Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive277

Block of TJ Spyke

Recently, TJ Spyke (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) was blocked 250 hours for edit warring. After that, there was a discussion on the Community sanction noticeboard about what should be done. During that discussion, a CheckUser showed that Spyke was using a sockpuppet to evade the block. The block was subsequently reset, and discussion at WP:CSN continued. 3 days later, Spyke's block was extended to indefinite by Alkivar (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Many of those taking part in the CSN discussion, myself included, support this, though there are many, possibly more, who believe that this was unfair. Take note of the fact that an indefinite block was not the decision reached at the CSN, though it was generally well received there. Due to the circumstances surrounding the block, I figured that I should post here to see if the block is endorsed. Relevant links are:

• Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard#User:TJ Spyke
• TJ's Block Log
• Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/TJ Spyke
• User talk:TJ Spyke

Cheers, The Hybrid 18:06, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Sadly and very regretfully, endorse block. TJ Spike was a very constructive editor, but violating WP:3RR nine times (actually blocked 12 times, but three were probably not legit) and using ban-evading sockpuppets is just asking for it. Put very well by Moe: "No, right now it is indefinite, meaning he's blocked until he's proven that he would be able to edit constructively without sockpuppets, without revert warring and without vandalism like he has done in the past." Sr13 20:54, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I, am one who opposes his block. When I first started on WP I didn't know one thing. So I went to TJ Spyke. He helped me, he taught me, and he really showed me the ropes. He was like my mentor. I know that he used Sock Puppets to evade his blocks. Was it wrong? Hell yea it was wrong. Should he have been blocked? Your damn right he should of. Although, he still is a fantastic editor. One of the best in my opinion. I say we should put him on probation. Just unblock him though. I really hate to see him go. -- Kings bibby win 22:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly he has done too much sneaky and bad behavior to justify an unblock in my view. Numerous socks, edit warring, revert warring and so on. Warning after warning, block after block: he ignored them all, and did what he wanted dispite Wikipedia policies/rules/guidelines. He helped out at times, but that doesn't just wipe his bad behavior out. Probation for him: if a set time is on it, he would probably wait until it's over to act out again. Or use socks again, in the hope he doesn't get caught. RobJ1981 22:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I do understand that. I'm sayin he's never been under heat like this before. Leet's give him "one" more chance to stratin up. If he doesn't, I have no problem with you guys banning TJ Spyke and his IP Address. -- Kings bibby win 23:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I think he's run out of chances. He's been blocked and warned enough. After this one more chance, I can imagine someone else saying the same thing "give him one more chance". Frankly, TJ (or anyone else) shouldn't be given an endless amount of warnings and blocks. For all we know, TJ could have a sock on Wikipedia right now that hasn't been caught yet. As stated by the admin's block summary (for the indef block): Willful and repeated violations of WP:3RR, Sockpuppetry, Sockpuppetry to avoid bans, BLP violations more than once... this user does not learn from blocks or "timeouts"). Frankly, TJ saying he will change his ways (which he did on his talk), is just a way for him to get unblocked and continue this behavior. I think we need to move on, and let the block sit. I would also like to point out: many people could be for or against his ban, but it's up to admins to decide this. RobJ1981 23:27, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have run into TJ Spyke's fondness for the "revert button" once. The problem is that he has a gross misunderstanding of the "vandalism" exception to the three-revert rule -- the rule indicates that "simple and obvious vandalism" (graffiti or page blanking, as an example) is exempted from the rule. However, TJ Spyke -- at least in the one time I was multiple-reverted by him -- appears to define "simple and obvious vandalism" as "any edit he disagrees with". See his comments on my talk page. While I am not familiar with his history in general, I feel that unless he learns to distinguish between an editing disagreement and vandalism, you'll be having this discussion again and again. -- Robster2001 03:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Several of the times when TJ claims vandalism: it's him disagreeing with the edits, and it's simply not vandalism. He also throws around the Wrestling project in arguments at times. While the project helps out articles and has some guidelines to follow, the project certainly doesn't control every wrestling article 100 percent. Vandalism and a difference of opinion on editing is 2 different things. RobJ1981 04:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

