically make it immune from being tagged as requiring references etc. The original author or other editors are of course free to remove the relevant tags once the respective issues have been addressed, but removing them before improvements have been made is not something I consider constructive, which is why I posted the warning to his Talk page. Maybe the original author should have considered using the "Show preview" button a few more times and waiting until the article was in a more complete state before uploading it for other editors to pick through. --DAJF (talk) 05:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh dear. DAJF, please, when you are new page patrolling check the edit count of the creators of new pages before giving them a templated warning. Otolemur Crassicaudatus has just shy of 23k edits to their credit and can reasonably be considered not to be a newbie. Using your own words not templates will always be the best way to contact an established user. See WP:DTTR. Finally, we usually give established editors much more leaway when it comes to giving articles time to develop before tagging. All that said this is a minor incident and not really worthy of much further discussion. Spartaz Humbug! 05:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

::::The overzealous edits by the above user is now bordering vandalism. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 08:00, 30 May 2008 (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.

Legal threats from anons[edit]

Over the last two days I have received some vaguely threatening messages from two anons, 155.41.160.31 (talk · contribs) and 24.60.18.243 (talk · contribs). This mainly concerns an image presently being displayed on mini-mental state examination. This test was initially released in 1975 without copyright restrictions, but in 2001 a company based in Florida acquired the rights and started enforcing copyright on it. We used to list all the questions from the test, which were removed after we were made aware of the fact that the test was copyrighted.[18]

The anons now claim that:

  • An image of two interlocking pentagons is a copyright violation, even though I uploaded a new version that I have certainly drawn myself.[19]
  • We might be breaking a law in 20 states of the USA.[20]
  • Showing a simple copy of an image from the test somehow interferes with the administration of the test in physician's offices.[21]

The anons decline to provide evidence for their points, but I am worried about the WP:LEGAL here. Could someone have a look and see whether (1) I am right or wrong in my assessment, (2) anything of this holds any water. JFW | T@lk 05:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Similar behaviour has been exhibited by Npsych (talk · contribs) on the MMSE page and on Rorschach inkblot test, as well as by the abovementioned 155.41.160.31 on Image:WCST.png (which is not displayed on any page). JFW | T@lk 05:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a copyright dispute... not WP:LEGAL. They may be baseless but it doesn't seem that they are threatening to sue you or anything. gren グレン 05:49, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
You might consider posting this to Wikipedia:Media copyright questions--Lenticel (talk) 06:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Cross-posted now. Thanks. JFW | T@lk 06:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:WebbyTaranula44444[edit]

Resolved: User blocked, articles G3'd.

Can someone please block this user and delete his articles? He's introduced several hoax articles about "upcoming" 2008 films (The Sword in the Stone (2008 film) and BareWolf 3-D)? Unfortunately, as hoaxes none of his contributions are candidates for speedy deletion, and his other contributions to existing articles are all vandalism as his adding links to his hoax films. AniMate 08:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

They are CSD-eligible: WP:CSD#G3 includes misinformation. I won't tag because I don't know if they're really hoaxes...... Dendodge .. TalkHelp 08:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
They are hoaxes - deleted. Neıl 09:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The user was blocked indef by Alexf. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 09:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda refuses to retract offensive personal attack[edit]

Resolved: This is becoming entirely pointless, remember that this is not the Wikipedia complaints department, if you want to bash each other do so on your talk pages. This entire thread is a drama magnet, the matter at hand does not require sysop attention. - Caribbean~H.Q. 22:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Guettarda recently claimed that I've "gone so far as to threaten to introduce pro-ID POV into articles that most people admit are pretty good" in an unspecified post at Wikipedia Review. [22] There's two problems with this: 1) I have made no such statement, and 2) Guettarda refuses to retract the claim or prove it.

Since there is no evidence, I'm left with the conclusion that Guettarda's statement was a lie, and responded based on that. [23] [24] [25] Guettarda claims this is a personal attack, but WP:AGF clearly states otherwise. I will not "discuss" something that isn't true, even if it were somehow possible to do so.

Guettarda has thus far only removed the "observation" because it made me more than a little angry, which was "distracting from its purpose." [26] I find the allegation extremely offensive, and do not want it to become a "fact" simply because Guettarda stated it and refused to retract the claim. In fact, Guettarda continues to treat the claim as if it has some truth to it, still without producing any evidence. [27] [28]

I refuse to be unfairly maligned in this way. This behavior is completely inappropriate for any editor, much less an admin. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 16:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd have tried discussing this with the subject of this AN/I report (previously WQA), but I'm afraid I already know what he's capable of saying in response to me. Therefore, I think it'd be better if another user discussed it with him. Ncmvocalist (talk) 17:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Are you talking about me? If so, where have you tried discussing this? As far as I can recall, I have never interacted with you, either on Wikipedia or elsewhere. Guettarda (talk) 18:22, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
See below. Maybe I read too much into it at the time when you left that note for Shoemaker's Holiday. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Since Guettarda has deleted and struck all of his comments about this, I am mystified as to what you want. --Filll (talk | wpc) 17:40, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I want a retraction. Guettarda is claiming that the supposed statement "undercuts his/her credibility here." [29] Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 17:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Nope. That was not what I was saying. Guettarda (talk) 18:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Once s/he calms down and starts behaving appropriately, I would be interested in exploring what it was that was wrong with my interpretation of his/her statement, if that's what s/he wants. But, as I said, it's a distraction, nothing more. - how about you start by linking to this alleged statement by Sxeptomaniac so we know exactly what statement you may have misinterpreted. --Random832 (contribs) 18:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to a question by Sxeptomaniac, I said what I did to try to explain to him/her why his/her activity at Wikipedia Review is hurts his/her credibility (at least with some editors) over here. Instead of communication, my illustration brought anger and personal attacks* from Sxeptomaniac. So I edited my comment to remove the offending text. If Sxeptomaniac choses to remove his/her personal attacks, I am quite willing to discuss how it is that I mischaracterised what Sxeptomaniac wrote. All I have seen are further personal attacks.*

I removed the comment. Sxeptomaniac has repeated my comment in various places (both here and at WR), when a diff would suffice. Make of that what you will. My comment was a good-faith attempt to reflect what I wrote. Maybe once Sxeptomaniac is willing to have a civil discussion, I will learn what the problem was with interpretation. [*Sxeptomaniac has characterised my comment as a "lie". Calling something a lie is, on the face of it, a personal attack - a lie is an intentional falsehood. Thus, it is a statement about intent, rather than a statement about the action. While I may have misunderstood what Sxeptomaniac meant (I have no way of knowing what s/he meant) it was made in good faith] Guettarda (talk) 18:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Gaming the system: "An appeal to policy which does not further the true intent and spirit of the policy is an improper use of that policy." I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that wikilawyering about the implication of using a term like "lie" as opposed to neutral terms like "untruth" isn't the way to go here.PelleSmith (talk) 19:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

