Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive473

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

Noticeboard archives


Anonymous Aryan activist[edit]

A person posting from a variety of IP addresses, including:

has been blocked under at least four addresses, in some cases twice, for the same small set of violations, despite warning after warning, despite block after block, despite semiprotection having been placed on both Ten Lost Tribes and its talk page (twice, in the case of the latter) on account of him.

He repeatedly deleted paragraphs he found offensive in Ten Lost Tribes, then kept posting the same off-topic diatribe over and over at the very top of Talk:Ten Lost Tribes, above the templates. He has repeatedly replaced Dardic with Aryan at the top of the Kashmiri people article, after having already been told that that's incorrect. He's made related changes in at least a couple of other articles. He has never once responded to anything I've written to him or seen anyone else write to him. His whole purpose in contributing is to push his POV.

He has been extremely active in Ten Lost Tribes since August 26. Having just taken a deeper look I see now that he has been making frequent improper revisions, deleting paragraphs, and inserting rants and statements of opinion into the Kashmiri people article under other 24.185.*.* and 24.*.*.* addresses, ever since at least April:

He never provides citations to support his views over the ones he's replacing.

Meanwhile, ever after I've written warnings and AIV requests explaining his persistence and his refusal to knuckle under after all of the blocks that have been placed on him and the protections put up because of him, admins keep giving him 12-hour blocks and 31-hour blocks. This is not a first-time offender. He's a die-hard, calling for industrial-strength action.

What can be done with this character? —Largo Plazo (talk) 22:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be needing a CU who can check the range to see what collateral damage may be caused by a rangeblock. As for the short blocks, if the vandal is using different ip's then blocking any one for a long length is pointless - they will just move onto the next. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Consider semi-protection of Kashmiri people for at least a month, and ask a checkuser about the wisdom of a rangeblock on for a month. Though the abuse has continued for a long time, some of the IPs you have listed are not recently active, and many of the affected articles have enough normal activity to easily dilute any bad-faith IP editing. The recent semi-protection on Ten Lost Tribes was well-deserved. (That is one of his favorites). EdJohnston (talk) 01:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Note: according to a notice at their talk pages at least to of the 65.88.88.XXX IPs belong to the New York Public Library. Funny thing is, almost all the edits from those IPs seem to be related to India and South Asia, which you wouldn't really expect from a casual library user. In any event, wouldn't a rangeblock affect all library users? --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I've decided not to do the rangeblock, after searching contributions from that range manually. (There are some good faith IP edits from other parts of the range). Due to long-term consistency over a multi-month period, I think the four 65.88.88.* IPs already listed above are the ones which are definitely our guy. Good enough consistency for a long block, so I've blocked three of them for two months each (anon only). The fourth already has a long block. Please comment if anyone disagrees. EdJohnston (talk) 05:26, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Abusive, COI & Sock Puppet Edits by BronsonPunchout and[edit]

I would like an admin and intervene to check the edits made by BronsonPunchout & I believe these are sock puppets of the same user and has been created simply to edit the page for the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. A quick look at the edits on the page shows [1] edits being made within minutes and seconds of each other by these two users often on the same exact topic/subject[2]. A deeper look into the edits of shows that they have clearly attempted to game Wikipedia by linking the fairly generic topic of bits to Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre: diff here[3]. Additionally, the user in question has been harassing me and borderlining on revert war edits when I have attempted to add citation and reference tags or removed empty topics or trivial sections. Additionally he's harassing me [4] and claiming I have a connection to the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre because I have dared to enforce Wiki style. I will admit I have gone to shows at the UCB theater in NYC, but I have barely contributed anything to the UCB article to endure these claims of "ownership". Heck, BronsonPunchout claims my attempts to get the article in "Wiki shape" oppresses the growth of the article and "perhaps one of the reasons it has not grown very much over the years." Ridiculous claim and my history of edits proves otherwise. Can an admin please step in and look over this mess. Perhaps someone who is an admin familiar with theater and improv egos and how they react to Wiki edits? --SpyMagician (talk) 23:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

i too would like an admin to check the edits made by SpyMagician, under the ownership clauses, agressivley removing others contributions and using hostile citation. They have made edits without actually reading the edits, undoing others contributions and used contradictory explanations, such as removing citations added to sections, then removing the sections claiming lack of citation. When they claimed i was a sock puppet and connected, i had reason to believe the same about them and added that tag as well. I did not remove the tag against me cause that seemed bad faith, but they kept undoing the tag relating to themsevles. I believe this person has a grudge or something and has removed others contributions, leaving the article in poor shape and lacking large amounts of info. It is possible i have made errors in my lack of understanding, and i apologize. Even so, it seems there are many opportunties to leave up a citation needed tag, or a section stub tag as opposed to immediately undoing all contributions by other edits. THis is not an improv ego thing. I added basic history data and cited it all, but SpyMagician is agressively undoing. Perhaps they are a sock puppet, perhaps they are just terrtorial, perhaps i am in the wrong. Either way, please help. BronsonPunchout (talk) 23:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to reiterate that any admin should simply look at my history of edits in contrast to the edits of this user and potential sock puppetry. You can make claims all you want, but the logs tell the tale show and the trail of edits. --SpyMagician (talk) 23:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, let's see: is it the "Upright citizens brigade theater school", or the "Upright citizens brigade theater training center"? This is obviously a question on which the future of the world depends. (If you're having trouble figuring it out, I'm sarcastically saying that this dispute is totally incomprehensible to outsiders.) Looie496 (talk) 02:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Looie496, that is is ridiculous, but i don't know what else to do. Go ahead and check ips, please. I am not entirely familiar with Wikipedia policies, but i don't know how else to deal with the disruptive editing via hostile cite tagging SpyMagician is engaging in. SpyMagician is demonstrating a clear sense of ownership and impeding other contributors thru gaming/disruptive editing. BronsonPunchout (talk) 02:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Looie496, I can make it simpler. Please check the edits made by BronsonPunchout and These are clearly the same person and evidence of sock puppetry despite the fact that BronsonPunchout denies the connection. And despite the fact these two users have only editted UCB articles in the past month; they contribute in no other way to Wikipedia.. Also, the claims of "hostile cite tagging" are baseless; the most amount of edits I have made to this piece are today. Why can't I tag uncited sections to an article? And how is it hostile to do so or should one assume that everyone in the world knows who/what the UCB is and is beyond reproach. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Also, in general I'm going to say something that will make most actors and theater geeks faint: Most people don't know or don't care about theater details or history. Citations ARE needed for many of the claims being made on behalf of the Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre. This is not unreasonable. What is bizarre is why I'm being harassed for daring to claim citations are needed. If a theater is closed due to fire code violations, provide the information. It's not hard to understand. And in between now and the time this nonsense started I have edited other articles without issue. If there is an admin with experience dealing with improv and theater articles, I welcome their input. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool and places like Upright Citizens Brigade Theatre shouldn't be magically excluded from the rules that have helped make other articles great. --SpyMagician (talk) 03:27, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Catherineyronwode (talk · contribs) who commonly edits as (talk · contribs) made an accusation of libel and slander impinging on her employment,[5] then asserted that "The legal threat is real" after being reminded that making legal threats is blockable.[6] Far from withdrawing the threat or stopping editing, she began to escalate the dispute by preparing an ANI complaint,[7] and took the dispute to an unrelated article[8] with a talk page statement which resembles WP:Wikistalking.[9] I'll ask her to explicitly withdraw the threat and take it through dispute resolution, but Wikipedia:No legal threats states that "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding." and I'd appreciate it if others could review whether these accounts should be blocked until the threat is withdrawn. . . dave souza, talk 16:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I would also agree that Ms Y should withdraw (or clarify according to Atom' interpretation) the threat of legal action. The other matters are not actionable. I can't see how, for example, preparing an ANI complaint is a red flag. Madman (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
These look like clear legal threats to me. Other users seem to have valid concerns about possibly copyvio. Saying that discussing those will lead to legal action is unacceptable.