No he doesn't think their the same. He told me when people were editing the WrestleMania 20 page, that they put in Guerrero and Benoit would die in three years. He also stated it wasn't vandalism since it's relevant, but it doesn't belong in the article. So he does not do that. -- Kings bibby win 04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Believe what you want, but I've personally seen it. We aren't just lying so your good friend TJ stays blocked, so stop it. TJ did revert vandalism at times, but there was still plenty of times where it was his personal opinion of vandalism. One good example: the taglines for matches. He felt they didn't belong, so he would revert to the version he liked (which didn't have them). No Wrestling Project guideline was in place for the taglines, so that can't be used as an excuse. A difference of opinion isn't vandalism, so reverting the taglines is both bad faith and article controlling in my view. Sometimes the taglines were discussed, but frankly that still didn't stop TJ from reverting the articles anytime he saw match taglines put in. I dont have exact diffs, but I know it was on the Vengeance article (over Night of Champions), Cyber Sunday (over Match of Champions), and a few others. Wake up to what actually went on, instead of just thinking TJ was only wrong a few times. How many pages do we need to show you, before you realize TJ wasn't as perfect as you think? I'm getting a bit annoyed. RobJ1981 05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying he is perfect. He made the Wii article a featured article. Without him I frankly think at times our PPV's would flood with vandalism. As the alternative options say, put a multi-month block on his account and put him on probation. BTW, I frankly don't care if I'm annoying you, cause I'm going to let my voice heard. -- Kings bibby win 06:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[Remove trolling by TJ Spyke's attorney ] -- Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 05:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Alternative options?

I've been thinking about this... I still think a multi-month ban could work. He hasn't had a block longer than a week-and-a-half, and it might allow him to come back with a fresh perspective. I realize this will not be popular, given his litany of "second chances" and his use of a sockpuppet.

I was rather impressed with the way he helped elevate Wii to featured article status, and I notice that it seems all the peoples' complains stem from his involvement in wrestling articles. Would a topic ban be possible? Revert parole? Grandmasterka 05:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Idea, but he does contribute to wrestling articles as well. -- Kings bibby win 06:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I've had a change of heart, personally. I would support a ban until December 1, or maybe Valentines Day. When he comes back I would recommend an indefinite revert parole, so he can edit wrestling articles, and revert vandalism, but to revert a second time he would have to ask permission on the talk page. Any infraction, no matter how small, would be the end of his Wikipedia career. I'm not proposing a second chance, lord knows he's had tons of those; I'm proposing one last chance. I've been editing with this guy for a long time, and he is a good editor. He is usually right in disputes. Personally, I think that a few editors have been purposefully provoking him in an attempt to get him blocked. I would really like to see him be given another shot at being a good wikipedian. The Hybrid 13:23, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the deal

TJ and I have been communicating recently and have come to a compromise of sorts. I always believed TJ Spyke has been in good faith trying to help the encyclopedia. I can't really come to any other conclusion about the vandalism from my userpage coming from his location, it's vaguely clear to me what happened. I don't want TJ Spyke to be indefblocked, for the sake of the community not having to deal with him anymore. If he is to be indefblocked, it should be for something he has done, something definite. So after a modest proposal, TJ Spyke has agreed to do the following:

1. To take a month-long block to reflect on what he has done, albeit it still being listed as indef for now.
2. He is to apologize for the excessive revert warring and use of sockpuppets, and must admit to any former or current sockpuppets he has made.
3. He is to stay on one account exclusively.
4. An indefinite revert parole.
5. If he is to break his revert parole or use another sockpuppet again, he can be indefblocked.

He has agreed to start on this proposal by taking the month off from editing here, he is still free to comment on his talk page, of course. After a month, if he is still interested in editing here, then he can commit to this by accepting this proposal on wiki, on his talk page, and I will request his block be taken off of him. So for now he stands and has agreed to his current status. In a month, given the above, the community can reflect on whether or not this block can stand. As of right now, his current status of being blocked isn't hurting anything, and despite whether or not it is permanent, it is justified right now. I urge everyone to be patient, especially Kings bibby win, who has been a bit disruptive over this block. Regards — Moe ε 13:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, I was the editor who reported TJ for his last 3RR violation, and I feel singularly awful. I would agree with that statement. I sure as heck don't want to have to be running off doing checkuser requests to enforce an indef block for a user that, while a pain in the rear end, certainly doesn't rise to the level of most community bans, who are outright disruptive. The Evil Spartan 16:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree with Moe's compromise. Sr13 16:56, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This is fine with me; however, there is an issue that bothers me. One user that has been warring with TJ more often than anyone else recently is User:RobJ1981. I'm not going to ask that anything be done, but I want a promise from RJ that if and when TJ returns he will leave TJ alone. It is blatantly obvious that RJ despises TJ, and I feel that there is a real possibility of RJ trying to make TJ violate his parole when he returns. TJ has agreed to serve his time, and I want him to have every chance of redeeming himself when he returns. I want fairness. Now, RJ and I are friends, and I hope that we still can be after this, but I don't think that it would be right for me to leave this issue unaddressed. I want a promise from RJ that he will leave TJ alone, and if he doesn't I don't want TJ blocked for violating his parole. The Hybrid 17:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think an indef block is warranted, even given his multiple sockpuppets used to push his view. He has contributed a great deal of small yet constructive edits, and it'd be a shame to lose that sustained commitment. I am worried though, that the RFCU suggests that members of the Wrestling Project knew about the sockpuppets yet turned a blind eye. - hahnchen 19:37, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what you mean. Could you expand on WP:PW members turning a blind eye, please? The Hybrid 19:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Given that Lrrr (Spyke puppet) used MSN Messenger to contact members of PW, do you not think they would have known who he is? Or does he really betray all trust upon him? - hahnchen 19:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I just took a look at one of the links [1], and you'll see that User_talk:3bulletproof16#Account_hacked. Showing that this user was in contact with both Spyke's personas on MSN. Unless he's a complete idiot, he must have known that Lrrr was a malicious sockpuppet. - hahnchen 19:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