You know, this reads like a demand for "satisfaction". Are we talking about pistols at dawn on the hill outside of Wiki-town? But whose dawn? Are we in the same time zone? Different time zones? Oh, this is all so complicated. But I'm sure that, somehow, it furthers the mission of writing an encyclopaedia, right? Guettarda (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This all reads like classic victim bullying by Sxeptomaniac and his pal Ncmvocalist to me. Move along, there's nothing to see here. Odd nature (talk) 18:45, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm awfully tempted to call mark this as resolved, Guettarda already moved on, perhaps Sxeptomaniac should do the same. There is no point in "demanding" an apology just to feel that you "won" an argument. - Caribbean~H.Q. 18:54, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
For the record, if suggesting Sxeptomaniac bring it here (from the WQA) so that there is more input means I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature. I've had no prior dealings with either editor; the only reason I didn't want to comment either way was so that the dispute was resolved as quickly as possible. (Having seen Guettarda make a certain comment about me to another editor recently, I didn't see there was any point in me discussing it with him; it'd probably compound rather than resolve itself). If there's consensus that it's resolved, then I agree - it should be marked so. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Towards who is this: "I'm his 'pal', then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement" directed towards? - Caribbean~H.Q. 19:10, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I believe you missed the target: "then that speaks of your own (poor) judgement, Odd nature." User:Odd nature is an editor. See [30] Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Cheers PelleSmith - you hit the target. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Caribbean H.Q., I'm not interested in "winning", but in having my name cleared of a false accusation. Let me give an example, somewhat amplified to hopefully give some idea of where I'm coming from: Suppose I posted a claim that you had admitted to being a child molester in another forum (with no evidence). How would you respond? Then suppose that, instead of retracting the statement as false, I simply blanked that accusation "because you got upset"? Would you find that satisfactory?
I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation, so I'm going to do everything I can to stop that. Guettarda could have ended this very quickly with a quick retraction or a link, but has made excuse after excuse for not doing so. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's not an example, that's a hypothetical -- and a deliberately provocative one at that. You're not helping yourself. --Calton | Talk 19:42, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Calton on this one. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to be provocative. I'm just trying to give people an idea of where I'm coming from. Some people don't seem to understand why I'm not satisfied with the accusation simply being blanked, so I tried to give an example that most people would understand. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If we created a Userbox that says "Sxeptomaniac has been certified never to have injected pro-Intelligent Design POV into articles", and link it to this thread, will that solve the problem? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:51, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I suppose at this point I'll have to be satisfied with having taken this as far as I can, in the hope that it will deter others from repeating the lie in the future. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 19:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't you think you've used up your quota of personal attacks by now? I made a good-faith attempt to accurately portray your comment. Had I anticipated your reaction, I might have used some other illustration, or none at all. My only purpose was clear communication. And at that, I failed utterly. Oh well... Guettarda (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd let it go at this point, for my two cents. Guettarda's response about "lie" being a personal attack seemed a bit much under the circumstances, but if he removed the comment that's a retraction in my book, whether anyone wants to characterize it as something else. Mackan79 (talk) 19:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This puzzles me. Sxeptomaniac wrote:

I believe Guettarda is attempting to ruin my credibility with a false accusation

If he was afraid of his "reputation" being sullied, why is he spreading what I said all over? The statement was up on a low-traffic page for 8.5 hours before I removed it. Since then, he's repeated it at two higher traffic pages (here and WQA; I'd mention another place as well, but then we'd probably see another post go *poof*), when a link to the page history would have done the job just as well. But maybe that's just my lack of understanding of how the world works. Guettarda (talk) 20:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda -- I am not sure it is helpful at this point to speculate on the wisdom of Sxeptomaniac's bringing this to WP:ANI. People have their motives for what they do. Would I have done it? Probably not, but then again I did fly off the handle one time when a vandal account called me a Scientologist for no particular reason -- I mean, it was to the point where I almost asked an admin to remove the edit in question from the page history, until I decided it was better to just leave it be. ha ha ha... Anyway, my point is, people have their reasons for what they do, and those reasons don't always make sense to everyone. Sometimes people's reasons, in retrospect, don't even make sense to themselves, as in my freak-out over being called a Scientologist :D That's just the way it is.
At this point, these are the facts: Guettarda has deleted the comment in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he may have to be satisfied with no additional action taken beyond that. At this point, other than making it abundantly clear that you guys don't particularly like each other, what more is there to resolve? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Here's my reasoning: I expected the accusation to be repeated at some point in the future, so I want to make it abundantly clear it is not true and I won't tolerate such things, since Guettarda refused to retract it. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 20:41, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask again for a link to the alleged statement of Sxeptomaniac saying he would insert ID POV into articles, though I'm guessing it's probably of similar quality to the evidence that Filll and FeloniousMonk produced for their accusations against Moulton. If that's the case, then when faced with a choice between malice or utter incompetence as theories for why you said what you said, he chose not to insult your intelligence. Perhaps an unfortunate choice, since it goes against WP:AGF, but there you go --Random832 (contribs) 20:49, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, Sxeptomaniac. So you're not satisfied with a remark being deleted, you want to keep repeating it and calling another user a liar as well as demanding that the user retracts the remark. I'm sure that when you take up issues that an indefinitely blocked user has told you about, you do so in good faith. I'd hope that you take care to disregard the sort of personal attacks that are acceptable on another site, but I'd also hope that you can also accept that views on issues differ in good faith and that someone you describe as behaving like "a foaming-at-the-mouth religious fundamentalist" may actually have a valid point. Now, Guettarda has to accept that his reading of off-wiki remarks may be mistaken and without evidence can't stand. That doesn't make him a liar, and I'd expect you to withdraw that accusation. . . dave souza, talk 20:56, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Dave I think the issue that Sxeptomaniac and others are having is that there is in fact currently no evidence of any "reading of off-wiki remarks" at all, and none in particular to have been misinterpreted. Sxeptomaniac can be taken to task once Guettarda makes it clear what remark he misread to come to the interpretation he stated. That is the basic amount of evidence needed to, if we assume good faith, say that Sxeptomaniac's remark was uncalled for. Until then how do we know whether or not it was a misinterpretation or actually a conscious lie? Its that simple, and the fact that Guettarda refuses to do so is rather astonishing. Either he's so proud that he is incapable of pointing directly to his mistakes or he's actually trying to wikilawyer himself out of being called a spade. With a solution this simple one wonders what the hold up is.PelleSmith (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
... and slinging around accusations of any kind, whether they be about "lying" or threats to insert POV into entries is a detriment to the project, and while no one likes Wikidrama letting that kind of behavior slide because its just "easier" is not the solution.PelleSmith (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I reiterate: Guettarda has removed the remark in question. Sxeptomaniac has acknowledged that he is unlikely to be successful in getting any further action taken. It is abundantly clear to everyone here that y'all don't like each other. What further action needs to be taken? --Jaysweet (talk) 21:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
The same thing every accomplished victim bully expects: leverage over others. Until Sxeptomaniac and his pals Random832, PelleSmith, and Ncmvocalist feel they've sufficiently brow beaten Guettarda into silence and waylaid him at the articles in question, expect them to linger here and raise the ante. That is, until the community's had enough and closes this thread. Odd nature (talk) 21:55, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
That's right we are all buddies, we've just disguised it on Wikipedia, pretending to not have the same interests or communicating so that no one could tell that its true! At what point, Odd nature, do you accept that we're all just members of the "community" using a community forum to voice our concerns?PelleSmith (talk) 22:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Odd Nature, I suggest you read that blog posting you like throwing around. I have not been carrying around hurts to use in unrelated matters as per the article you reference. I have consistently been after one very specific thing: a retraction, and took it as far as I could in my pursuit of that. That said, Jaysweet is right, nothing much else is likely to help, unfortunately. I'm done. Sχeptomaniacχαιρετε 22:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. This entire thing is ludicrous. It is about a possible misreading and/or misinterpretation of a post on another site that might very well have already been removed, and for which we have no record if it ever existed or was removed, by who and when. And even if the reading was correct, it is not some terrible indictment or something with terrible negative connotations; even if true, so what? And in any case, Guettarda struck and deleted all references to it. The only person spreading and repeating this nonsense over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over in a frenzy like some sort of drama queen is Sxeptomaniac. Come on people. Give this a rest. It is nothing.--Filll (talk | wpc) 21:43, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Filll, as you well know some of us like to think that there should be accountability for baseless accusations used in an attempt gain advantage in various disputes. No amount of buttering these accusations up with supposed, "oh I don't even care if he is what I spuriously claimed he is," changes the problem here, and this problem is rather clear from Guettarda's own remarks. 1) He believes that Sxeptomaniac's behavior at Wikipedia Review destroys his credibility on Wikipedia yet 2) he misrepresents (whether consciously or not) this behavior in a way that furthers this claim. I stand by the fact that this type of behavior should not be encouraged, and that Guettarda could easily lay this to rest by obliging the "drama queens," in any number of ways.PelleSmith (talk) 21:50, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
"Accountability for baseless accusations" is not an excuse for making baseless accusations of your own, like those here. Odd nature (talk) 21:57, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
For your convenience Odd nature, I've linked once again to the pertinent remarks that are not in dispute, unless perchance someone hijacked Guettarda's account. I'll take full accountability for anything I've said, but someone has to say it. Baseless accusations are harmful to our project, and letting everyone off the hook just to diffuse the "drama" isn't the way to go. This supposed "drama" perpetuates itself in the vacuum of responsible action by the community at large. If an uninvolved admin had asked Guettarda to apologize and or to explain his misinterpretation would that have been so evil or hard? Some people are sanctioned from posts at this board in seconds, and it sends a bad message to the community when disputes involving other people just get the "ok move along, enough with the drama" routine.PelleSmith (talk) 22:13, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had the energy to reply to some of the blather on this, but I'm tuckered out just reading teh dramaz. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:39, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was it requested? Or let me rephrase, what exactly compelled you expend the energy to add that non-comment?PelleSmith (talk) 22:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Hey, that was really clever. Nonetheless, this is naught but much ado about nothing. If we really want to get technical: saying that someone "lied" absent proof is basically libel, especially when one won't retract it. Hence, Guettarda's NPA comment was correct, yet he just "let it go". The rest can be ascertained from Dave's comments below. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 23:04, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Baseless remarks should be removed. There is no evidence supporting the accusation of a "lie" and that should be removed, there is no evidence supporting the accusation of announcing an intention to make "pro-ID edits" and that has been removed. Statements made on other forums may seem to some people to discredit the editors making the statements, that's purely a matter of opinion and not one that can be resolved here. . . dave souza, talk 22:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Dave, some statements if true, are seen to discredit any editor in the eyes of pretty much any other editor. Being unabashedly pro-ID is one thing, but threatening to disrupt the encyclopedia consciously by willfully inserting a POV into entries is quite another. Feel free to have a look at the recent CAMERA fiasco, where it was pretty clear that simply being pro-Israeli is quite different from consciously disregarding Wikipedia policy and acceptable etiquette. Consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries (which is what Sxeptomaniac was accused of threatening) is likewise clearly against our basic guidelines and policies. Now, I know that you and others understand the distinction and I would appreciate a little recognition of that. This is not a matter of simply calling someone pro-ID, but of claiming that they have threatened to disrupt the encyclopedia. Given the larger context that this is all happening within (Moulton, Wikipedia Review, etc.) one would expect the nature of this accusation to be even more clear.PelleSmith (talk) 23:01, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
BTW, as I have stated in part already, there is no way to prove whether or not someone has in fact intentionally told a falsehood, and if no admission of such intent is available then clearly there is no way to suggest the likelihood that a lie in fact has been told. On the other hand if we assume good faith, as many are perfectly willing to do, there is at least one way to move on with more certainty that there was not an intended falsehood. If the person who claims not to have lied, but to have misinterpreted something, were to give evidence of this misinterpretation, then assuming good faith, we can accept this as true, and ask that the person claiming the lie to apologize and retract his/her claim. I think this is more than reasonable, not to mention easy and by Sxeptomaniac's own admission would solve the entire issue. He at least claims he'll retract his statement given this type of proof, and many others would undoubtedly sway towards simply believing Guettarda.PelleSmith (talk) 23:12, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
So what you're saying is that you want "proof" before you'll assume good faith? My feeling is that we should assume good faith all round, and neither assume that Guettarda lied nor that Sxeptomaniac was *threatened* "consciously and vindictively attempting to unbalance entries" which was not something I saw in any remarks made. If we can all back down from such antagonistic positions and accept the sincerity of both editors, I'm sure that there will be a reasonable explanation. . . dave souza, talk 23:38, 28 May 2008 (UTC) Corrected by striking "was" and substituting *threatened*, as PelleSmith notes. . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
This is the last I'm going to say on this, but I didn't claim that Sxeptomaniac was accused of doing that, but that he was accused of threatening to do so. Cheers.PelleSmith (talk) 00:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that correction, I've amended my statement accordingly and hope that conrrectly conveys your meaning. It's still not my reading of the sentence that Sxeptomaniac finds objectionable, and my feeling is that you're overstating its effect, but of course that's individual interpretation and not an absolute. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh Dave. I see you like to apply that subjectivist safety net when obvious meanings don't suit your interests. The appeal to individual interpretation is a non-starter, and a boring diversion from the practical aims of human communication. Keep it up and we'll have to start assuming that we probably don't understand a thing you write.PelleSmith (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Going back on my word already, one more thing. I think there is some confusion here as to the dimensions of AGF at play in a matter like this one. Hypothetically, if you claim that I have written a lie and I respond by saying that "the reason I attributed something untrue to you is because I misinterpreted something you wrote," then both you and I have made affirmative claims--you that I lied and I that you produced some piece of writing that could be misinterpreted and that I …so misinterpreted it. The main thing that differentiates these claims, that one is very possibly a personal attack, has no bearing on AGF. A personal attack may be very sincere, however much its choice of words violates civility and acceptable modes of communication. When you retort with "I don't believe that what you say is possible because I have never written anything that could be so interpreted," then whose statement is the outside observer meant to accept based on an "assumption of good faith"? Do we have to assume good faith in Sxeptomaniac's assertion that the original comment was a lie? Do we have to AGF behind Guettarda's explanation? And do we have to AGF in Sxeptomaniac's second assertion that Guettarda's explanation doesn't make sense? It is only Guettarda's explanation that you claim I'm unwilling to AGF in until he gives proof. AGF here, to me, means assuming goof faith all around until there is reason to believe otherwise. When one party is presenting themselves in a transparent manner, personal attack or no personal attack, claiming to have reviewed all his own comments and welcoming others to do the same, and the other person, sitting on the other end of a contradictory claim, closes up entirely and claims, based upon a technicality (NPA), that he no longer has to resolve this contradiction then how are we to AGF? I'll tell you how, AGF means extending the courtesy not to judge Guettarda on what Sxeptomaniac is claiming, but to let Guettarda defend himself. In taking the fifth, we are left with just that, the implication that Guettarda has chosen not to continue in order not to incriminate himself. While this may keep him from incriminating himself it also makes us lose trust in him, and trust is rather important to AGF if it is to function at all. Anyway my point here is that I'm not asking for proof prior to AGF, but simply for proof so that AGF (and trust) can be maintained.PelleSmith (talk) 01:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
My feeling is that such hypothesising is an obstacle rather than an aid to mutual understanding, and that all personal attacks should be withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 09:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's highly suspicious that the original accusation was not accompanied with a link at all. You can say now that the post may have been edited and removed, but presumably he saw it at some point, why not have copied the link then? --Random832 (contribs) 23:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Guettarda has long withdrawn the comment and said he might have made a mistake. He's already met all the conditions any editor acting in good faith would expect to resolve this matter. Yet the piling on continues and a completely unnecessary drama implying Guettarda had intentionally misrepresented things has sprung up without any meaningful evidence to that effect. It looks less and less like the the aggrieved party and his pals genuinely wanted his greivance resolved and was simply setting the stage to score some point against Guettarda from their past content dispute. Odd nature (talk) 00:02, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
User:Odd nature has (until now) only made comments in this thread that heighten the drama rather than help quickly resolve whatever issues/misunderstandings/dispute that existed between the complainant and his pal. He's continues to make unsupported accusations that editors are commenting here because of involvement in non-existent content disputes with Guettarda - could someone kindly tell him to either provide evidence, or to stop with the incivility and assumptions of bad faith? Thanks. Ncmvocalist (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
WHAT content dispute? I have never, to my knowledge, edited an article that Guettarda has edited. --Random832 (contribs) 13:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
And there are two very important things he has not done: He has not actually apologized, and he has not said just WHAT he was looking at that gave him this extremely negative impression of Sxeptomaniac. --Random832 (contribs) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)


So seriously. What do you all want? Guettarda has deleted the comment, which essentially amounts to a retraction. It appears some people would like Guettarda to make an official apology, but he has made it very clear that he is unwilling to do so, and I don't see how we can force him. I have never heard of sanctions being taken against an editor because they refused to apologize, and nobody appears to be asking for this. (If you are, please say so explicitly so we can at least discuss the proposal in concrete terms rather than abstract, e.g. say, "If Guettarda doesn't apologize, I think he should be blocked for 3.1415926 hours", or "If Guettarda doesn't post an official retraction on his user page, then we'll all point at him and call his mother fat.") Sxeptomaniac originally seemed to want public confirmation that the alleged accusation was untrue, and if this is really the case then I reiterate my suggestion that we create a UBX that says, "This user is not now, nor has ever been, a pro-ID POV warrior on Wikipedia", and link it to this ANI thread. I mean, if that's really what you want, why not?