JoshuaZ (talk) 17:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the user should be blocked until this is dealt with. The diffs show that the editor has reviewed their threat, and have decided to escalate the dispute improperly. The IP should be blocked too. Verbal chat 17:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, maybe I am dense. I looked carefuly at the cited diff[10] "Do not accuse your fellow editors of committing illegal acts. You have now gone past gratuitous personal insult and into libel and slander, impinging on my ability to secure employment as a freelance writer. This is intolerable and will be treated as such. catherine yronwode a.k.a." This sounds like a basic user dispute. She has not threatened any legal action, only mentioned two legal terms. I see no reason to block her. He comment regarding "a legal threat is real" was her concern that she what she perceivces as slander may damage her reputation as a freelance writer. She has not suggested that she plans on, or is threatening to sue anyone, and has only asked the uncivil editor to not do that any longer. Try asking her a direct question "Are you threatening legal action against editor Hrafn or Wikipedia?", and base your action on that? I think I will. Atom (talk) 19:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Saying that expressing concerns about copyvios is "slander" or "libel" clearly runs afoul of WP:LEGAL. The fundamental problem with such statements and the point of LEGAL is that they can be highly intimidating to users. Even if someone doesn't file suit directly the same problem exists. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, Atom, for raising the issue more directly. I'm a bit concerned about the question "Do you have any immediate plans to sue Wikipedia, or User:Hrafn?" as it would still be a legal threat if deferred or conditional on some future action. It did seem pretty clear to me that "The legal threat is real" meant what it said in the context of the discussion, but it wasn't clear if she was aware of the policy and further clarification is useful. . . dave souza, talk 19:56, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
On first blush, I also interpreted her response as a legal threat, but upon careful reading (after Atom's post) I do see that it could be interpreted in various ways. It's best to ask.
BTW, Cat is a long term contributor to Wikipedia who has worked long and hard to add material and to create articles throughout Wikipedia. We certainly owe her the benefit of doubt here. Madman (talk) 21:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Threats of libel are enough. The account should be blocked and the issue dealt with on the talk page. This is, I believe, to stop wikipedia from getting into any legal problems with things being discussed here. Wikipedia is not a forum, the threats should just be removed or the user blocked while they deal with it or not. The user has already been asked and warned per the diffs above. Verbal chat 21:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Verbal, I saw (and respect) your opinion stated earlier. No need to reiterate it, I was just offering my own. Should I state mine again too? You said "threats of libel" my point was that she made no such threat, she only used the word. Atom (talk) 21:28, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't my intent to restate - I added some new thoughts I thought, such as WP not being a forum for discussing libel and slander. Saying a comment is libellous is enough too, just from using the word in that way. Dispute resolution should be used so this doesn't arise. My comment about WP liability was new also. No hard feelings. Verbal chat 22:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought carefully about the "Do you have any immediate plans..." wording. My thinking is that we need her current state of mind, not past or present. We could not hold someone to "I don't plan on legal action in the future" anyway. Our main desire is to determine if by definition, WP:NLT applies or not for this case. Atom (talk) 22:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
One point here. We really shouldn't be accusing fellow editors of committing illegal acts. If you are wrong, then that is a problem. WP:NLT doesn't give people carte blanche to accuse someone of everything and anything, and then yell WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response. Some common sense is required as well, and careful and professional handling of copyvios and other similar issues. Carcharoth (talk) 22:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Good advice, though in this particular case it's wrong to suggest that the original accuser yelled "WP:NLT when they end up provoking a response." The question of it being a legal threat was introduced after Hrafn had struck his accusations and accepted that he was in error, when Aunt Entropy pointed out that legal threats are a blockable offence.[11] It was Catherine's response to that which included "The legal threat is real." [12] Catherine followed that up by stating on Hrafn's user talk page that "The real issue is that i was falsely accused of plagiarism by hrafn", and that she would "continue to carry my concerns to every place that hrafn has made this accusation against me and ask him to delete it or to apologize." Hrafn replied at 04:00 on the next morning, 3 September, then at 04:18 said that since she had made an explicit legal threat, he was "ceasing all communication with her, per WP:NLT".[13] In light of the statements below do you now consider it appropriate for Hrafn to reopen communications, and would you advise him to delete the comments she finds offensive? He's already struck the comments on the Haane talk page, and her assertion of "deliberate copyright violation in the Haanel article on Talk:The Science of Getting Rich"[14] appears to refer to Talk:The Science of Getting Rich#Page restored to existence again which makes no accusation of copyright violation, as it's an argument about which Wikipedia article text was taken from. Your advice will be greatly appreciated. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The claim that i had deliberately committed a copyright violation was false and very harmful, since my *real name* (and therefore my *personal information*) was attached to it. I asked for Oversight to remove it, but they declined. Very shortly, however, hrafn, the editor who had made the charge, admitted he had been wrong, and acknowledged that the charge of copyvio was backwards -- that is, the web page on which he saw the text had actually copied the text from an earlier version of Wikipedia, and i had also pulled up the old Wikipedia text.

He then admitted to having based his belief that i was committing copyvio on the fact that my text had been dropped into Wikipedia as "short lines." The lines were short because i use a 65-character-width text editor when i work offline to help compensate for my low vision. (I have nystagmus and cannot read long lines.) That excuse was just silly enough to seem real. In my experience, hyper-vigilant people read all kinds of meanings into typography. :-)

Hrafn withdrew the charge against me and then, at my request, he also deleted the sub-head text in which my real name was connected with the charge of illegality. He did not apologize, but the matter ended there. That's all there is to it.

Building a controversy about this kerfluffle days after it all ended is a bit strange, 'cause anyone could have asked me what was up.

Meanwhile, it is true that i am preparing an AN/I report against hrafn in my user-space. He knows about it; it's no secret. It is based on a long pattern of editing by him and not on any specific incident involving me. The hoped-for result is not to block or ban hrafn from Wikipedia, but to restore, for review by other editors, the several pages he deleted without discussion, and, if possible, to restrict him from editing in that category unless he agrees to work cooperatively with, rather than against, other editors. I am taking my time to develop the AN/I statement, and have asked other editors to contribute to it and edit it, if they find it of value. There's no rush on it, and it is proceeding as i have spare time; hrafn's been making these undiscussed deletions for months, and it takes many hours to find out what's gone missing.

It is conceivable that the prospect of hrafn facing an AN/I report may have provoked this attempt to get me blocked or banned from Wikipedia, but of course, that may just be coincidence. None of the editors speaking against me here are ones i know through editing the pages concerned with the proposed AN/I report; perhaps they are friends of hrafn's.

In sum, the copyvio charge was retracted by hrafn, the connection between the charge and my *real name* was deleted by hrafn, and that's a closed book. Meanwhile, i am still working on the AN/I proposal in my user space -- but that's an entirely different matter.

So, onward and upward, as they say.

Cordially, cat yronwode a.k.a. "64" (talk) 06:15, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

The above statement lays out the detailed situation pretty well though the statement "the matter ended there" is rather misleading, the important point is covered in a similar statement on her talk page,[15] with her statement that "I asked for the charge of ciminality to be withdrawn and hrafn did admit his error and deleted the sub-head, which contained the worst part of the accusation; the rest of the text he merely struck through rather than deleting, which i considered vile on his part, but that is typical of his personality. He did not apologize. That was that. I have no plans to sue Wikipedia or hrafn; rather, i felt that hrafn was using Wikipedia to publish his accusation that *i* was a criminal."
The article talk page is a bit confusing due to interspersed comments,[16][17][18] but in essence the matter continued with an exchange about whether there was evidence suggesting copying, and was then left unresolved with Catherine's assertion that "The legal threat is real". In my country copyright violation is a civil matter, not a criminal offence, but your situation may vary.
I accept that the ANI complaint and the dispute on an unrelated article relate to her general dispute with Hrafn over removal of unverified or disputably verified material from articles, and should have made it clearer that these are not directly concerned with the legal threat. My involvement began when I was asked by Hrafn to take a look at the situation on that unrelated article, and while investigating I came across the legal threat and on consideration felt it should be raised here. In my opinion the threat appears to have been withdrawn, but I leave it to others to review that aspect. . . dave souza, talk 10:19, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sensing a bit of bad faith on the conjurer's part. Perhaps if we repeat these bad faith allegations re hrafn long enough, the spirit world will assist in his condemnation. Or maybe not. Bottom line is that Cat's allegations re hrafn's "evil" plan ring quite hollow. •Jim62sch•dissera! 15:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
You aren't helping matters, User:Jim62sch, by name calling ("conjurer") and rehashing the dispute here. This matter concerns the perceived legal threat and that should be the only matter under discussion here. Madman (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Please, User:Jim62sch, don't call me names or lie about what i have written. I never wrote that hrafn or his intentions are "evil," so placing that word in quotes in a provocative and false statement on your part. Try to rmeain civil. My sandboxed notes for the AN/I proposal here have now been uploaded to the request for mediation against you, hrafn, and Dave Souza. Apparently some folks think that you folks operate as a tag-team or cabal.
As stated on my talk page, my research on hrafn grew out of requests from other users for my help in getting pages restored that hrafn had deleted or redirected without prior discussion, in all cases eliminating the entirety of the texts. In most cases i don't even know what the texts consisted of, as they are gone now, but i do note that they all fall into the broad ssubject-category of late 19th and early 20th secular self-help and religious New Thought and self-help authors and books. In researching those complaints, i found what i believe to be a pattern of elimination of text from many religion pages, falling short of deletion or redirection without consent. A pattern is evident. That's about all i know right now, but i worked a long time on establishing the dimensions of the deletiions and complaints, with a plan of trying to get the matter out in the open.
I reserve the word "evil" for serious matters; hrafn may be a one-purpose editor with a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint he wishes to enforce by elimination of historical material dealing with viewpoints counter to his own. That's not "evil"; that's just really, really POV-driven editing. cat Catherineyronwode (talk) 01:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC) Updated Catherineyronwode (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I would like to make a brief response to Catherineyronwode's accusations. They are based upon confirmation bias, inaccurate hearsay repeated as fact, and misinterpretation of core policy (specifically WP:V). Her claims of "a hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" would appear to be directly related to her husband's (User:Self-ref) and her POV-pushing on Category:Pseudoskeptic Target and its CfD. I could provide lengthy difs correcting and clarifying many of her claims on User talk:Catherineyronwode/ANI-proposal, but (i) this would take a great deal of time & (ii) they involve mainly content (and to a lesser extent WP:CIVIL) disputes that would appear to be off-topic for this page. I will however note that I apply my "hegemonic philosophical viewpoint" of attempting to see that WP:V is rigorously enforced, not to the "one-purpose" of New Thought articles, but to a wide range of topics, including my own editing speciality (articles relating to Creationism -- in which area an article of my creation, Academic Freedom bills‎, was recently favourably mentioned in the August issue [p11] of the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology newsletter), as well as articles relating to the Unification Church, the woollier reaches of speculative Cosmology and other topics. HrafnTalkStalk 07:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Continuing evasion of block by Wikitestor[edit]

Wikitestor was blocked for 12 hours on August 29, 2008, for violating WP:3RR and was warned at that time not to use anonymous IP accounts to evade the block.