This person (Bulletproof) has been accused of being a TJ sockpuppet, helped him avoid 3RR by reverting for him, and just been one of his closest wiki-friends all around. Since I know Bulletproof as well, so I'm going to AGF and guess that TJ has more than one messenger account. However, there are very good reasons to question if Bulletproof was fully aware of the situation, and chose to let it slide. However, I'm personally going to assume that he wasn't aware. However, if you would like to pursue this further I would be more than willing to help in any way that I can. Cheers, The Hybrid 19:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't feel a need to promise not to "leave" TJ alone. I'm not going to try to get TJ to violate. If I see TJ (add or remove something) I will either revert it with a good reason, or start a talk page discusssion. TJ (or anyone else for that matter) doesn't need to act paranoid, and think I'm trying to get him blocked or banned because of this. TJ loves to put the blame on me as well (bringing up some of my mistakes any chance he can, and so on), so he can't stand me as much as I can't stand him. But frankly, if I see him trying to control articles again, I will report it to admins at anytime I feel needed. I can see TJ trying to change. But frankly he acted in a controlling way to long... that it seems a bit too simple TJ agrees to all this with no problems. I don't see it fit that I don't revert or change any of TJ's edits: as he and I edit many of the same articles. In most cases: I give a good reason why I revert or change things in edit summaries (for all things, not just when it's dealing with TJ Spyke). Making it so I can't do anything involved with TJ, and then saying he wont get blocked is a bit unreasonable. I have to avoid articles I edit, because TJ edits them? That's a bit harsh, as TJ edits just about every main wrestling article. I shouldn't have to stop editing on those (or editing TJ's edits, or reverting them...which is the main case), just because he thinks I'm trying to get him blocked. I think all that made sense, if not..I will change the wording later to make it more clear. RobJ1981 20:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

We know your good-faith Rob, so I find no need to limit you from editing. Your not the one in trouble, thus you don't have the restrictions TJ has. All I would suggest is to tread carefully since you two don't get along well. I know this may be hard to believe, but I actually think TJ Spyke will have learned his lesson if and when he returns. He's now fully aware that the slaps on the wrist are over, and another screw up and he's gone for good. I think TJ Spyke really wants to edit without the revert warring, and show his decent side more often, which he does have. I think once his mandatory break of a month is over, we will either have a reformed TJ Spyke, or a more definite reason for an indefinite block. — Moe ε 21:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

None of what I said has come out of TJ's mouth; if any of it sounds familiar that is strictly coincidental. I'm looking at the history the two of you have. I'm not suggesting that you stop editing the articles that he edits; I'm suggesting that you go to the talk page first, and never the article until you two can agree, or a consensus made up of more users is reached. If you disagree with him you contact him, and after the two of you have reached a compromise, then you edit the article. Changing the article right then isn't important at all. Rob, you are an edit warrior as well. You and TJ both edit in good faith, but you are just as quick to revert as he is when you are in an edit conflict with him. That is why I want a promise. You two argue all the time, and honestly, he's been right in many of your disputes. I don't want his ability to constructively edit articles crippled by your dislike of him and the advantage his parole will give you in conflicts. RJ, we've emailed back and forth. Forgive me if I'm betraying your trust, but we both know that you hate him, and would be glad to see him blocked. I do not like alienating my friends like I am right now, but I want to give TJ a fair shot at redemption, and he can't have that if you keep on him like you do. The Hybrid 21:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, TJ is too obsessed with things (the match tagline nonsense as one example). The only times those were resolved is when someone came up with a compromise (many times the compromise was going too far, as one little line compared to a few words in another line isn't a big deal, but of course it is to TJ). TJ hates me as well, so don't make it sound like a one-sided thing. TJ brings up many mistakes he "claims" I've done: when in reality most of them are his personal opinion, and not backed up with actual facts. I don't just revert at random, I have good reason. The taglines being a good point here: TJ hates them, so he removes them with no reason. Using the talk page is fine and all, but many times it gets no where with TJ. It gets brought up at the wrestling project talk page: it sometimes get somewhere (if the project is even active at the time). Agreeing with TJ, before editing/changing his edit seems a bit unreasonable at times. He is near impossible to agree with, and I doubt that will change much after his unblock. Restricting what I do, because people claim TJ thinks I'm going to revert to try to get him to blocked again: unrealistic, so whatever. I use the talk page more than enough, I don't need to make special talk page edits just to agree with TJ on articles he edits as well. Many times when TJ hasn't edited: things he has removed, aren't removed again (the match taglines are a good point at this as well). That's a sign that TJ is clearly one of the few against it, but he fails to realize that for whatever reason. But anyway: making me do certain things so TJ agrees to other things isn't very reasonable (and that's what it sounds like to me). TJ should be agreeing to things, with no strings or exceptions attached, in my opinion. RobJ1981 22:12, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