But let's have concrete requests. The level of dialogue so far has been fairly poor on both sides, which is made all the more pathetic because it involves longstanding users. At this point, everyone has aired their grievances and I think we are quite clear on that. So from now on, if you don't have a specific request, then keep it to yourself. Agreed? --Jaysweet (talk) 14:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - specific request: please warn User:Odd nature to stop making assumptions of bad faith and make him retract his unsubstantiated accusations here. He's failed to provide evidence to support his accusations of me (or the other users he mentioned) being previously involved in content disputes with Guettarda, or of being in any way involved with the complainant beyond this incident. The issue is resolved if and when the relevant lines are removed. I want to make it clear - I am uninvolved (in case any future steps of dispute resolution are attempted concerning any of the users here, I don't want any ambiguity when someone refers to this in the archives). Ncmvocalist (talk) 15:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Is there in any of this, something that needs admin attention? --Kbdank71 19:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Establishing whether he made a personal attack apparently requires community discussion. If it is established that he did, well, WP:No personal attacks is still policy, and admins implement it. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
He who, Guettarda? Apparently the comment was struck, so a block is highly unlikely at this point. What else do you need an admin for? --Kbdank71 20:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the comment being struck as being the only thing under discussion, and its significance also seems disputed. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Guettarda has deleted the comment, which essentially amounts to a retraction. He deleted it citing a specific reason other than it being false, so it does not in any way amount to a retraction. There is no carte blanche to snipe at people so long as you blank it after they complain. A simple apology and/or retraction would go far at this point. --Random832 (contribs) 20:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Enough. It really is time to move on. At this point, this thread is becoming no more than an excuse to argue and bicker like nattering noetic nulls. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149;dissera! 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Followup Comment - Some actual admin attention to AN/I postings like this one, when they do occur, would go miles towards preventing situations like: Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Intelligent_design_editors. "Lets move along, there is nothing to see, this is all whiny drama," will surely lead to more unnecessary RfCs and arbcom requests. I know some people commenting here and reading this think that my commentary (along with that of others) belongs on a "complaint" noticeboard but as Relata suggests there are possible policy violations here to be addressed by uninvolved admins who should be 1) trained to understand them and 2) empowered to act upon them (e.g. either Guettarda or Sxeptomaniac or both could have been at the very least officially warned by an admin for violating WP:NPA). Is it preferable to zip up the drama so that it can be unleashed tenfold somewhere else? I don't think so, what do you think?PelleSmith (talk) 13:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User Hudavendigar's vandalism and edit warring on Armenian Genocide-related articles[edit]

Hudavendigar (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) Despite multiple warnings, user Hudavendigar's continues to not only aggressively remove any and all mention of the Armenian Genocide in articles but goes on to remove neutral sources and distorts the historical reality of the genocide by claiming that it is a myth - a grossly inaccurate assertion since most historians recognize the genocide as so: Letter on the genocide by IAGS. Along with a "my way or the way" attitude, any attempts at discussion and compromise are brushed off with disdain and hysterical accusations of a genocide conspiracy to besmirch Turks. Please see the following articles for this user's record of vandalism Sason, Sason Edit 2, Sason Edit 3, Van, Turkey, Bitlis, Van Resistance, etc., see also this user's editing history here. He fails to cease his edit warring and vandalism and after tens of warnings by several users, I hope a topic ban may be in order here. Thank you.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 20:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Are you sure his edits are vandalism? The official policy on vandalism defines it as something done in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia which I don't think qualifies in this case. Plus, this user has only been around for 8 days, I don't see tens of warnings left on his userpage, only a welcome note and the warning you left 3 days ago. Maybe you should try honestly talking to this editor about what you see as potential problems. You'd be surprised how much you could accomplish by doing that instad of just reporting him here. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, consider his edits tantamount to inserting the notion that Jews took up arms against Nazi Germany in the 1940s, which thus resulted in their tragic fate to "relocation camps." His talk page notwithstanding, warnings and invitations for discussion were indeed stated on the talk pages and on the edit summaries of the articles, not just his talk page. I think it's indicative that a user who just ignores your comments and proclaims himself as the sole guarantor of truth and honesty on Wikipedia and labels everything else as propaganda is not doing so because he's interested in the truth. Do you get that impression when you read his edit summary, saying that he is removing "propagandistic Armenian pov" and is combative with anything that goes against his beliefs? Please see his comments on user The Myotis's talk page to see what sort of editor you're dealing with. Some users who are informed on the Armenian Genocide and Turkey's position on it will be useful also.--Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think Hudavendigar is the type of editor that can be engaged with constructively. He has been inserting out-and-out lies into articles, using as sources obscure extreme-nationalist Turkish propaganda. Hudavendigar might well believe those sources to be truthful, but they are at total odds with every credible source. However, the rest of what SWik78 said above is true, he has only been editing for a week ar so and has been restricting his editing to a small amount of related articles of minor importance. I think he will quickly tire of his unsuccessful edits and either leave or extend his POV editing and warring to so many other articles that he will get restrictions or get banned for that. So best leave things as they are for now - don't hang someone for stealing just a chicken. Meowy 14:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Question: Does it? Oversight and administrator revision removal[edit]

Hi. See. Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 22:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The mirror would have to have a copy of the page between the time the offending text was posted and the time it was oversighted. Most mirrors do not keep the entire page history (or even the changelog in violation of the GFDL) so as long as the text gets removed it should be fine once oversight deletes the record. In any case, if some libelous comment is on a mirror, it is the mirror that will be sued not Wikimedia. --Selket Talk 23:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I wouldn't be so sure. I don't think Wikimedia can be sued, but the mirror apparently could not be sued under US law, either. The original poster (if it wasn't a repost from somewhere else) is the one who can be sued. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 17:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
By my understanding, this is actually a legal gray area that I don't think anyone is eager to test. There is some precedent that if you knowingly host a libelous statement, even if it was posted by someone else, that could create legal issues (at the very least, someone could definitely sue you and cost lots of money, even if the case was ultimately dismissed).
I think that, in the hypothetical example of a mirror preserving a libelous statement after it had been oversighted out of Wikipedia, the fact that Wikipedia removed the statement as soon as it was discovered would go a long way to averting legal responsibility. But again, nobody can say for sure, as this has not been extensively tested in the courts. Depends on which attorney you ask, heh... --Jaysweet (talk) 18:02, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

More RollbackUndo abuse by user:Gulmammad as well as WP:BATTLE and WP:HARASS[edit]

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

Please refer to the previous ANI THREAD.

In that thread, admin user:Tiptoety revoked Gulmammad's rollback rights however gave them back when he promised to use them only against vandalism. Gulmammad is now back to rollback abuse. He rolled my backused undo on my own talk page. Not only is this abuse of rollback undo but this is harassment. His post was clear battling along ethnic lines. He seems to refer to people he doesn't like as Armenian, I am not Armenian. He has also referred to admin user:Golbez as Armenian see here. Please consider my earlier suggestions of taking away his rollback rights as well as putting him on supervised editing. I leave it up to the discretion of the admins. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

In response to the accusation of rollback abuse, the diff that you provided clearly states that he did not use rollback, but instead the undo button and thus allowing him to enter a edit summary. Tiptoety talk 01:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
OK, my mistake on that one but he still shouldn't be reverting me on my own talk page. Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
In this instance the undo is essentially reposting his previous question with a request for you to clarify your response in the edit summary. It wouldn't be wrong for him to do this using copy and paste, so what is wrong with the undo button if the outcome is the same? Xaeon (talk) 16:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Something's wrong with Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous[edit]

It seems that there's floating text there with an image with a caption that says "Avril Lavigne with horns" I can't access the top tabs due to that picture.--Lenticel (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