Just five hours after the block was instituted and four hours after the don't-evade-the-block warning was issued, he began editing using As a result, his block was extended to one week on August 29, 2008.

Because he continued to use anonymous IP accounts to edit during the block period (see,,,,, and, his block was extended to one month on September 3, 2008.

Despite the one month block, he is continuing to edit with anonymous IP accounts. See,,, and Given his editing history and style, all these IP accounts undoubtedly are his sockpuppets. See also his userpage, where he admits to using IP accounts that begin with 62.57 and 81.184 and his expression of pride in evading the blocks. If administrators are unwilling to make IP range blocks, then I request that all the articles he has edited be semi-protected. Thanks. Tennis expert (talk) 21:47, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked for 48 hours - It's the same cable modem ISP in Spain for the whole block, and he's using wide swaths of it, as far as I can tell.
I am also leaving a message on User talk:Wikitestor about this. Hopefully he'll knock it off. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 05:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but he also is now using the 81.184 IP range. See, a self-admitted sockpuppet of Wikitestor. Tennis expert (talk) 06:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC) has been blocked for 48 hours as well, and another message left on Wikitestor's talk page. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 09:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is this nonsense?[edit]

MediaWiki:Editnotice-0-Sarah Palin

Are we no longer a wiki? All typo fixes must be supported by forms completed, signed in triplicate, sent in, sent back, subjected to public inquiry, lost, found, lost again, and finally buried in soft peat for three months and recycled as fire-lighters? People, BLP is not a carte blanche for imposing any restriction you like! We put full-protection in place only to protect from vandalism and edit-warring. Look at the history. See any problems? I don't.

People, can we please keep our fingers off the triggers? — Werdna • talk 02:20, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

If we could trust our admins to not go and make content changes and wheel war on an article as prominent as that, I'd agree with you, but the current arbcom case indicates that we can not. --uǝʌǝsʎʇɹoɟʇs(st47) 02:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
IMHO, admins should still be allowed to make non-content changes (such as spacing etc. fixes) w/o being potentially in violation of ArbCom. ffm 02:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree - most would, but there are some people around there that unfortunately, are too stuck on policies and are preventing things from being done. - Rjd0060 (talk) 02:33, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope. You edit as an editor not an admin. If you want a change made you request it like anyone else. Keeps admins from going protect happy.Geni 12:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No problems in the recent history because its been full protected for awhile. What strikes me about the history is there are way, way more edits than there ought to be for a fully protected article. Avruch T 02:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think Jimmy Wales and Tim Shell are fighting over Sarah Palin now in their own deathmatch version of the Wheel. aharon42 (talk) 02:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
**Shrug** Even as a non-Admin, I could find Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sarah Palin protection wheel war, accepted at Warp Speed compared to other ArbComs I've seen. And even as a non-Admin, isn't that the location for comments like this to be currently lodged? Or have I missed something fundamental about Wikipedia? Not trying to start a flame war, just can't understand why this comment is here and not there, in some form. Me, were I an Admin, I'd let ArbCom (or Jimmy, whatever) sort it out, or get involved there. But that's just me, an editor. Apologies if this comment violates something-or-other, or if there's something about AN/I I don't understand yet. LaughingVulcan 04:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User:Gogandmagog2: sockpuppet vandal of User:Bjrothschild7[edit]

- - Similar name and disruptive editing as User:MagogAndGog.--Gregalton (talk) 10:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Indef blocked and templated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 11:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP, User page list, strange editing.[edit]

Not sure if this counts as sockpuppetry, but I think so. An IP, (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) is making numerous edits like this, which 'cite' User:JokerFan2.0#Top_100_Greatest_TV_and_Film_Villains, a user's personal list. The IP has made numerous edits to the userpage, including creating the list diff of six edits, and has edited right after JokerFan2.0 at times. I started to roll these back, but think a more serious investigation might be needed. It seems odd though. Either he's logging out to make what he must know will seem like bad edits, for plausible deniabiility, or an IP is spoofing the socking to get him in trouble. Those are the two obvious explanations I can come up with.ThuranX (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

I note that JokerFan2 does not revert the ip's edits to his/her page, so I would assume that they are the same or known to each other. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:18, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. Using both the IP and account to add this nonsense is bad, but it's also strange, so I brought it here. So now what? ThuranX (talk) 15:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandalism at Sarah Palin[edit]

Resolved: High-visibility template reverted and protected Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing that that is template vandalism. Celestra (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's affecting Singapore as well. Stifle (talk) 16:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was Template:Bar percent. Reverted by Jredmond. Stifle (talk) 16:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
And I've protected it as a HRT. Stifle (talk) 16:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fila3466757 alias Tharnton345 IP sock[edit]

As reported at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Fila3466757 (3rd) the persistent sockpuppeter Fila3466757 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser) has followed a block as Tharnton345 (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser) by continuing the same low level disruptive behaviour as (talk+ · contribs · deleted contribs · tag · block user · block log · checkuser) Rather than block an IP in these circumstances I reported it, but since has continued with the pattern of disruption and harassment,[19] I've indefinitely blocked the IP and placed an anonblock notice on the user's talk page as an interim measure. . . dave souza, talk 16:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Y2J RKO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Resolved: blocked 72 hours --Rodhullandemu 17:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

A user with a final warning for vandalism from July let loose with this personal attack today. I think it's time for a tap with a block-stick myself, but YMMV.Kww (talk) 17:12, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Block review of Thewikiqediarollbacker[edit]

I just blocked Thewikiqediarollbacker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log) because his initial edits were copies of FirefoxMan's user page and Alison's talk page into his own user and talk pages, respectively. He copied Alison's talk page twice and then copied my user page. After I left him a note, he threatened to take me to ArbCom and then copied the Main page and Main talk page into his user and talk pages. The account name didn't exactly sit with me very well either. Probably somebody's sockpuppet. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:24, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

And, of course, the inevitable unblock request proclaiming innocence just appeared. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 06:34, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds as though he's up to no good and knows how to do it. Support block. Ty 06:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that unusual for new editors to copy existing pages to theirs for experimentation purposes, to see what the markup does etc. This could just be innocent behavior, though an immediate threat to take someone to arbcom sounds non-new-userish. Let me take a closer look here... Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:48, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The behavior seems sort of suspicious, but ... I can't for the life of me see what policy you blocked him/her under. I don't know of any policy saying that you can't copy content out of another's talk page. Even though the arbcom reference seems unlike a new user, this seems pretty bitey.
Can you please explain your blocking rationale in more detail? The page only existed for a couple of minutes before you deleted, it appears to be BITE and failure to AGF on your part. Plus no warnings. If there's a sequence of other behavior that this might be a sock of, that's one thing, but standing by itself this needs much more clarification...
Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 07:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it was a lack of AGF at all, since it is obvious that this editor was not a new editor to Wikipedia. You have a user name that references a feature that a new editor is not likely to know about. The first edit of a full copy of one administrator's user page followed by a full copy of another administrator's talk page, it is rather suspicious. Then following up with references to ArbCom and a copy of my own user page, this shows me that this is not a newbie at all. The unblock of making only three edits is totally bogus since the first edit references the deleted edits. If anything, I feel that I gave him too much AGF. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Copying material from another user's User or Talk pages is a GFDL violation. Corvus cornixtalk 17:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a username violation regardless. SWATJester Son of the Defender 09:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes on both GFDL and name violation - however, temporary copies to study the content and layout are (again) not unusual here. The usual response to name violations is a polite "you need to change your name" message, and to really abusive name violations a username block, but that's not the reasons given here.
Agreed that it's probably a sock of an existing user of some sort - but we only indef socks which are abusive, and the actions here only rise to technical violations of policy rather than gross violations. For technical violations, we warn and allow for correction. For apparent socks without evident real abuse, we warn and perhaps CU, but don't indef. This could turn out to be any number of abusive users, but the evidence is poor so far. Hammer too big. Try something smaller. AGF and checkuser to verify? Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 21:30, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with your assessment that this is a new editor temporarily studying the content and layout of user and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 01:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
We AGF in the lack of evidence to the contrary. This person knows their way around wiki and knows exactly what they're doing by creating a false user page claiming to be an admin. They then post a cleverly false unblock rationale: "I'm not quite sure what I have been blocked for? Just check my contribs. I've made 3. Two of them have been to Gogo's talk page, and 1 to my own." They made 9 edits, but of course the deleted ones don't show up in contributions. That is not the conduct of someone genuine but misunderstood. Can we not waste any more time over this: that's exactly what it's designed to do. Ty 03:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I am inclined to agree with Tyrenius' assessment. The "3 contribs error" implies that this is a bad faith user who's ignorant of admin tools. A new editor could be expected to remember those 6 extra edits. SHEFFIELDSTEELTALK 20:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

IP block reviews on administrator Kaihsu (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)[edit]

A little while ago, User:Da monster under your bed became concerned about several long-duration IP address blocks issued by administrator User:Kaihsu. Monster mentioned this to User:Gogo Dodo and apparently administrator User:Gonzo fan2007 noticed on his own.

I just flipped around and reviewed the last several IP address blocks, and I found them extremely suspicious - 1-year blocks after 4 questionable but not horridly abusive edits, with no warnings; an IP address indef blocked; multiple IP address blocks with no block message left on the IP talk page.