(Continued to avoid an even longer wall of text): I'm not so sure TJ deserves a fair chance at redemption. Many blocks and edit wars and so on: over the course of less than one year, seems a bit too much. But whatever, his fair chance can happen, and we will see what happens. But there is little chance I will agree to back off him. I'm not just going to go to the revert patrole and bug them or whatever. I'm not going to just revert at random and so on (listed above, so I don't need to sound like a broken record a lot). I see no need to change my editing ways, just so TJ supposedly gets a "fair chance". He can get this chance just fine with me being the same. I use talk pages enough times, when it's a major thing. But little things like match taglines: don't need to be determined each and everytime by talk discussions. RobJ1981 22:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

<---He is, Rob. He is agreeing to everything. All of this is coming from me and me alone. I've been asking you to do things because I want justice, not to appease TJ. TJ has no part in this. Now, I apologize for making this sound one-sided, but in truth his hate further proved my point. You reverting him is just begging him to go over since he hates you, and you are more apt to revert him because you hate him. TJ's hate is the fuel, yours is the oxygen, so one spark and this thing will blow up. I don't want that to happen. As far as him refusing to compromise goes, I know that is a major problem. I give my word that I will do everything I can to bring things to an easy solution. I'll join in the discussions, I'll work to find reasonable compromises, I’ll do everything that I can. I will carry my as much weight as I can to keep this thing from blowing up again. Also, for the record, I think that both of you are being unreasonable with the taglines. One line doesn't matter, so you saying that he refused to compromise is, well, laughable. You both refused to compromise. And no, he cannot have a fair chance if you continue the way you are. You two cannot coexist peacefully. I'm done asking. It is obvious that you don't want to do anything that will make this an easy process. Whether you agree or not I will keep this thing from blowing up, if I have to put my ass on the line to do it. You both act like children when you’re around each other, and I guess I’m the new babysitter. The Hybrid 22:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not bending backwards for him, you or anyone else on this matter. If I see him remove something minor, I will re-add (or revert) it back when I see fit. Minor things don't require talk discussions, and just because TJ is put on a revert patrole: doesn't change the matter. If it's something big: like an article name change, new format for article (or whatever), then I will discuss. That's usually my feelings on using talk: if it's major, discuss... if it's minor, it's not needed to discuss each and everytime. This is very reasonable, even if you or TJ or anyone else doesn't think so. With that, I'm done discussing this. My view on this probably isn't going to change, and it doesn't need to. Call me stubborn or difficult, I don't care. I don't need to change to pacify a few people. RobJ1981 05:02, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed that Spyke's talk page is now protected. I'm not entirely sure why. The reasoning mentioned here says, "continued removal of block templates", except, it was two removals of redundant block templates. There were two block templates on his talk page: the "this user is blocked indefinitely", and the, "as a sock puppeteer, this user is blocked indefinitely". He tried removing one of them, saying, "2 aren't needed". When an anonymous IP reverted that change, he then tried removing the other one. (This, too, was reverted by an anonymous IP) As it so happens, the anonymous IPs seemed to be the only one who even cared. (Not surprising, since spyke was still leaving one block template on his talk page; the second was redundant, after all) Without warning not to do it again, or even explaining why two were necessary, an admin protected his page. I tried asking why both were necessary, but have yet to be answered, even though that admin's been active on wikipedia since I asked. Protecting a talk page should only be reserved for people who are abusing their talk pages. This certainly doesn't fit that description.
Also, since I have people's attention anyways, what does "add email setting to the block" mean? Bladestorm 21:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

If an indefblocked user is discovered to have sockpuppets, both are nessecary, and removal of them is inappropriate, thus the page was protected. The e-mail setting is a function administrators use when e-mails were used abusively or disruptively from a blocked user. Normally blocked users can e-mail users regardless of whether they are blocked or not, and this function takes away the ability to e-mail while blocked. — Moe ε 01:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So... if both are needed... (incidentally, you didn't tell me why both are needed. That is, why a tag saying, "this user is blocked indefinitely" is still needed when another tag includes both the sock information and the fact that they're blocked indefinitely), then, wouldn't simply telling them that make more sense?