What the...? I'll try to fix this (hopefully without botching anything! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:12, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
It's an ongoing vandalism problem the Reference Desk is having. Amusing, isn't it? I'm terrible at finding which template the vandal hides the pictures in; good thing the ref desk has 133t3r editors than I working there. -FisherQueen (talk · contribs) 15:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Another one at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Science.--Lenticel (talk) 15:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Misc. one fixed by User:Algebraist, I got the science one. They hide it in the archives, which are then transcluded on to the main page. How about (fully) protecting the archives? No-one has need to edit them, really. If not, perhaps don't transclude them on to the main page, just link them. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:21, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
I think archive protection would be good idea. Anyways thanks for your help. Will be sleeping soon as it is almost midnight in my part of the world. Goodnight.--Lenticel (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It was Template:RD Archive header monthly. still unprotected. Please protect, thank you. Hint on finding right template: Click on the Avril image and then on "What links here". ---Sluzzelin talk 15:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(double ec)I don't think the full effect on the misc desk was intended; an unclosed div was involved. Algebraist 15:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
(blaargh! ECx2) I've warned the Science vandal (he had his User Talk: redirected to his User:, I undid this, I would imagine this isn't allowed), and could the next passing admin please protect all the refdesk archives: no-one has any (legitimate) reason to edit them, and it would avoid future silly vandalism. The Science refdesk archive was edited directly, it wasn't that template causing the issue. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 15:29, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Re:FisherQueen. Yes, it's an ongoing problem. Sometimes it's highly disruptive vandalism of pages and templates, like in this example, sometimes it's a series of sockpuppets with first contributions consisting in non-sensical and surreal questions, probably also meant to be funny, but actually quite annoying and capable of luring good faith editors into wasting time trying to answer them. It is disrupting the desks, and both types of disruption occurred today, but from what I gathered from previous reports here, the editor also uses TOR nodes or whatnot and blocking him appears to be non-trivial. If it helps, I can collect a list of sockpuppets I'm talking about. It just looks as though it's all a waste of time and simply reverting the vandalism, protecting the templates, and removing the questions is probably easier and more effective. ---Sluzzelin talk 15:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
As the edits to archives illustrate, protection isn't really a good option. The core flaw is that disruptive HTML can be injected; specifically that of the form:
<div style="_position:fixed; _width=20000; _height=2000; _left:9%; _top:0%; _overflow:visible;">
(leading underscores added to make sure it doesn't break this page). Is there a technical means of restricting this sort of stuff? I'd think that stripping user-added CSS is a start, but that messes with sigs and such. "position" and "overflow" are the key exploits here -- perhaps they can be selectively stripped without much collateral damage. — Lomn 15:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Follow-up re: User:Algebraist's "not intended" suggestion -- the code above makes it quite clear that the disruption was intended. If you want a pic at top right, you don't define a div larger than any computer monitor with those provisions and then "forget" to close it. — Lomn 15:50, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
When you say 'injected', I assume you mean 'injected into the rendering of the page without the wikicode needing to be edited'? Otherwise, how would they get it in there? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:06, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
"Injected" isn't really the right word. The code has to be inserted via normal edits, but there's not really a need for the abuser to track down an unprotected template file or other obscure source -- any edit that places the relevant code at any point on the page results in the page being obscured. Yes, yes, WP:BEANS, but I think this editor has already demonstrated that he gets the concept. So I'm wondering if filtering those CSS elements from user edits (perhaps on a sliding scale similar to page creation) would serve to inhibit the threat. — Lomn 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed one of these last week (in accordance with WP:BEANS, I won't mention the ridiculously easy way in which I—about as computer-unsavvy as they come—found where the code was hidden in the archive). If anyone wants the name of the throwaway account (which I warned) used in that case, drop me a note. Deor (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, of course! Sorry, I had a bit of a brain-fart moment there! I say file a Bugzilla (I can do it if you want) asking for the 'position' and 'overflow' CSS elements to be filtered from non-sysop edits. There are very few legit uses for those elements in WP, and if they ever are needed, then an admin can insert them. This should stop them from being so disruptive. Yes they can still replace templates/pages with an image, but at least they can't obscure the entire page with the @$£!@# stuff! RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 16:28, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. And my Bugzilla competency has never been all that good, so I'd appreciate the assist. — Lomn 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Oh, late-breaking thought: This guy is also fond of using character escape codes to obscure stuff -- thus far, he's used it to hide "Avril" in the image name, but similar precautions should be taken to prevent the escaped version of "overflow" and such from slipping through. — Lomn 17:08, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Bug 14346 filed. I'll add the stuff about escaped versions, any chance of an example diff to help the devs? RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:13, May 30, 2008 (UTC)
Here's the offending RD/M edit. It's easiest to find the code in question via "view source", but note the section of "[[Image:&%65;&%118;&%114;&%105;&%108;...]]" ("#" changed to "%") -- that's the escape code in question (that renders as [[Image:Avril...]]). — Lomn 17:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
[too many colons!] The bug has been marked as a dupe of Bug 8679. I've added a reference to this spate of vandalism and a recommendation to blacklist 'overflow' to that bug. RichardΩ612 Ɣ ɸ 17:29, May 30, 2008 (UTC)

Continous personal attacks[edit]

Resolved: IP address blocked.

I have been a target of continuous personal attacks by anon despite repeated warning.

User:24.180.3.127: Keeps making edits despite my pleas to discuss. And when he finally agreed, he wrote this. Made statements like "this guy thinks he is God here", "I think this is turning into too much falsehood", "Get off, do something else, write a book or something if you want to speak". Look at this edit summary: "undoing above the law user AI009 here who is trying to make this his webpage, stop your police state and go to college" making repeated taunts on my age. Repeatedly uses argumentative tone making it extremely difficult to continue discussion. Called me a Nazi, and this comment almost made me lose my cool as he resorted to all sought of lies. Goes on to make statements like "The threat is this guy", a 18 year old kid, and a a big fat liar. Also vandalized my talkpage and my userpage. Highly un-civil behavior making it very difficult to discuss.

Let me also add, I've never resorted to name calling and tried to make all efforts to discuss the topic in as civil manner as possible. I reported the same to Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts but did not receive any response. That's why I'm posting here.

Also, concern over his sources were also raised by others. See [31] [32]. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia and am still in the process of familiarizing myself with Wikipedia rules. Any help, feedback, advise on this issue would be appreciated. Thanks --AI009 (talk) 17:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've blocked the user for 31 hours for harassment and personal attacks.-Wafulz (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Thelegendofvix[edit]

User:Thelegendofvix has been engaging in extensive edit warring on Greek (TV series), refusing to allow no less than six editors to remove his WP:NPOV and WP:OR additions. After four reverts, I gave him a 3RR warning (foolishly being generous). We discussed on his talk page, but he continued to assert his right to put the information in there. Less than hour later, an account that has not been used in nearly a year suddenly appeared to revert the article again to Thelegendofvix's preferred version, then disappeared again. Fairly obvious reason to be suspecion, so I filed a sock puppet report. Thelegendofvix made various comments there as well, before finally filing a blatantly obvious retaliatory sockpuppet report against me, claiming was the inactive account and was trying to frame him! He then messed up my user page to shove the sockpuppet notice into the middle of it (rather than on my talk page)[33]. He's since blanked the sockpuppet case notice from his own talk page[34]. I think this pointy behavior is inappropriate, and would like an admin to please take a look at the situation and respond in whatever manner seems appropriate. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