More administrator eyes on this needed. I'm going to ask him for clarification, but more review further back is probably a good idea. These may be sufficiently out of policy to overturn. I'm not going to do more than ask about it, as I'm going to bed soon, but more eyes on it seems like a really good idea. Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

These blocks are extremely problematic. I am very keen to see the explanation from Kaihsu. If there is no response by morning my time, I intend to unblock the IPs. Kevin (talk) 09:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I can't even see the vandalism for the last two, though the third and fourth (especially!) certainly are. I also think the tariffs generally are far too severe. I note that Kaihsu is another "older style" sysop enabled account, and might not be as up to speed on current practice as most. The only saving grace is that these actions are infrequent (although that would be no comfort to a potential editor with that addy). A response would be appreciated. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:08, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I have check all my blocks and think that they have been unblocked by fellow administrators. I will keep away from blocking until I am sure that I have a better understanding of the policy. Cheers. – Kaihsu (talk) 20:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

User: Concerns[edit]

(Realized I posted this to the wrong noticeboard, so here's a copy paste from WP:AN.)

First, a quick Google search of shows this is the IP of known spammers [20]. Next, you have personal attacks against other users: [21] ("incredible narcissism") and [22] [23] [24] (false accusation of sock puppetry). Third, you have at least one instance of vandalism: [25]. Soft block at the minimum is probably appropriate. Buspar (talk) 08:14, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 55 hours - please feel free to undo if you feel it was inappropriate, it's almost 5AM and I'm a bit irritable from lack of sleep and a late-night duty call. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:50, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
P.S. - And yes, I have no business being online at this hour, I know. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:51, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks like a school ip, see the whois report. --Kanonkas :  Talk  09:03, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
correction it is a University Ip address. I know the admins at the university and will ask them to look into it. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 10:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the accusation of sock puppetry: It sure seems that Buspar is in fact Xuanwu. They both edit the same articles in the same ways. Buspar's user page even says "I've been editing Wiki off and on with various user names since 2003!" Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 16:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
"Onethirtyeightdot"... gee, I wonder who it could be. JuJube (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not too hard at all to figure out who it is. Xuanwu says he "Started this Okashina Okashi page and have fleshed it out with time, making it a very comprehensive source page. Unfortunately, it was deleted." Buspar made his first edit ever to remake that article. Xuanwu and Buspar both have spent their time editing Hess Educational Organization and Worcester Polytechnic Institute and Ron Paul presidential campaign, 2008. So it's not hard at all to figure out that they are blatant sockpuppets, writing self-promotional wikipedia articles about themselves. The only question is what you're going to do about it. Onethirtyeightdot (talk) 21:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Board messed up SOME SECTIONS CORRUPTED so please can an admin notice this and help? Obviously not it seems.[edit]

This diff [[26]] seems to have affected several sections, altering or removing some text. Can't get my head around what happened, and can't undo because of intervening edits. DuncanHill (talk) 13:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Looking more closely, it looks like there was an edit conflict when Einsteindonut was removing a comment from another editor editing. I have had similar problems with using the "copy & paste" method of dealing with edit conflicts - anything posted between the initial conflict and the eventual successful save gets lost on the way. Don't know how to fix it though. DuncanHill (talk) 13:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Almost only way I can think of to resolve easily at this point is to C/P the accidentally removed sections back into the board. (Though I could be wrong about that.) LaughingVulcan 13:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, god, I don't fancy doing that. DuncanHill (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I will do it if anyone wants. Doesnt bother me I do it all the time at work. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Very decent of you - thanks! I have just asked at VP/T if anyone there knows a way to fix it. DuncanHill (talk) 13:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
where the hell do I start there have been over 50 posts since it went wrong. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe best to wait for someone with special powers (that's if any admins actually notice that parts of the board have been lost). DuncanHill (talk) 13:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There's only like 5 sections that were obliterated to C/P. I think I know a way that (hopefully) won't make things worse. Let me have a go at it. LaughingVulcan 13:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably best me thinks. Otherwise I can revert something that has been resolved so that admins think that it hasnt. I will leave it to the professionsals. BountyHunter2008 (talk) 13:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
On cursory review, I'm finding all the deleted sections still present on the page so far (3 for 5,) from that diff. Maybe somebody already resolved it??? Still looking. LaughingVulcan 13:48, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There are definitely still comments missing within some sections. DuncanHill (talk) 13:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
There definitely are, and the user is still editing the page and apparently changing text at will. I'm posting a request to his Talk page to cease editing this board temporarily. This isn't "vandalism" but it is certainly disruptive... ;) LaughingVulcan 14:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
As I think I mentioned, I have done a similar thing before. The problem arises with the way Wikipedia tells people to cope with edit-conflicts (i.e. copy-paste). On a busy page like this it is very easy to accidentally blank comments made in the time between one's original attempt to post, and one's eventual successful save. DuncanHill (talk) 14:02, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Very true. And I believe you're right - it's very hard to sort out what's been cut out. I had hoped to address the original diff provided and just c/p what's been pulled. (Think you looked at doing the same.) But I think you're right; this is something I can't tackle, either. So we still need some help here. LaughingVulcan 14:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I think I have now restored the lost material - but of course if anyone spots anything I have missed it would be wonderful if they could either fix it or let me know. I'll just add that I am sure that it was accidental, and a result of the unfortunate instructions given on the edit-conflict screen. DuncanHill (talk) 14:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that. For the record, a reasonably good way to fix such breakage is to use the undo feature and manually reinstate the intended edit (e.g. by selectively cut-and-pasting from the diff view). Of course, this assumes that MediaWiki will still let you undo the edit in the first place. I do could it might be a good idea to clarify the instructions at MediaWiki:Explainconflict for thread mode pages, where the currently suggested method is often difficult and error-prone. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 15:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
When I clicked "undo", it told me that the edit could not be undone. DuncanHill (talk) 15:49, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have mentioned the problem at the talk page for the edit-conflict message, I am unable to actually edit the message. DuncanHill (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I just made some changes to the message that should hopefully help a bit. Any further improvements are welcome. (If you're not an admin yourself and have some changes you'd like to make, leave me a note or use {{editprotected}} on the talk page.) —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 16:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many thanks. DuncanHill (talk) 16:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

It's happened again :( Stifle (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

So fixit. The header also needs to be edited to say something on the lines of "Owing to the Wiki software being unable to cope with the volume of edits on this page, the threads on this page cannot be taken as an accurate record of the actual posts. Posts may be lost or corrupted as a result of edit conflicts, and DuncanHill will not always be available or willing to spend the time fixing them". DuncanHill (talk) 21:53, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • The page needs to be protected, and an admin then to copy and paste back in the lost parts. I had tried to start doing it, but getting too many edit conflicts. DuncanHill (talk) 22:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I think I've managed to restore the only bit that Satori Son hasn't restored. Deor (talk) 22:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks - I was getting very frustrated. There was one more bit, which I just got. I still think the page needs a warning that threads may be misleading. DuncanHill (talk) 22:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting GAN fails[edit]

I wondered if someone uninvolved could take a look at this. Goodone121 (talk · contribs) is continuing to renominate Huntington's disease at WP:GAN after Jfdwolff and I each failed it once since yesterday. S/he reverted Jfdwolff today and then after I failed the article removed the link to the second GA review and removed the evidence of it from the article history template. Goodone121 has not been a major contributor to the article and has been asked by the article's main contributor not to renom it until the concerns from the second review have been dealt with. I asked them to stop reverting at User talk:Goodone121#Huntington's disease, because I feel it's becoming disruptive. I hope I'm not acting prematurely by bringing this here, but I'd like to step back and have someone else get involved, any advice would be most welcome. delldot ∇. 17:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I'll remove it and make a note in the ongoing discussion on his talk page. For something failed that recently, the place to go is Wikipedia:Good article reassessment, not back to GAN. I don't really want the article there either (because the problems can just be fixed by editors and the article renominated), but if s/he wants to run it up the flagpole, that is the place. Protonk (talk) 19:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I reverted edits I felt were good-faith, but against process. I will promply bring the matter to GAR.BTW, I'm a male.Bettering the Wiki (talk) 19:47, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Someone has just suggested that GAR may not be the best place. How about actually implementing earlier recommendations by Delldot and myself so we can then rapidly promote it to GA? JFW | T@lk 19:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • That someone was me. I don't think it should go to GAR, but if it between it going there and us blocking this editor (or others) due to edit warring on GAN, I would much rather it just go to GAR and be disposed of there. However, it appears as though the editor in question isn't planning on renominating it without consensus, so this may be solved...insofar as AN/I is concerned. Protonk (talk) 20:06, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, I was trying to explain that it might not be the wisest move to blatantly disregard advice given only 42 minutes (and 1 edit) earlier.

I think Goodone121's reponses to Delldot and myself on his talkpage are worth reviewing. JFW | T@lk 20:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Understood. Protonk (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Edit war of fair use image removal at List of James Bond henchmen in Die Another Day[edit]

Over the past three days, a slow revert war has been happening over the removal of fair use images from that article per WP:NFCC policy and WP:NFC guideline. See article history. A very similar dispute happened at Supporting Harry Potter characters recently. Please see this from the AN/I archive and Talk:Supporting_Harry_Potter_characters#Overuse_of_fair_use_images. The result of that edit war was article protection, and ultimately reduction of fair use images down to two (which is appropriate per the guideline).

Currently, I have been removing the images and attempting to communicate [27] to User:Blofeld of SPECTRE the policy and guidelines under which this was done. User:Blofeld of SPECTRE has used his rollback privileges inappropriately, and continues to treat the removals and tagging of the article for other issues by User:Pd THOR as vandalism, for example "Removing the images and plastering with unnecessary tags is vandalism." [28].