Also, wouldn't removing their ability to use the email function be a bit severe when there are no assertions that he ever abused the email function?

Combined, we have someone who's had both their talk page and their email function taken away when it didn't appear to be necessary. He now has no way to appeal any actions, does he? Combine this with the fact that the admin who protected his talk page was also the admin who took away his email function was also the admin who blocked him indefinitely whene the CS wasn't even seriously considering that as an option was also the admin who cited continuing 3RR even when the blocking admin was very specific in his not having violated 3RR (who instead cited 'edit-warring', but cited an article where he irrefutably was not edit-warring either)... uh, yeah, major run-on sentence.

The point is, a single admin has decided to block him indefinitely and take away all methods of communication, in the apparent total absence of email abuse, and the total absence of any attempts to maliciously remove tags. (He never once tried to remove both. Simply telling him that both were necessary would have been more appropriate, since even I still don't see the point in redundancy)

Unless Alkivar (sp?) comes in to say that he was abusing email functions, I'd request that it be reinstated. And I don't think that's even remotely unreasonable. (duh. if a person isn't abusing it, then don't take it away) And I'd request that his talk page be unprotected and that he simply be told that both are required, because that is not plainly evident. Bladestorm 15:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The admin (Alkivar) won't answer you because I already gave him hell for it, and he has his own troubles to worry about right now. After a long conversation with him, I came to understand why he did it, and agree with him. TJ removed the templates in what could be described as an edit war, rather than use {{Helpme}} to ask if both templates were necessary, and ask the responder to revert and warn the anon if they weren't. Since he was already blocked for edit warring, the only way to end the wars was to protect his talk page. As for the email function, Alkivar did tell me that he had spammed several admins. It sounds like TJ is simply suffering the consequences of his actions. However, from some of Moe's statements it sounds like he has Moe's email, and I know that he has mine, so if he ever wants to be unblocked he can email one of us to post his appeal on the appropriate noticeboard for him. Cheers, The Hybrid 17:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Strich3d reverts

Resolved

This user has continuously removed sourced and relevant information from Bulgarians and Macedonians (ethnic group). He has continued this pattern for months and has not used the talk page since May 18th this year. Mr. Neutron 16:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

A related matter was reported on WP:AN/3RR and I have blocked 4 involved users for edit warring. --Tango 17:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Personal attacks against me by User:Iwazaki numerous times

Violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA and WP:STALK

• 1 In user Talk page, diff 1 Offending sentence And finally please be noted that the editor involved in those article is a contributor to racist tamil web-sites..

• 2 When asked to clarify why he reverted my edits,diff 2offending sentence There are many reasons, including it has come from some one who writes to racist tamil web sites.You want to know who ?

• 3 In a mediation case,diff 3 Offending sentence If you have anything to put so, why not ?? How about also, making an category for wikipedians who also write for racist web-sites ? I may even be able to help you there

• 4 In Thandikulam massacre article following my edits, he reverts them and says diff 4 Offending sentence To the tamil nation/net/com/org/co.uk/ne.jp editor (caption) This is Wikipedia. Please bare (this)in you mind when you edit here.Thanks

• 5 In Expulsion of non resident Tamils from Colombo article his rationale for putting the Tottaly disputed tag is because,Dif 5 Offending sentence As long as tamil net contributors are involved this should remain as disputed.Not only that, this whole incident is used for pathetic propaganda, written in some pro tamil tone by a possible sock puppet. Inherently biased, and so on...obviously disputed as long as above two are involved with the article

is this acceptable for admins to accept ? Thanks Taprobanus 16:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned. If he continues to further imply that you are racist, notify me. Lexicon (talk) 17:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you actually read the comments but,

1. ...a contributor to racist tamil web-sites
2. ...some one who writes to racist tamil web sites
3. ...who also write for racist web-sites
4. Don't see what's wrong here. User:Taprobanus, previously called RaveenS (talk · contribs) has admitted he contributed to Tamilnation.org and Sangam.org [2], [3]
5. again, same as above