No one should be sockpuppeteering, and if proven, the admins should give Vix the Vapor Rub. One of vix's sins, apparently, is explaining that G R sigma sigma K does not spell "GREEK", which is not OR, it's verifiable. Collectonian is death on trivia, so this seems to stem from a content dispute. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 12:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I came in at the request of another editor who posted for help in the TV project because Thelegendofvix had already reverted multiple editors removing the section. I wasn't the first, nor only, editor to say the section doesn't belong. Thelegendofvix preferred to continue an extended edit war rather than yield to overwhelming consensus. From the talk page, it looks like he's actually been at this since around August 2007 or so. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:52, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I think it is funny that I get accused of sockpuppeteering from someone, but when I try to do the same thing I get no "due process." The circumstances are the same for both users (Collectonian and myself) even though the alleged motives are different. Interesting how her sockpuppet case was removed and mine was not. Concordantly, I also think it is funny/pathetic/sad that Collectonian cannot stand it when someone makes a valid point that is contrary to hers. She will throw every weak argument in the book at you to prove you wrong even going as far as to accuse you of sockpuppeting. If you look at her editing history, on her 20K+ so called "contributions" you will see that rather than taking a neutral and academic stance she frequently deletes anything that is contrary to her wikipedia ideology offering no respect for users out there who hold different viewpoints and opinions out there. If you want to see an example of this take a look at her precious award winning Meercat Manor. If she, the wikiGod, does not approve of what goes into the content, precisely how it reads, or its literary merit, she will remove it. If it does not flow with what she feels is true and accurate it is gone. Sounds more like a wikiBully obsessed with being right and winning internet arguments all under the guise of finding just the right statement (while ignoring the ones that are contrary) on wikipedia's vast array of guidelines. All in all, I know that I can be stubborn but wow...I have never seen anything linke this! You win the DundieThelegendofvix (talk) 23:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Any admin want to go ahead and deal with the sock puppet report against Thelegendofvix. I'm fine with ignoring the insults above (and his copy/pasting the same lengthy diatribe into the sockpuppet report...followed 2 hours later by the suspected sock account. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Any admin want to go ahead and deal with the sock puppet report against Collectonian. I'm not fine with ignoring/removing my report on her. To show that I am serious, I will refile it again. And yes, I would not put it past someone, especially anyone who knows all of the deep and intimate innerworkins of wikipedia to setup someone like myself just because they annoyed her by sharing different viewpoints and opinions.Thelegendofvix (talk) 17:48, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He has actually gone ahead and refiled his false report Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Collectonian. Can someone deal with him already, please. This is just plain silly, and his reasoning for accusing me of sockpuppetry is ludicrous. Does he really think I have nothing better in my life to do than try to frame him when he was already well on his way to a block for edit warring?-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Allright, I feel like I have a say in this because I, in fact allerted Collectonian about the greek issue. I think any skeptical admins should look at the Greek (TV) history page. To see how far it goes back, you will have to go to the next page. Oh, and god knows how many others. The conflict heads back to atleast a year and 1 month. My involvement was only recent. When you are looking at the history page, do not be confused by his edit summaries which say "Minor edits" and "Restoring pop culture section". Yojimbo501 (talk) 21:47, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Da Costa's, just under the 3rr threshold[edit]

We have a content dispute at Da Costa's syndrome. Today, I have been called a liar by Guido den Broeder (talk · contribs). He has "warned" me that I'm "attacking him" even though I have said absolutely nothing about him and instead commented solely on his content. Editors who disagree with him get strongly worded warnings on their talk pages about "errors" and "original research".

Guido has been blocked in the past for edit warring, so he is being very careful to only make his changes three times in 24 hours, such as:

Note, please, that all of this has been discussed, at length, on the relevant talk pages; Guido is the only person with significant objections. IMO it is not possible for us to reach agreement: he has a strongly held POV and is fighting anything that contradicts his personal position tooth and nail. I even had to start an RFC on whether a very widely used medical dictionary(!) was a reliable source! It seems unfair for all other editors to be tied up in these endless and wholly unproductive discussions simply because he's only making changes three times instead of four.

Does this situation justify a block, or are we just stuck with this tendentious editor? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Note an open user-conduct RfC which is languishing without much input, involving similar concerns. MastCell Talk 21:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Guido den Broeder is under a probation order on the Dutch Wikipedia. This user has been a disruptive influence on articles such as chronic fatigue syndrome, Simon Wessely (see the talk page) and now on the Da Costa syndrome page. JFW | T@lk 21:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The above information by User:Jfdwolff is false. It is a repeat of similar false statements by other Dutch users on en:Wikipedia which have already been addressed. Nor have I caused any disruption on mentioned en:Wikipedia articles. It is rather User:Jfdwolff himself who has, and now seems to seek an opportunity to bandwagon. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The information provided by User:WhatamIdoing is also false. User keeps adding original research to the article Da Costa's syndrome, making statements for which there is no consensus, while piling insult on insult. Everyone who opposes him gets accused in one way or another. I have worked hard to turn this article into a neutral text, based on reliable sources rather than random websites and personal views. Please let this not go to waste. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Note, by the way, that I only found out about this incident report because I saw User:Jfdwolff rallying troops on nl:Wikipedia. Nobody bothered to inform me. Guido den Broeder (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
 Done Block for progressive period of 1 week - Gross incivility by GDB as per links given (edit summaries and talk page warnings to several users). 3RR is not permission to revert upto 3 times a day. Given past edit warring history & block, and past issues of failing to engage constructively with other editors or accept need to work within consensus (see RfC link), I think this warrants block from English Wikipedia whilst he rereads policies on civility himself and also WP:3RR - especially given that past repeatedly directing him to WP policy/guideline pages pages had no effect and would continue editing in complete distain for views of multiple other editors. David Ruben Talk 23:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

For clarification: GDB has not edited on the Dutch Wikipedia for a long time and seems to have withdrawn on the condition that previous sanctions against him there were declared null and void. I have asked his mentor from NL to comment here or on the RFC. JFW | T@lk 05:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

My opinion based on interactions with GDB on different pages and during his RFC:
  1. He seems incapable of admitting that other editors' opinions may have any merit, in theory or in practice
  2. His interpretations of policies are idiosyncratic, and diverge greatly from mine at least, though other editors have also mentioned they are, ahem, unusual. For example, see this discussion regards notability, and a discussion in the RFC that I can only call 'delicious' in its ability to capture everything that I think is wrong with GDB's approach to wikipedia.
  3. His view of consensus is troubling - if it does not agree with his idea of what is correct, then it is a serious problem. Broad consensus is not a problem, it is something to be cherished. If an editor finds that a policy with truly broad consensus is problematic, they should perhaps seek out a different on-line venue.
Regards Dutch wikipedia - the project may have different policies and definitely has a different language. I would be cautious (actually, my personal stance is to outright reject) of any consideration of circumstances on other wikis. Everyone deserves a fresh start, and if they choose to use that fresh start as an opportunity to repeat their mistakes, that's fine with me. I see GDB as heading for a permablock that is inevitable if he does not re-evaluate how he contributes to wikipedia. The only question in my mind is if it will come from an AN/I posting or an arbitration hearing. WLU (talk) 20:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I was involved in commenting on the RfC, and I had considered the matters there to be at least partially resolved and in the past. I'm concerned that people are bringing those past issues up again as part of the justification for this block, and are risking opening up old debates. I haven't looked too closely, but there are always two sides to a dispute and I hope someone has looked at the conduct of the other editors involved in editing that page. Guido can be combative, but people should also remember to look past that and consider the substance of what he is saying, and if he has a point, at least support that on the talk page of the article even if you block him for his behaviour in making that point. Carcharoth (talk) 21:31, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious editor on Webby Awards[edit]

A tendentious editor, Dario D. (talk · contribs · logs), has added the same material thirteen times now, accusing the Webby Awards of being a Who's Who scam, mostly by engaging in a slow speed edit / revert war but also with two bogus arbitration cases and some incivilities. Full details at Talk:Webby_Awards#Tendentious editor adding defamatory material.