I'd appreciate it if an administrator would please step in and advise User:Blofeld of SPECTRE to halt his actions, as they are in violation of policy and further to caution him in calling legitimate edits vandalism. Thank you, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

  • I've informed Blofeld about this notice, and commented. I see the article has now been sent to AFD. Black Kite 22:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Reverting changes to articles I see as delibrately destructive in my view as perfectly accpetable. PD Thor isn't exactly justification either given that he attempted to delete the list of allies in Die Another Day too. What is the point in coming crying to ANI when I'm not here? The Bald One White cat 12:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


E-FlyBoy-M (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log)

I wish AIV could handle slightly more complex cases ... I hate bringing these things to ANI. Anyway, this account diddled around on his user page for months, apparently just to become autoconfirmed and able to be used to vandalize semi-protected pages. Hit Miley Cyrus today, blanking it. No valid edits outside of his bizarre userpage.Kww (talk) 20:57, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Probably related to TylerTown101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · edit filter log · block user · block log), who pulled the same stunt.Kww (talk) 21:00, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TylerTown101 filed as well.Kww (talk) 21:10, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow what waste of their time if this turns out to be the case. Months of checking the account only to have the one vandal edit reverted by a bot almost immediatly. let's see what the checkuser comes up with. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 21:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a hard time believing that it was worth the effort for whatever kind of silly internal reward vandals receive. TylerTown101's edits look related to the whole 4chan attack we had on Miley Cyrus Friday night. The edit patterns of the two accounts are identical, and the timing of their edits is within a 10 minute timespan. TylerTown101 makes two edits, gets reverted in 3 minutes, and E-Flyboy-M blanks the page 7 minutes later.Kww (talk) 21:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Bedford (talk · contribs) blocked[edit]

The above user was recently blocked by Stwalkerster (talk · contribs) for off wiki harassment (link in the block log). This was under instruction from Sceptre (talk · contribs) on IRC. Since I do not believe the decision is correct, I bring it to the scrutiny of the community. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 21:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Appears resolved per User talk:Bedford. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
The block log shows that Stwalkerster undid his block 23 minutes after making it. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I semiprotected Wikipedia:Requested moves[edit]

That should take care of them. Well, frankly speaking, it is what my father calls "a bunch of lunatics", doing nothing than complete nonsense and indecent humor... Blake Gripling (talk) 05:15, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It's been about four hours now, so I'm unprotecting it (hopefully it'll be alright). If they go at it again and the page is protected again, though, could someone make a place for new and unregistered users to actually request a move? The sprot template directs them to the talk page, and the talk page directs them back to the project page. WODUP 08:19, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
It was 4chan's /b/, again. I browse it from time to time and noticed that some idiot was spamming all the threads with automated edit url's to do this action. It's probably safe to consider it over now. --Dragon695 (talk) 13:36, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Looks to have calmed down. Short-term semi is usually enough to deal with these problems. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Violation of TTN's Restriction?[edit]

I'm relatively inexperienced in matters of Arbcom, but this [29] would appear to be in violation of TTN's restrictions, especially considering the similarity to this situation which resulted in a one week block. I realize that his restriction expires within the week, but if its a violation then its a violation (if this is not the proper place to discuss this then please let me know). (talk) 07:35, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Technically belongs at Arbitration Enforcement, but whatever. I'm currently too tired to look into it just now, but I'm sure someone will be by soon. Hersfold (t/a/c) 08:52, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking at it, he hasn't deleted anything - the characters that look like they've been removed are mentioned in other paragraphs, and don't look to be important enough to warrant that huge slab of plot summary that existed there before. This looks fine to me. Black Kite 10:43, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

TTN trimmed some minor characters out of a list, and reduced the article size by approximately 20%. Doesn't even approach a violation of his arbcom restrictions, so it doesn't belong there, either.Kww (talk) 12:46, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Kww, the only reason I bring this up is because the situation looks very similar to these [30] [31], which resulted in a ban. I'll move the discussion to enforcement though, since that's where it belongs (does that mean I should delete this section?). (talk) 23:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
No, it means that you should stop shopping this item from place to place until you find someone that overreacts.Kww (talk) 02:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to shop it around, in regards to this article I just want to know if the precedent is to remove material that was mistakingly posted. (talk) 06:29, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


He's keeping being very uncivil and even did a personal attack.

Called another editor "bad faith editor"[32], and "retarded" or "retard"[33] [34].

Kept Calling an editor who's not banned a "banned user" and an "abusive sock"[35] [36] [37] [38] [39].

Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[40].

He kept uncivil even after being warned[41].

Called an editor "banned user" again and reverted the edit again. He keeps saying that it is an original research although it is cited.[42].

Said "i laugh at your ridiculous and Bad faith forking"[43].

Called another editor's comment "funny" and say "are you kidding?"[44]

He doesn't feel any regret for what he has done even when he was warned again.[45]

He is so self-righteous and shows no manners. I don't think he is a suitable wikipedian. I suggest that he be blocked for a bit long time.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:21, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

According to wikipedia policy, "Anyone is free to revert any edits made in defiance of a ban. By banning a user[46]"
your content forking, distorted edit, wrong reference, unconsensus page move, and malforemd 3rr report(intentionally omitted the very important time records and the actual descriptions on this file) [47][48][49][50] is a cleary bad faith.
however, i did not use "retarded" word. possibly i used "ret*****". but i did not used "ratarded".
even some user(Sennen goroshi) said uncivil word to me, "Your source is crap and biased",[51] however, i did not report it.
sorry, but anyone can revert banned user edit. it was firt inserted by abusive sock account of Pabopa(Webcamera)[52], and after sock account is deadWikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa, newbie account is appeard[53][54], and it revert again.[55] Pabopa was a only one person who stick to injo kowtow. "possibly" these newbie accounts(Bentecbye, Mabemabe) are resurrection accounts of abusive sock. also he confirmed as a "likely" sock. it is not baseless at all.
you says, Called an editor "banned user" again. [56] but, i just revert banned user version edit. it is not mean you are banned user.(but who know? you are sock or not)
You say to me as a "rudness" is also uncivil manner. [57]
i said, "it is a your ridiculous interpret", because you intentionally omitted from source, and you distoring source, it is a ridiculous to me. i think it is not a personal attack. [58]
"funny" is not a uncvil word. i never heard it.
sorry, but Michael Friedrich edit is also inappropriate.
1. you redirected article title without any user consensus.[59]
2. He(Michael Friedrich) was not intention of avoiding edit war.[60][61] many user opposed his edit.[62][63][64][65] but, He keep revert his POV pushing edit continually. also his edit is not a compromised. his wrong interpret and Content POV forking opposed by several users.
3. Condemned someone as a sock puppet although there's no evidence[66]
i think you are not a suitlabe editor of wikipedia. Manacpowers (talk) 20:23, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Manacpowers is habitual offender of edit war.example,7th revert,6th revert.He does not have proper reason.He revert in many places.He is too bad.--Bentecbye (talk) 20:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael Friedrich and me already blocked for 24 hrs by 3rr reports. it is already done. also it is not violated 3rr rule, it is not within 24 hrs.
and Bentecbye your engaged reverting edit war. you are also keep reverted again.
Bentecbye is a confirmed as a "likey" sock of Pabopa who abusive sock puppetry and indefinite banned user. after Pabopa account is dead, this "new" account Bentecbye appeard. Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Pabopa Manacpowers (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Bentecbye make a memo list. i think this is his stalking list.[67] he trace my edit history. Manacpowers (talk) 22:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't think this is a place to fight with you, but I comment on your points.

First, I am not talking about 3rr now. Don't change the subject.

Second, "ret***ed" clearly means "retarded". Using *** means nothing. This is nothing but a personal attack. Your comment above proves that you don't feel any regret for what you have done. You don't seem to understand that you're being uncivil and what is uncivility either.

Third, Sennen goroshi does not have anything to do with this. Don't change the subject. If you think his deed is a personal attack, don't mention it here and make another section, please.

Fourth, whether Bentecbye is a sock puppet is not decided yet. You kept removing information only because it is first added by Bentecbye although it is cited and some, including me, oppose you.[68]

Fifth, calling your deed rude is not a uncivil manner or a personal attack. I was only warning you. If the word "rudeness" were a personal attack, "uncivility" would also be a personal attack. I used the word "rudeness" because it appears in Wikipedia's guidelineWikipedia:Civility#Engaging in incivility.

Sixth, using the word "ridiculous" is uncivil. Read Wikipedia:Etiquette#How to avoid abuse of talk pages. It says "Terms like "racist", "sexist" or even "poorly written" make people defensive. This makes it hard to discuss articles productively." Even "poorly written" is against etiquette. So are "rediculous" and "funny", not to mention "i laugh" and "are you kidding?". Read [[Wikipedia:Civility#]Situations that may foster incivility]] too.

Seventh, as for my redirect, I thought it was OK to move the article to a proper name (the name I used is a direct translation from the original word, 朝鮮史編修會) because there was another editor who had moved the article to another name before me[69]. And you moved the article too, without any consensus[70] and the name you used is your POV (Read Club for Editing of Korean History#Michael Friedrich's moves).

Eighth, as for edit war, it is a content dispute. Not a personal attack or uncivility. Besides, I am the one who started the discussion at Kumdo[71], Korean History Compilation Committee[72], Dojang[73]. You kept ignoring me and reverting edits without saying anything until recently although I tried to talk to you many times (see User talk:Manacpowers#No reference?!). You kept reverting my edits without discussion even after I tried to talk to you (see [edit on Korean influence on Japanese Culture]and my comment to Mancpower User talk:Manacpowers#Sogano Umako. Manacpowers ignored me and kept reverting the page). I don't want you to say I have no intention to avoid edit war althogh you kept ignoring me although I tried to talk to you many times. You have no intention of avoiding edit wars either.