If you warned Iwazaki for violating WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA for calling http://www.tamilnation.org a racist website, then you'll have to start warning a lot more people, cos for starters I call tamilnation.org a racist Tamil website as well. Other than that, I don't see where he implied User:Taprobanus was a racist. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Although Iwazaki may not have explicitly called Taprobanus a "racist", his comments show a clear trend of questioning the editorial integrity of Taprobanus based on his off-wiki affiliations. I would not go so far as to say that his comments constitute outright attacks, but they are uncivil and certainly do go against the spirit of WP:NPA: comment on content, not the contributor. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Warning Iwaziki?! Its Taprobanus who has to be blocked for disruption. After wasting several hours of several editors who warned him not to use non-RS sources, he is continuing to do so. Editors cant keep wasting hundreds of hours just explaining/pleading with him not to use non-RS and partisan sources. Not to mention that all articles are infested with POV, UNDUE and WEASELing. He seems to think that it is alright to use non-RS sources and import politically loaded commentary as long as nobody objects! He's been here long enough to know better. And as for tamilnet, tamilcanadian etc., its not at all an exaggeration that they're racist. Just take a look at their mission statements. Sarvagnya 18:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Violation of WP:STALK in an ANI posting

From WP:ATTACK

Posting of personal information - Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor. It also applies in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives.

Based on the above clear statement isn't USER:Snowolfd4 violating that ? I need admins to rule on that. Thanks Taprobanus 01:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What's going on here is harassment, in every sense of the word. A bunch of users are targeting Taprobanus: insinuating that he is a racist, revealing personal info and calling for a block when he is the only one sticking to wiki policies. He has stuck to the policies by taking issues to RfC and ANI to find out if tamilnet is a RS and several neutral editors have agreed it is. But the ones who want to harass him no end, keep harping on his sources being non-RS even when the neutral opinion is that it is reliable. Since they didn't get anywhere with that line of whining, they now start abusing him, wishing that he would go away. I hope the admins would take note of this disruptive behavior and take appropriate action. Lotlil 14:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inappropriate protection of User talk:Anonimu

Resolved

 – protection shortened to 48 hours from 1 week

I am of the opinion that this page protection by User:ST47 was an extremely bad idea. The user removed two comments from his talk page. This is not abuse of his talk page. User:Sceptre has informed me that he believes the user is removing the comments because he previously had a banner on his talk page, saying "This user may delete comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page". I do not dispute this is probably the reason why Anonimuis removing the comments from his talk page. However, I this edit is not disruptive. He is removing comments from his talk page. His motives are irrelevant. It was a bad idea for ST47 to jump in and protect the page; given the speed with which he did it, I don't think he fully reviewed the situation. I think this page protection should be done immidiately, and the user should be allowed to remove whatever comments from his talk page as he sees fit. In the instance that the user actually disrupts his talk page, I would gladly reprotect it myself. --Deskana (talk) 18:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

His removal of the text was in effect a personal attack (calling me either a "nationalist" or "blind supporter"). Reverting to edits that generate personal attacks, especially when the user's been warned before for it, is, in my opinion, most definitely disruption. Will ^(talk) 18:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In addition, the comments were the subject of an edit war, and the edit warriors, including the user associated with the talk page, continued reverting immediately after an unprotection. It's the same theory as a stronger block against those who vandalize immediately off a block. --ST47Talk·Desk 18:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, but you block all the people edit warring, which implies that the remedy here has been unevently applied. Anonimu was not the only one edit warring, here. --Deskana (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the protection was inappropriate. Anonimu removing others' comments may have been rather rude but not disruptive at all IMO. Calling the removal of comments a personal attack is stretching it a bit. This may sound like a fine point but after all, Anonimu did not say "This user may delete only the comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page". If s/he said that, removing others' comments would have been a personal attack. - TwoOars 18:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But I did not find said banner. There was a banner saying "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation.". - TwoOars 18:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I vehemently agree with Will and ST47, even though I was confused when I saw Anonimu's page protected. Although Deskana, none of us broke the three revert rule, and I purposely kept myself from doing so. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec x3) See also #User: and User talk:Anonimu. Springeragh, myself, and Digwuren (though I'm unsure about the last one) are friends of User:K. Lastochka, an editor he particularly doesn't like. Sounds a lot like I'm a "blind supporter", doesn't it? Will ^(talk) 18:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)It is rather interesting: he meets K. Lastochka and doesn't like her, so when her friends stand up to help her they become nationalists. Extremely interesting because the only nationalism I have is for Ireland, not Hungary or any Balkan states. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 18:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I get it, he doesn't like you and has stupid reasons for removing your messages. I still don't think protecting the page because he removed messages is a good idea. --Deskana (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing on that conflict seems like a good idea. I added the userbox which said that the user chooses not to listen to nationalistic rethoric, and they called that a personal attack, too. That userbox is used by others, including an admin, User:Jmabel. Click Here to read what he had to say about this conflict. Furthermore, I don't see how one reserving his right to identify people as ultra-nationalistic and removing their comments, constitutes as a personal attack. The user was never warned, nor was he notified about any ANI discussions; and the admin who blocked him refuses to explain his actions other than calling it for a "personal attack." Other than that, he never said that he would only delete comments made by ultra-nationalists. He merely said that he MAY delete them, which means that he may not, but also that he may delete the comments of other people. To disallow him to remove the comments of other people from his talkpage is a severe abuse, but because he has a bad reputation, people can get away with it. And yes, I do believe that they gang up on him in an act of vengeance. PS. I identify myself, at times, as an ultra-nationalist and he removed some of my messages, too. Why is being an ultra-nationalist a personal attack? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the userbox on Jmabel's page - as an admin, he should really know about WP:USER. Also, calling people ultra-nationalist is a personal attack. Removing comments based upon that belief is effectively a personal attack as well. Will ^(talk) 20:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with you. There are many people and political parties that identify themselves as ultra-nationalistic. It is not a personal attack to call someone for being ultra-nationalistic, but like most of everything, it can be used as a personal attack. And I do think that people are allowed to remove comments from their talkpage based on anything--including their values and beliefs. The fact that the userbox exists and has existed for such a long time, is enough proof that what I say is true. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, the userbox was deleted and substituted. It is a personal attack to call someone ultra-nationalistic, as its use, especially on Wikipedia, is akin to the word "nazi". You may identify yourself as one, but calling someone it is 99.999% of the time a personal attack. Will ^(talk) 20:41, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the sake of the argument, let us presume that you are correct. There is, however, one more problem: that message did not direct itself against any specific person or group of people; therefore, even if it is deemed as being disruptive, it can never be a personal attack, because if the attack exists, it lacks the target. Secondly, many people are identified for being ultra-nationalists, even by administrators. As I have said: it can be counted as a personal attack, but calling someone an ultra-nationalist and providing good basis for the argument, is rarely deemed as a personal attack. Example: in many edits, admins say 'ultra-natioanlistic edits" (refering to the subject) and 'X is an ultra-nationalist'. In either case, the user has the right to remove any comments from his talkpage. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