I bring it here because the editor has resisted attempts to explain Wikipedia policy, vowing at the end of the second bogus arbitration case he brought on the article to spend as much time as it takes to prevail in his edits because he wants to warn the world about the organization. If anyone could, please take a look at this. Perhaps page protection (libel is probably an exception to the "wrong version" thing) or give the editor a talking-to...though he has been testy with people trying to give him advice (he seems to think I'm a Webbies employee and accused a helpful third party of being my sock, etc). Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

A note on my role here - I edit lots of articles and there's nothing wrong with a legitimate, well sourced criticism section. But I'm often on the lookout for coat-racking and other problem edits. My objection is that this particular criticism in this particular form is baseless poorly sourced and unsourced material intended to harm a business. I would normally remove myself and go through dispute resolution channels first rather than getting involved in an edit war. However, he is using Wikipedia as a platform for defamation. If you read my write-up he declared that his purpose is to drive business away by calling the Webbies a scam, which is textbook libel. Indeed, people comment on the blog he used as a source that they will not enter the contest because they believed the accusation it is a scam.[35] - Wikidemo (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The editor has just reverted again so that's revert #13 and 14 from this one[36][37]. So I will bow out for the moment rather than edit warring. Please help if you can though. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 23:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I have issued the user a final warning. If they persist in edit warring, they may be blocked. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:28, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I was going to block this guy but I'm going to hold off out of respect for Jayron and his final warning. This guy has been edit warring over this piece of text since January and has had numerous warnings and explanations of policy and so on but continues edit warring regardless. He also uses IPs to continue his edit warring, such as 68.111.164.208. Between the warnings on his account's talk page (some have been removed) and the warnings on his IP's talk page, he's had at least a dozen warnings. If he comes back and starts reverting again, I intend to block him. Sarah 03:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, if that's the case, he'll ignore my warning. But since I didn't see how far back this went, and warned him anyways, lets see what happens. You never know, I can be convincing. Maybe he'll listen to me. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Point of clarification in the interest of transparency - I believe all the warnings until now regarding this article come from me, although he was warned by someone else about an edit to another article. Multiple people have tried to explain this to him, though, mostly telling him that he's going about it the wrong way but also a few telling him what's wrong with the content he's been trying to add.Wikidemo (talk) 05:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
No problems, understood. I just remember this case from when he tried to start an Arbitration back in January to force the material in and a variety of people went and tried to give him advice and assistance. I also think Newyorkbrad tried to help him on the Arb page and explained policy and DR to him. I actually put the article on my watchlist back then to try to help if the wdit warring started up again but I obviously didn't do a very good job of watching out for more trouble. :) And I just noticed that he tried another RfArb just a week ago. *sigh* Sarah 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
@Jayron, oh, I know you can be convincing, that's why I re-sis-ted hitting the block button. :) Sarah 06:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I posted at WP:RFPP and it's been fully protected. I'd put a third opinion on this a while back, and I thought it looked fine. It has three sources; two I'm skeptical about. (One is a blog for sure; I'm not sure about the second, but it looks like a blog.) The third source is the Chicago Tribune, and that seemed acceptable. It's an opinion piece, but the article was worded to reflect that. There was another source that was removed earlier in the edit war, this, which also seemed valid. I don't think it's fair to call this a problem user issue, even if the user doesn't understand what does and doesn't go to arbcom. I'm going to give them some pointers on DR. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I explain this in great detail on the article's talk page, and with all due respect, that interpretation is just flat incorrect. As I said on the talk page, please don't encourage this user. The edits are utterly improper per policy, they contradict the sources, they're defamatory, and the last thing we need is to give him more ammunition to carry out his tendentiousness. Wikidemo (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
The only tendentiousness I see is the edit warring, which you were both doing. You two need to work toward a compromise, rather than call each other wrong. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Now that the article is fully-protected, this is a content dispute, not an incident requiring admin attention. The discussion should be continued on the Talk page, and if you cannot reach a consensus, file an RfC. (I am about to comment on the talk page myself) --Jaysweet (talk) 19:41, 30 May 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.
Agreed, no additional administrative action needed at this time. Thanks all, Wikidemo (talk) 20:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Cursing anonymous IPs - User:Hegumen[edit]

Resolved

It's just a single issue, but it seems pretty bad to me. Reverting an anonymous IP on the image map of Macedonian speakers the user Hegumen used some pretty bad words in Macedonian (cyrillic). His exact words were "F*ck of little tatar" (see [38]). Now if it was just a WP:BITE issue I'd try to settle it with him, but this is way off. Using the word tatar is considered pejorative and highly offensive by Bulgarians. I cab\n assure you it was meant as a curse (even if you disregard the f*ck part). --Laveol T 10:22, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Gave my one and only warning I'll give on this. That was pretty bad. Let us know if he does it again.RlevseTalk 10:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I feel kind of honored that I have my own little section on the Admin noticeboard. This is, I think, part of an ongoing tiff between Laveol and I. It's hardly a WP:BITE issue, I told a nasty vandal where to stick it. I stand by what I said. Night, Hegumen (talk) 20:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't you probably add a similar warning on the anonymous IP's talk page? --Hegumen (talk) 20:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I told a nasty vandal where to stick it. There's a reason we have WP:CIVIL, y'know. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 22:10, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

IP reverts[edit]

An IP, User:195.222.97.164, recently started disruptive editing in a significant number of articles. Basically, he just calls every single historic entity in the Balkans "Serbia" and adds the History of Serbia template. Its a full time job undoing the damage, especially when he engages in undiscussed revert-warring. He is possibly a sock of User:PANONIAN. He has been warned, could anyone lend a hand?

His edits: [39]
Revert-warring: [40]
--DIREKTOR (TALK) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, this appears to be a content dispute. Warn the user for WP:3RR, once they breach it, I'm sure an administrator will..well...administer a block. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

A Wise course of action ;) Thanks, will do. --DIREKTOR (TALK) 20:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No prob! Just a word of advice though. Don't get yourself into a revert war over this. After warning them and it happens again, come back and drop a note here. Also, continue to direct them to the talk page. Wisdom89 (T / C) 20:38, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Zackkelly[edit]

Resolved: User indefblocked by LessHeard vanU. J.delanoygabsadds 22:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Zackkelly (talk · contribs) is a vandal who has already had a final warning for vandalism and has been blocked once already. He came back today to vandalize some more. I reported him at WP:AIV and User:Alexf responded that the vandal has not had a sufficient number of warnings. How many final warnings does a vandal need to have before they get blocked for a second time? Corvus cornixtalk 21:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

LHvU has blocked him indef. RlevseTalk 21:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

School Threat[edit]

Resolved: They're "going down" on a field trip. Oh boy. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:18, 29 May 2008 (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.

Diff. I think we all know what to do. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

wrong diff. Sorry. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:36, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Update: bstone is making the call. CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Blocked the IP for 24 hours.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 21:38, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Don't fight me on this Monobi.... CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not fighting you, I was right. It wasn't a threat at all and just wasted a few Kb of space on the servers. Monobi (talk) 01:55, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm guessing I'm just slow, but I'm not seeing the "threat"... --OnoremDil 21:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
There is none. They're going on a field trip. Bstone Confirms. :( Sorry, CWii(Talk|Contribs) 21:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Good lord. Have our amateur police gotten this far off track? Friday (talk) 21:59, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Hahaha. My first thought was... Going where? to the lighthouse? It didn't say 'going to blow up'. Sheesh. Find the real threats and act on them. Somerville cops must be laughing up their sleeves at us now. ThuranX (talk) 22:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems most of inserted "GOING DOWN" in our minds, my apologies as well >.<...better unblock the IP.¤~Persian Poet Gal (talk) 22:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's probably good to warn the light house folks. I wouldn't put it past these kids to bring markers and write on the walls, the scamps. Friday (talk) 22:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's been known to happen. --OnoremDil 22:07, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I talked to the superintendent of the district. We confirmed this is a location they are going on a school field trip. Once we figured out this was not an actual threat and just vandalism we had a good laugh. I have called schools to inform them of vandalism before, which this basically is. Bstone (talk) 22:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm really slow, but how the hell is that a threat? weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:14, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

LOL, sorry. What an anticlimax. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 22:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It's not. I was just calling a school to let them know one of their students vandalized an article. Nothing much to see here. Move along. Bstone (talk) 22:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we need to call schools to let them know one of their students vandalised an article unless there is a sustained long term pattern and even then I think an email from an admin to the school's IT would be a better response. We're going to drive schools crazy and become a laughing stock if people are going to start responding to stupid vandal edits like this. Sarah 02:27, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
What Sarah said. --Badger Drink (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
It was a friggin mistake on my part. Move on Please. CWii 2(Talk|Contribs) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't responding to your mistake in reporting it to ANI because you misread the edit as a threat, that's fine, in my opinion. I don't have a problem with users reporting vandalism. I was responding to Bstone saying that he was "just" calling a school to tell them one of their students vandalised an article. That's what I have a pretty big concern about, not you reporting the vandalism in the first place. So there was no need for the snarky response. Sarah 01:27, 31 May 2008 (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.