As for sock puppet, I have sereral pieces of evidence (see Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/ This is different from what you did and I was told to ask him about it. So I did so. What's wrong about it?

Conclusion. What you said above is irrelavent here. Please do not change the subject.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 03:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Kumdo dispute[edit]

Sorry for bothering you, but there is a long dispute which seems not to be solved. I think [edit] is properly sourced. But there're a few who say this is an original reseach and POV-pushing. It seems this dispute cannot be solved without a third party. If possible, I'd like someone neutral to judge whether it is properly sourced or not.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 19:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

you wrong interpret, contents forking, and heavy POV is problem, and it is still going on discussion page of Kumdo. you are first, and only one person who make disruptive edit war of kumdo article. many user opposed it. Manacpowers (talk) 20:25, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Many users? It seems there are only you and Objectiveye. And there's one who's on my side, Bentecbye. This is not a place to dispute. I am asking for a third party's judgement in order to know if my edit could be called POV.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 02:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Wooey Parks vandal[edit] (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) - If some users could keep an eye on contributions from this account, it would be very much appreciated. In between good edits, the editor attempts to sneak subtle factual errors across various articles, and occasionally creates hoax pages for fictitious films in talk pages for non-existent articles, with "Wooey Parks" listed in the cast. Dancter (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


I am not sure if this is a copyright, but the pages read the same:

Fuel hedging and Brusegadi (talk) 05:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Good find. That page is older than our article. --Carnildo (talk) 06:18, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar issues revisited[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
NYScholar has been adopted by Shell who is aware of the issues raised in this discussion and the previous discussion ... ; no need to continue this discussion. If any editors have an issue or concerns they should contact Shell on her talk page.

(See 236936770) Gnangarra 11:06, 8 September 2008

I hate to bring this one up, as it was decided fairly readily by the community on the last occasion after a great deal of debate, but it has come to my attention that the community sanction agreed to in the previous discussion against User:NYScholar in or around 12 July, which effectively required NYScholar to be mentored in order to avoid being blocked, has been railroaded and undermined by a recent failed RfA candidate, User:Ecoleetage. Ecoleetage volunteered to mentor NYScholar (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive_21#Good_beginnings.21) then proceeded to recruit the latter to support Ecoleetage on a number of AfDs (see e.g. User talk:NYScholar/Archive 22#Hey_there). Somewhere in the interim, Ecoleetage "released" NYScholar from the mentorship on 5 August. They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs, with some more evidence thereafter (for example, on 27 August). NYScholar then voted on Ecoleetage's RfA days later. As it was a community enforced mentorship in lieu of a community ban, it seems to me that this was an entirely inappropriate handling of the situation.

This interpretation of actual events in "They then continued to tag-team together on XfDs," is entirely false: see below. This is an absurd claim! --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

NYScholar has taken this in stride, noting at the RfA that "He mentored me for a short time earlier in the summer when I was (briefly) required to have a mentor." Yet the problems with NYScholar's editing persist - we have repeated examples of hyperediting on the user talk page, mostly of the nature of removing negative commentary. Also some unusual editing at Talk:Czesława_Kwoka and Wikipedia:Non-free content review#Image:Czeslawa-Kwoka.jpg.

Offensive allegations. Totally out of context and totally misleading. I am an editor trying to maintain the integrity of all the hard work that I did in editing the article; the images, in my view, damage its integrity as they could lead to its deletion due to potential copyright violations in the uploading of these images to Wikipedia. Nothing to do with Ecoleetage or anyone else. Nothing personal. Just Wikipedia policy re: media. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

It may well be that NYScholar no longer requires mentoring, but I think there is a principle here that the community needs to decide the fate of actions it sets rather than these informal sorts of agreements between two users without any kind of scrutiny (nothing, for instance, was posted here to note the end of the process). The canvassing of a mentoree for XfDs raises alarm bells with me, and raises deep concerns as to whether any mentoring did in fact take place, or what benefit could be derived from it. Orderinchaos 17:51, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

  • These are inventions of OrderinChaos above (and Wikideman below); it is entirely acceptable to make edits and corrections to improve an article. I work very quickly to save changes so as to avoid losing them through "(ed)" server issues, which happen frequently. There is no rule in Wikipedia saying that one cannot work quickly to save edits. I make a lot of changes and a lot of corrections; I want to get things right; and I do use preview. Detailed citation sources and details about citation sources take a lot of work, and preview does not show the mistakes up easily when working online, as I am doing. I can't do the work offline and import it, because, given the reversions that occur in Wikipedia, all that work would be lost and a total waste of time. It's the nature of Wikipedia. The editing history summaries indicate what I'm doing; if people have trouble following the editing history, I can't help that. Everyone has trouble following editing histories, especially given the enormous amount of vanadalism going on. You would all be better attacking the vandals and leaving the editors who contribute hard work and reliable sources (like me) alone to do our work, and just appreciate the improvements being made to the articles. No one is paying me to do all this work. It is voluntary. It results in improving articles. Instead of complaining about it, you all need to be more appreciative, or we hard-working editors (not lurkers in incident noticeboards) will just stop doing this work, and you can work on these articles yourselves. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • I'm not talking about "improving an article". I'm talking about improving (?) an image talk page or a debate at Wikipedia:Non-free content review, neither of which are helped by users obfuscating the process with hundreds of edits in a row, which reduces accountability for users reading the history and trying to figure out what the hell is going on. There is also a potential chilling effect on users who wish to get involved in the debate. If you want to edit something and think you're going to need to make hundreds of edits, do it in Notepad or something first. I recently wrote an entire series of list-class articles which required some research, sometimes needed to be updated as research required or new facts (or errors) discovered, and I think the most number of edits I amassed on any one of them was 18. I use Excel and Notepad offline quite heavily when editing, especially as the Wiki editor has no capacity for search and replace which is sometimes useful. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I had noticed some hyperediting at WP:Non-free content review,[74] a page on my watch list, and a number of image pages, but due to the huge number of diffs the situation is utterly impenetrable, and daunting.Wikidemon (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed. Orderinchaos 18:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
    • See above. If I can follow the editing history, so can you. It depends on why you are looking at an editing history. Are you doing it to improve the article, or doing it to pin some purported Wikipedia "violation" or "crime" on someone? Motives here do matter. I edit in good faith; see WP:AGF. These comments are not in the spirit of WP:AGF. --NYScholar (talk) 19:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

For the record: there is no such "informal agreement" or "canvassing" of me involving Ecoleetage. In fact, as I understood the initial demand that I be adopted, it was later changed by the administrator's ruling to the possibility of an "informal" adoption; however, I stayed with the formal adoption and the featured adoption template.

The claims made in the above comments are entirely wrong. There is no such purported collusion (as suggested) between Ecoleetage and me. He was my mentor for a very short time, and later, he thought I was okay "on my own" and unadopted me. There was no ongoing "informal" arrangement. He was just continuing to be courteous, from time to time, asking how I was doing. I saw no pattern of "collusion" going on and no "canvassing".

A couple or a few times fairly recently, he asked me if I would take a look at some discussions of articles that were facing difficulties. I looked at the discussions.

My editing of two articles that he pointed me to look at and my creation of two other articles are totally independent of him. I perceived no "canvassing" of me. I just responded naturally to a request for another eye.

Last week or so, Ecoleetage posted a message on my talk page requesting if I might allow him to recount the circumstances of my being "adopted" by him as part of his request to become an administrator (which I then learned is called an "RfA" [I had to search for that].

I responded, on my talk page, declining to have it "dredged up"; as it had been so painful, so time-consuming, and so upsetting to me. I did not want to re-experience the misery.

As I do not use e-mail at all in or with Wikipedia or Wikipedians, he posted the request publicly on my talk page. I replied briefly (believe it or not) and asked if I could delete that exchange (given the previous concerns about so-called "premature archiving" of my talk page, etc., which now uses a bot (not a requirement I learned of the last "incident"; the adoption was required; the archiving just a recommendation, which I have been following. However, as long as Ecoleetage didn't mind, I didn't want to engage in discussion of this RfA of his further and archive it; I just wanted to respond, which I did (basically no thanks) and delete that. As I said then, I did not want to get involved.

I also had recalled (apparently wrongly) that he did not want to be an administrator and said so, but realized that I must have been wrong, and struck that from my comment, prior to deleting that whole exchange from my then current talk page, with his permission (which I had requested first).

Later, I noticed that he was the subject of the RfA (a procedure that I was totally unfamiliar with), purely accidentally. (Automatic watch list item by another user who had posted a barnstar on my talkpage and also commented in Ecoleetage's RfA, making the link show up on my watchlist.)

On my own and entirely without any further comment of any kind from Ecoleetage, and purely out of courtesy that I felt to my past mentor, I took the time to post my "support" in the RfA, which as a Wikipedia editor I am fully entitled to do. He had not come back to me at all about it prior to that. (He just accepted that I declined to have the previous incident leading to my being adopted by him posted about in the RfA.

This whole manner of OrderinChaos now making a new "incident" report baofsed on so many misstatements and false accusations only illustrates further why I did want to be drawn into any such administrative process as an RfA.

I had initially declined his [Ecoleetage's] request to allow him to dredge up the details of that unpleasant matter, and he respected that. But I posted my support out of courtesy a few days ago, just to be considerate.

Only last night or so, Ecoleetage came to my talk page to thank me for my independently-supportive comment (as he had done others in his own talk page). (I knew it must have surprised him, because I had decline the initial request to have the adoption brought up so publicly, etc.