To Anonimu: I have to disagree with your last statement: While a few organizations call themselves "nationalistic", I know of no organization calling itself "ultra-nationalistic." In general "ultra-" is added by the political opponents, with the purpose of making the other feel bad. Disclaimer: I was not involved in this conflict, but if I recall well, some of my edits were reverted by Anonimu with "nationalistic edits" as the sole explanation. Dpotop 20:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It was I who wrote the message, not Anonimu; but I agree with you. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the userbox in question constitutes personal attacks, the removal of comments by Anonimu from their own talk page does not constitute a personal attack. - TwoOars 21:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Tell me where I go wrong here.

Person A says they'll remove comments on their talk page made by person type Y, when type Y is an obvious personal attack.

Person B posts a civil message on Person A's talk page.

Person A sees Person B as being type Y, and removes the post on this basis.

While it's not specifically expressed, it's a personal attack by implication. Will ^(talk) 21:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will tell you where you go wrong: Person A is allowed to say that they will remove comments made by Person Y; secondly, Person A is allowed, then, to remove those comments. Other than that, the userbox which you have removed from several users, including an admin (User:Jmabel, User:Maurice27, User:Tovarich1917, and User:User:MauritiusXXVII, is in my opinion, more abuse from your side. That userbox did not warn against those users deleting anything; it just advised that those users will not choose to "listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation." That is their preference and they have the right to have it, just as I may say that I will choose not to listen to any kind of opera. It is not an attack against opera, or against those who listen to opera; it is just me expressing my preferences. --Thus Spake Anittas 21:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:UP#NOT. Read it. And no, person A is not allowed to remove the comments under that basis, as it's a personal attack by implication. Will ^(talk) 21:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

The userbox says "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation." That means the user chooses to ignore whatever rhetoric, not remove it. So I do not see how the removal of comments can be a personal attack. Person A sees Person B as being type Y, and removes the post on this basis. - Person A never mentioned why they removed the comments, so there is no way to tell that they removed it on this basis. I feel the userbox issue is confusing this issue. I do consider the userbox inappropriate. But I still can not understand how this can be connected to the removal of comments. - TwoOars 21:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re-iterating what Springeragh said - I'm a friend of an editor he doesn't like. It doesn't take much conjecture to realise that's the reason he's removing them. Removal for that reason is forbidden under WP:NPA. Will ^(talk) 21:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and just to clarify, I'm talking about the banner that was on his page, not the userbox. Will ^(talk) 21:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you speak about the userbox? You have removed it from the userpage of several users without offering them any kind of explanation. And yes, Person A is allowed to remove comments which he sees as "ultra-nationalistic rhetoric." --Thus Spake Anittas 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

For the last time, removal of comments for that reason is a personal attack. Read WP:NPA, under what is never acceptable:

Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views.