Personal Attack on User Wildhartlivie from User Nyannrunning[edit]

It looks like Nyannrunning (talk · contribs) is personally attacking Wildhartlivie (talk · contribs).

Here: Talk:Jim_Morrison#New_chapter_about_Morrison.27s_relationship_with_Thomas_Reese

And is engaging in sock puppetry:

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Wildhartlivie&diff=prev&oldid=215930491#You_are_referenced_on_discussion_page_for_Jim_Morrison

Please advise. IP4240207xx (talk) 10:30, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Further evidence: User_talk:Faithlessthewonderboy#Jim_Morrison and User:Wildhartlivie/Sandbox
Possible sockpuppet names: Dooyar (talk · contribs) and Debbiesvoucher (talk · contribs)
Additional evidence

The obscure but nearly identical information added to the Kim Cattrall page by User:Debbiesvoucher here and by User:Nyannrunning here.

Definite confirmation by User:Nyannrunning that he/she is the same person as 69.234.176.245 on the Richard Calvin Cox page at this diff, on a page that had no edits since December 16, 2008, the IP is in the middle of a series of edits by User:Nyannrunning. No changes have been made on the page since.

Adding and re-adding the same material, based on a discredited book, to the Jim Morrison page, first added by User:Nyannrunning here, which was removed by User:Faithlesswonderboy with good rationale, after which, the personal attack was posted. A few hours later, the IP 69.234.176.245 returned the same material here, which again was removed by User:Faithlesswonderboy. The material was once again returned, somewhat edited but using a large amount of the same material, by User:Debbiesvoucher here.

Results from Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Nyannrunning that Possible that Nyannrunning and Dooyar are related. And "Please see the results of the UserCompare tool.. I'm pretty sure that Dooyar is a sock." from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Nyannrunning.

I just want this stopped. Please. Wildhartlivie (talk) 00:16, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Peter phelps[edit]

I am concerned about the username of User:Peter phelps. This user has made some rather controversial edits to Mike Kelly (politician) ([41]), and also made some heated comments on my talk page when I reverted those edits ([42]), although they were later retracted ([43]).

The user in question has more or less claimed to be Dr Peter Phelps at this discussion at WP:AWNB. For more background on this person, read Gary Nairn, particularly the final paragraph. I am not convinced that this person is who they say they are, however. I question whether a political staffer for a federal government minister would have the questionable judgement to get involved in an internet flamewar over edits as unsubtle as these. I think it may be an attempt to make Phelps (and perhaps by extension Nairn or the Liberal Party of Australia) look foolish through impersonation (something that I think User:Rebecca was getting at in the AWNB discussion).

Does it seem reasonable to 'officially' ask this user to provide some proof of their identity (perhaps through OTRS) before engaging in further discussion, and taking some corrective action if this is not forthcoming? Lankiveil (speak to me) 11:56, 30 May 2008 (UTC).

Wikipedia:Username policy#Real names has some guidance on this. I suggest politely raising the issue on his talk page asking him to email info-en@wikimedia.org and show us.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I've username blocked this user pending confirmation of his identity as he is representing himself as Gary Nairn's former Chief of Staff and targeting the bio of the man who defeated Nairn at the Federal election. We've had other Australian political figures impersonated before and the Australian political bios have been the target of a great amount of trolling, particularly those with any Jewish ties, as this article does have. There is a paragraph in the Nairn article about Phelps so I think application of the username policy is entirely reasonable. Sarah 01:03, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Serious legal threat following baseball card link removal[edit]

Resolved: Users blocked for 24 hours.

--Selket Talk 16:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I received an e-mail from the owner of a site that I warned about spamming yesterday. He demanded I provide him with my contact information for a review of my "censorship" of his links. He said any attempt to censor his links would be met with legal action and he copied a prominent intellectual property lawyer on his e-mail. As opposed to the standard legalistic, blustery threats we receive everyday, I consider this a credible threat to pursue legal action, even if the actual legal complaint itself lacks credibility and legal merit.

I acted in response to a complaint made by:

71.56.118.64 made his complaint at:

I investigated both the complaining IP and the histories of the two articles he cited. The complainant appeared to have a "clean history". The two articles showed a clear pattern of repeated additions of the same links by 4 IPs which were repeatedly reversed. There was also evidence of heavy, unrelated spamming of these articles prior to this.

Here are the two articles involved:

Here are the four IPs; 3 traceroute to the New York City area; the 4th traceroute I can't decypher:


I gave all four IPs standard spam warnings.[44][45][46][47] I used level 2 warnings instead of level 1 warnings since the links had been repeatedly added notwithstanding messages in the removing editor's edit summaries; the four IPs had also not engaged with anyone through the use of talk pages. I also removed two other, unrelated links from one of the articles. I wrote up my spam investigation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Link spam violations.[48]

66.65.142.43 reversed my deletions, so I gave a second standard warning (level 3)[49] and deleted his links using TWINKLE.[50][51]

Subsequently, the IP responded at User talk:66.65.142.43 with a strong complaint, signing it "ds".[52][53] He also sent me the e-mail I referred to above.

ds claims: "All of this is legitimate reference information, and as such is protected speech in the U.S." He states that I have eliminated all references for these articles, however I note each has a reference section. ds also has alleged off-line that I am acting as an agent for the owner of cardpricer.com. I was unfamiliar with cardpricer.com and took the actions I did based on the merits of the spam complaint, not some connection to cardpricer.com.

Subsequent to this complaint, I did some checking; it appears cardpricer.com may be associated with banned user Tecmobowl:

Nevertheless, even if 71.56.118.64 owns cardpricer.com, I'm not sure what this has to do with the conflict of interest "ds" has in adding these links or his refusal to back off after being asked to stop with the first warning.

I also note that, from his Wikipedia edits and e-mail comments, ds may have more familiarity with Wikipedia processes than would be expected based on those 4 IPs' edit histories.

As I see it, ds's edits run afoul of multiple content and behavioural rules that govern the use of this site:

Given the gravity of ds's threats, I would appreciate the community's review of our respective actions in this matter.
Thanks, --A. B. (talkcontribs) 15:46, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I know little of law surrounding this type of thing, but I fail to see how he has any case. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, and it is not like we are excluding his links from those articles while including other ones. Wikipedia has a right to formulate guidelines for itself, and as long as we follow them, I see no way that he can force us to add his links. J.delanoygabsadds 16:03, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't actually answer your question. My answer is, treat him just as you would any other spammer. J.delanoygabsadds 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
We had lots of trouble with the long-since-banned User:Tecmobowl trying to post his personal baseball card page, and it was removed from all pages, as far as I know. Whoever "ds" is, he's blowing smoke, as there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia, and hence the "protected free speech" stuff is irrelevant. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:16, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I have blocked 216.73.161.196 for violating 3RR on T206. I will be blocking the others for the same duration as sock puppets. --Selket Talk 16:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Agree with everyone else. You did nothing wrong. Suggest ignoring his email. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:19, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Ignore this spammers email harassment. User is in clear violation of multiple policies including Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
I gather that no actual legal threat has yet been made on-wiki. If this happens, it is traditional to issue an indefinite block per WP:NLT until the threat is withdrawn. I didn't known that IPs could use Wikipedia email; I wonder how he reached you. If he is trying to intimidate you via email, a vigorous response would certainly be justified. EdJohnston (talk) 17:54, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
A.B. has her e-mail address listed on her page; one simply has to navigate through to find it. Horologium (talk) 21:17, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the bright side, this person just pretty conclusively demonstrated they're a spammer, no? – Luna Santin (talk) 19:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Protected speech? How is Wikipedia subject to the First Amendment? Isn't it technically a private website, that the Wikimedia Foundation can ban anyone from for any reason? Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 21:24, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, yet another legal threat from someone who knows nothing of the law(yaltfswknotl). 1 != 2 21:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
That's it. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

George Reeves Person at it Again[edit]

Resolved: user blocked Sasquatch t|