On my own initiative, following the courteous example of many others posting comments in support to Ecoleetage, I had posted a "cookies" template wishing him luck on it earlier and giving him the heads up that I had actually posted something in the RfA, despite my initially telling him that I did not wish to comment, etc.

It appears to me that there may be some vindictiveness going on in OrderinChaos's post above, despite the "I hate to bring this up again" lead in.

OrderinChaos was one of the main forces in the past dreadful experience I encountered that led (very briefly) to Ecoleetage's adopting me. It was Ecoleetage who ended the adoption, after he felt, on the basis of compliments from Keeper and others, that I did not need the adoption. [He removed the adoption template from my talk page after canceling the adoption. He is no longer my "mentor" and I am no longer his "mentee" or "adoptee".]

I have worked enormously hard to improve an article that Ecoleetage had alerted me was in danger of being delet[ed]. But there was and is no "collusion." There is no working going on in concert with each other; he calls the work a "collaboration"; but it was not done together (in concert); it was just done at about the same time period. [I actually did far more work on the article than he did.] Our work on the articles was independent, and in some cases I changed what he wrote and vice versa. We were simply 2 editors working on trying to improve the same article.

I have not had any communication with Ecoleetage directly in my talk page or in any other way about my own editing of specific articles, other than gracious thank yous for the work that I have done, which he appears to have noticed after I did it.

The work I do has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Our interests are most often different. But I took the time to spend enormous hours contributing to improving two weak articles in Wikipedia that he brought to my attention because I was concerned about them after seeing how weak they were. A lot of what I do is provide citations to reliable and verifiable sources; and it takes a lot of time to do that.

Speaking personally, I perceived no "canvassing" etc. going on of me. I do not engage in such activities in Wikipedia.

Clearly, the kinds of responses one gets for such hard work from other users like OrderinChaos make one wonder, "Why bother?" (As I have wondered before when abused and maligned).

If it weren't for praise for such work from other editors like Keeper and Ecoleetage for the work, and others who give one barnstars or words of praise over the years, I would have felt worse, I suppose; the words of encouragement are nice; but I don't see them as "canvassing".

I have done the work that I have done in creating and editing articles to benefit the readers of Wikipedia (and hence Wikipedia); not to benefit myself, Ecoleetage, or any other user.

I simply do work in Wikipedia to improve articles when I think they need improvement. As a Wikipedia editor for several years, that has been my contribution to Wikipedia.

The current dispute going on (not in edit warring but in properly-placed templates and discussions of the problems) appears to me to be a difference of perception about the images by various editors. I have provided sources and points of information about the subject of the articles because I know from being the main contributor to one of them and the creator of two of them what these sources are. I did that work too in an attempt to improve the articles. That has nothing to do with Ecoleetage. I have had no communication with him about the content of the articles at all [at least to my recollection; there is no reason for "diffs." here, and in his manner, OIC has simply ignored my talk page and user box notices not to take my talk page comments out of context; he seems inevitably to take things out of context and to skew them to support false interpretations (misinterpretations) of the contexts.]

All my communications with him [Ecoleetage], except for the request about whether or not he could bring up adopting me and the circumstances for his RfA and my declining that request, are archived. I will be happy to find the deleted exchange and put it in an archive (it's from last week; it's in the editing history), if necessary; though I don't think it's necessary.

The image dispute going on over what appears to me to be a highly-dubious image or [series of images--2 in one article, 1 in another] is simply part of my own concern about the integrity of an article that Ecoleetage first drew my attention around August 28. I've had no communication with Ecoleetage since then about the article(s). (That initial exchange is now archived in page 22 of my archived talk pages.)

I would not have spent the time working on [the current one(s) I've been working on], if I did not think the particular subject both notable and even highly significant, which I learned from doing research to help develop the article's source citations and content. I spent more time than I would have liked on that article and doing that work led me to create two additional articles on notable subjects: Wilhelm Brasse and The Portraitist, instead of leaving them red-linked. The idea of creating the two additional articles came to me after I realized that they could use articles for linkage in the article on Kwoka (one that Ecoleetage suggested I take a look at the deletion proposal in late August).

I was taking time off from my own non-Wikipedia work because I had worked far too hard all summer on it and sent it off to press, was watching the Olympics and the political conventions, and got involved in working on the articles while watching them on my computer Media Center tv. Again: nothing to do with Ecoleetage. Just worked on them while not working on other things.

Given this level of lack of appreciation and lack of compassionate understanding of such work by people like OrderinChaos and the continued false allegations without documentation (same pattern in the last "incident"--no "diffs."--just false allegations based on misreadings and invented false assumptions of other people's alleged "motives"; total violations of WP:AGF: as Yogi Berra has said: it's déjà vu all over again.

It's taken me a long time to post this response to the outrageous claims by OrderinChaos, which I consider both offensive and violations of WP:AGF and WP:NPA. They are unwarranted false claims, as I have now pointed out, for the record. They are dangerous false claims as they create a negative environment in Wikipedia that discourages contributors to articles from contributing work to them and that discourages reporting of potential copyright violations for fear of reprisal (which has already occurred) and which encourages anonymous IP users and others to rachet up the personal attacks. (See my user page; fortunately, I was busy working and didn't notice all the vandalism being done to it until administrators reverted the vandalism to my [user] page and blocked the offending anon. IP user.)

Too tired to deal with any of this any further. Shame, shame, shame on the filer of this so-called incident report. In my view, he or she invents an incident where none exists. Working hard to improve articles is not a violation of Wikipedia editing guidelines or policies; providing sources and objecting to potential copyright violations in uploaded media is not any such violation; it is requested by Wikipedia editing guidelines and policies. Engaging in discussion of highly-complex and disputed fair use rationales and licenses of these images is not "hyperediting." I have provided those who make decisions about whether to keep or to delete an image with the sources that I know of relating to them. It's up to the administrators to make a wise decision in keeping with all of WP:POL. Whatever it is, I will live with, and I hope that the decision does not lead down the road to administrative deletion of an article on which I have devoted a lot of time to improve. If it does, c'est la vie. I'll know better not to waste my time again in the future (I hope). --NYScholar (talk) 19:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

[I missed some typographical errors in previewing and am now too tired to hunt for and correct them further; there are some important ones; I hope that the mistyping will not be too confusing. I'm exhausted by all this. --NYScholar (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)]

¡Ay, caramba! - could we have an executive summary of that? I think it's cleary that NYScholar wants to contribute a lot to this project, and has done so. Also that efforts by some to change how he does so have not succeeded. Hmm.... Wikidemon (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I'll put it on the record that I have no problem with NYScholar editing at all, I think they improve a lot of content areas by participating in them, but their dealings with the community and in debates leave a lot to be desired and have been the focus of repeated attention. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

If you guys or gals are going to make false statements about me (and Ecoleetage) etc., you are going to have to read the reply. This is outrageous. If you want to "change" how I (and please stop applying the male gender pronoun to a user whose gender you do not know) edit, on the basis of your own personal preferences, you are not acting in good faith. Don't go around casting aspersions on people and then complaining when they take the time to set the record straight. I am entitled to respond. Both Wikidemon and OrderinChaos tried to ban me from Wikipedia in the past, and failed in the attempt; they were overruled by administrative review. Apparently, they are still at it. Why don't you just let us do the work and stop this nonsense?

I'm leaving this page. What you are engaging in is, in my view, despicable. You want to talk about people behind their backs by frightening them out of responding because if they do, you will claim that they are not "changing" if they respond; well, you're not changing in continuing to make and renew the same old attacks. Don't instigate responses through baiting with false accusations. Having set the record straight, I am leaving this page. In my absence, please desist. Thanks. --NYScholar (talk) 20:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I have personally had nothing but positive experiences with both NYScholar (mostly at the Heath Ledger article) and Ecoleetage. They are not out to destroy Wikipedia. They collaborate on many things, most importantly, they collaborate on making Wikipedia better. This is a travesty in my opinion that some would use collaboration as evidence of some sort of collusion. Bogus claims, as far as I can read. NYScholar, and Ecoleetage both have the interests of a fair and balanced Wikipedia in mind, to accuse otherwise is an astounding assumption of bad faith. Keeper ǀ 76 20:08, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
As you can tell I've suffered some bizarre and unpleasant encounters with this editor before. As judged through the filter of reading the text he types out on the pages here his behavior is simply not normal. This isn't really a thing we need to debate or establish - it is so over the top, it is an elephant in the room so large that even those people who normally ignore elephants in the room see it. "Hyper-editing" is a useful and neutral term for it. And what is in those edits are obsessive corrections, perceived slights, boasts, put-downs, complaints, announcements of trivial personal details, digs at other editors, threats, insults, talk about process. There are some issues going on with the editing that are just not the usual things we deal with through our various content and behavior standards. I get the sense that using normal Wikipedia process to deal with it is about as useful as trying to catch a cloud with a fishhook. Wikidemon (talk) 20:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello. I think you should refrain from writing such comments without giving precise diffs, at least at illustrative purpose. Writing this is, from an external point of view, against the spirit of wp:civil vs this editor. Ceedjee (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm in summary mode and diffs would be overkill. The behavior is on display here too. We're not going to come to terms with this unless we stop beating around the bush with Wikipedia-speak and recognize this for what it is, an editing pattern and expressed sentiments for other editors that are far out of the norm. Or to use language that others have, hyper-editing coupled with constant accusations. This has been going on indefinitely and seems unabated so we can assume it will continue. It's clearly bad for the project. Any page this lands on more or less shuts down, degrades in quality, and more or less shuts down until the editor moves on. Efforts to change the project have all failed. So are we going to live with it or not? Wikidemon (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Keeper, can I suggest you might look into the various archives because there have been pretty serious longterm issues with NYScholar that go back a long time, such that he was very nearly community banned. I can assure you that nothing written by Orderinchaos is "bogus" and I would ask you to do research this issue before condemning fellow admins acting in good faith. If the community now wishes to release NYScholar from his community imposed mentorship then so be it but I think you would agree that the community needs to do that, not two users on their own without even notifying the community of their intentions. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I second this. Before accusing me of having some agenda, just *think* that I might be trying to improve the encyclopaedia by bringing this back-room defeat of a community decision to their attention. I thought this was resolved in July and was stunned to find out what I did yesterday, had to double-check several times to figure out what had actually taken place. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Nobody should be accused of having an agenda.
Neverhteless, searching in archives is maybe not the question.
At each case, precise diffs refering to precise problematic behaviour should be given.
Ceedjee (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
There are diffs in the opening post. If you follow the very first diff cited in the opening post you will find the archived discussion of the last ANI and there you will find more diffs to other discussions. The relevant diffs are all in the opening post, no one is asking you to go searching the archives. Sarah 23:02, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Now that I came back to find and correct a mistyped work and am momentarily here again:, I will just say thank you, Keeper. In the positive general meaning of the term, Wikipedia is a "collaborative" enterprise; that is the effect of editing in a "cooperative" manner, not in collusion; the collaborative nature of Wikipedia results from the open editing procedure. To change Wikipedia from a "collaboration" to "collusion" via false claims of "canvassing" (against Ecoleetage) is the opposite of this spirit of collaborative and cooperative self-less (un-self-interested) editing in Wikipedia. Some of the very same people who claimed in the last incident I was not "collaborative" are now claiming that I am too collaborative and colluding with another editor with whom I do not collude. (It's just plain nonesense to claim so: Ecoleetage and I developed a courteous relationship as a result of his volunteering to mentor/adopt me, which I thought was very generous on his part. You can't have it both ways, folks. Collaboration is not collusion; bringing an article in danger of deletion due to false claims of lack of notability to the attention of other hard-working editors who might help work on it is not "canvassing"; it is trying to improve the article so that other readers can perceive the notability of the subject, by dint of developing sources that illustrate its notability, which I what I did in part in developing some articles that were almost deleted. The work resulted in "keep" decision (by others), and in two new articles relating to the first one. That is an improvement to Wikipedia, not evidence of "collusion" or "canvassing": Again, the false arguments otherwise really violate Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Civility and WP:AGF. Again: shame on those making them. --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By the way, this should not be perceived as a call for everyone who wants to to jump on me or Ecoleetage again or on anyone else to try to heap on more offensive and more unsupported allegations; or to dig up links to out-of-context comments (as OrderinChaos et al do), wrenching them out of context further to make them appear to say what they do not say. If this misdirected notice is not stopped and removed quickly, this so-called incident report could easily escalate and degenerate into such a further travesty, bringing who knows who out of the woodwork, including anon. IP users: all those who have nothing better to do than to play enforcer (of nothing) in false incident report noticeboards. I would suggest that the user who posted this thing (OrderinChaos), whose errors have been brought to his attention with complete clarity, strike out the whole thing: withdraw it. This pack of false allegations (lies) does not belong here. End it now, please. Withdraw it. OrderinChaos and Wikidemo: You are simply wrong. Wikidemo's allegations had no diffs. to support them in the past, and again they don't now. I regarded his/her perceptions as very odd. So what? --NYScholar (talk) 20:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: hyperediting: learn to live with other people's editing styles. My editing is directed toward improving an article. This "notice" is, however, "hyperincident-report-posting." What are you people doing here all the time? Don't you have anything better and more important and useful to do? I can't even remember how I noticed this notice was here (something came up in a watch list) but I do not routinely check this page, and it is not on my watch list. I cannot wait to delete it now. Bye. --NYScholar (talk) 20:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Since I found this, and supported Ecoleetage in their RfA, I wanted to make some points. (NYScholar might have said these already, but I couldn't even begin to navigate that essay.) 1) NY's support at the RfA is pretty far down the list- a lot of people had already commented. Think of it this way- if you discovered a user you knew was up for RfA, and you believed them to be qualified, wouldn't you support them? 2) Per NY's talk page, it's acceptable for users to remove posts from their own talk page. Look at that IP user's first post- I'd have deleted their posts, too. Also, if you look at that IP's talk, you'll see that NY was warning them, and they wound up blocked. They were deleting speedy tags and vandalizing his user page, for crying out loud! 3) I don't see why we're accusing this user of "hyperediting". Some people don't make all of their changes in one fell swoop. I've been known to rack up half a dozen consecutive edits on a page by fixing sections at a time. These issues aren't major problems in need of administrator attention. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 00:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Jeremy, I'm not sure that you understand. NYScholar was placed under community sanctions (community imposed mentorship) in large put due to his hyperediting and the disruption he was causing on talk pages. This is why Orderinchaos outlined several issues that ordinarily wouldn't be a problem but are in this case. We all agree that NYScholar is a good content contributor but unfortunately the area there has been serious problems is in collaborating with other users, something that is unavoidable on Wikipedia. However, the issue here is the community imposed mentorship which Ecoleetage and NYScholar apparently decided amongst themselves to cancel without discussing it with the community or even informing the community. Two users can't just overturn a community imposed sanction. Sarah 02:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Trust is the basis on which we proceed. If trust is undermined, then a lot more of these kind of issues end up out of the community's hands and being dealt with by ArbCom. For the record, if the issues had been dealt with in a mentorship which followed acceptable standards and demonstrated progress, we wouldn't be here at all. Orderinchaos 03:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
The point is you were put under a community imposed mentorship in order to be unblocked and avoid being community banned. If you want the mentorship to be revoked then you need to come back and ask the community, you and Ecoleetage can't just overturn a community sanction on your own. Also, AGF works both ways, you know. Sarah 02:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Point of information: Sarah: you are addressing me as if I were here to see what you wrote; I wasn't here; I've been working on something else for several hours, and just noticed you all still talking here and this address to me as if you were answering me and I would see it: I just saw your post, and I haven't had time to read anything between my previous post and yours just above this. See below. --NYScholar (talk) 03:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sarah: I was not "sanctioned"; I was asked to be adopted by a mentor and that is all. That is what I did. Sarah: Really, by now, you should know better. No one "overturned" anything. Ecoleetage told me that he asked permission to end the adoption by the ruling administrator in that matter, and did so and notified him. See my talk page archive 22, where he informed me and there may be replies re: that on his talk page (in its history if not still there). There was absolutely no time limit imposed re: the adoption (the term) and the administrator gave me an option to have only an "informal" adoption--read the archived discussion--to avoid there being a template, but I said I didn't mind the formal adoption and posting of the formal template. I really do not know what Sarah is getting at here, but I know that I accepted being adopted and that I had nothing to do with Ecoleetage telling me that he had decided to end it. He notified me of that. The only contact that I have had with Ecoleetage is archived on my own talk page, on my current talk page, or on his user and talk pages and in the editing history of his talk page, if he deleted my comments from time to time. Having to comment here and on other talk pages when asked to or provoked (as in this case) to reply to outlandish and false allegations, unreliable and false memories backed up by nothing but false memory, and so on undoes the advice that I got from Ecoleetage: not to comment so much on talk pages. As you see, such notices posted behind my back as this one make that hard advice to follow.

I was not notified on my talk page of this incident report in this noticeboard; I can't remember now how I learned of it; OrderinChaos has posted a notification of courtesy to Ecoleetage (see his talk page) but not to me. ?????

I will read the comments above Sarah's perhaps later. But you (Sarah) and others are just waving about false allegations that aren't even backed up by the evidence of the adoption requirement on my own talk page; if you go to my "block log" you will see what the administrator posted as a "requirement" or condition for me to remain editing Wikipedia (if I wanted or want to) and that he states that I accepted it; if you go to my archive talk page, you will see my interaction about this adoption with him, and then with Ecoleetage. Everything we discussed is there. I have also archived my exchange with Ecoleetage about the RfA "request" that he made to me, taking it from the editing history of my current talk page. I am still using the bot to archive my talk page, though sometimes it seemed not to be functioning as set up and intended. I've asked for assistance with fixing it if something is wrong. The closing administrator in the last incident explicitly told me, however, that the archiving bot was a suggestion and recommendation, not a requirement. There was only one requirement and that was adoption, I accepted that, I was adopted, and it was left up to the adopter to decide how long it would be. There was no specified time. I don't mind being adopted; but I do mind your casting aspersions on both me and the adopter as if we've done something in "collusion" or wrong, when we have not. Everything is above board. The violations of Wikipedia user policies and guidelines going on here boggle the mind; as administrators you all know what they are, and yet you continually make false accusations, misstate actual situations, invent things that didn't happen, and attack my being an editor who edits in good faith: again: see WP:AGF. What is going on here? --NYScholar (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: "sanctioned": I have reviewed my archived 21 and see that "sanctioned" as used there refers to a "block"; I am not an administrator, and I do not always remember the lingo used by administrators; I was required to be adopted by the conditions of a "block" placed by User:John Carter (see my talk page archive 21), and, as soon as an adopter came forward to adopt me, I accepted the offer to be adopted by him (User:Ecoleetage); I've provided links to the exchanges between John Carter and me below, in reply to comments by ThuranX, which distort what actually occurred and claim the opposite of what occurred, claiming that I was "reluctant"