The userbox said nothing about removing anything. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Dismissing. Not removing. And you're trying to derail this onto the userbox. We're talking about the banner. Will ^(talk) 22:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this thread was about admin User:ST47 protecting the talkpage because you reverted the userbox: so this discussion is very much about the userbox. And the userbox said that the user will choose not to listen to ultra-nationalistic comments. You removed that userbox; and then you put back some of the comments that Anonimu had removed from his talkpage, saying that removing any comments constitute a personal attack because his disclaimer was a personal attack; however, that disclaimer was not there anymore, at the time when he removed the comments. My questions are: why did you remove the userbox from so many users; and why did you not allow him to remove comments from his talkpage, when there was no longer a disclaimer saying that he may remove ultra-nationalistic comments? --Thus Spake Anittas 22:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No, ST47 protected it because Anonimu was disruptively removing comments because I'm a "blind supporter", the userbox was inappropriate and polemic content, and even if there's no banner, the intent is clear. Will ^(talk) 22:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I will ask ST47 if that is the reason why they protected the page. WP:UP#NOT is not official policy. --Thus Spake Anittas 23:02, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So? The only difference between policy and guidelines is that you must follow policy, while you should follow guidelines. People have been banned under WP:HARASS (a guideline) before. Will ^(talk) 23:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus, I'm not under any obligation to explain anything. The userbox was polemical, and polemical statements are prohibited in userspace. Will ^(talk) 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I think you do need to explain things that you decide to remove from user pages and user talkpages. --Thus Spake Anittas 22:37, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, saw the banner now. It is definitely unacceptable, but I don't particularly like the I'm a friend of an editor he doesn't like. It doesn't take much conjecture to realise reasoning. When we start acting on conjectures, things become very subjective, and it is a slippery slope. And not liking someone is not a crime, nor is it a personal attack. While I do understand your position, I do not agree with it. But I am not particularly bothered whether the page is protected or not. :) - TwoOars 21:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course, not liking people is okay, but acting on that on-wiki isn't. I'm perfectly allowed to think that Jimbo is an idiot (no offense, I actually don't), but once I start calling him that, it's crossing the line. Will ^(talk) 22:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

(<--unindent) But there is a difference! Anonimu didn't actually say anything to you. And I too agree that acting on the dislike is not Ok. It is rude. But it does not warrant a page protection either. And since you think the whole thing is personal attack, a relevant passage from WP:NPA says On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited. Of course, here it is not the removal of text, but the reinstatement and page protection by you and others. Read the related ArbCom ruling too, linked there. - TwoOars 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If the user has been warned and blocked for doing it, and he continues doing it, take away his toys. Will ^(talk) 22:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I concur with everything said by Thus Spake Anittas. --Maurice27 22:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree to, the Wikipedia Thought Police need to find something better to do. --MichaelLinnear 01:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I was asked on my talk page, I'll clarify my position. There were three factors, if you will, that contributed to the protection. First, the existence of edit warring, reverting back and forth over the comments, second, the fact that it began immediately after the page was unprotected, and third, the incivility (cleaned of comments from rowikipedians(and my replies, for consistency) & other shit) and apparent WP:OWNing of the page (restoring my right). After a previous protection and due in part to the edit summaries, it was clear that the owner, Anonimu, had no intention of discontinuing. Protection policy states that:

Temporary full protections are used for:

• Enforcing a "cool down" period to stop an edit war.

A previous 24 hour protection had no effect, perhaps protecting for one week was slightly excessive. I'll reset it to 48 hours from the time of protection. --ST47Talk·Desk 23:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You know it would be nice if people actually viewed the reason for the original block and realize that it had nothing whatsoever to with that infobox. His talk page was protected for putting up that infobox by another admin and it was done after the original block. He was blocked for these edits:

• Putting up this on his userpage: I have other more important things to do than fighting nationalist POV pushers right now. So, probably until the Supercoup, a lot of articles will become propaganda. But thou shalt not fear, cause I'll be back. [4]
• When the personal attack was removed the user reverted back twice with false "rv vandalism" and "rvv" edit summaries. [5]
• Having this on the top of his userpage: This user may delete comments made by ultra-nationalist editors, as well as blind supporters, on his talk page. and then again falsely claiming vandalism when the bolded part was removed. [6] [7] [8]
• User has a history of disruptive edits with extensive block log. A reasonable person would expect him to know the rules by now regarding policy. (See Block Log)
• For those that claim that his statements of "fighting nationalist POV pushers" are civil and ok (which they are not btw) since they weren't "directed at anyone" please regard the following edits:
  • I can quote instances when the capi of this gang have confessed harassing me or expressed their intention to do it in an organised way. Even if my edits may follow a certain subject, it's only because i don't want to put something wrong on wiki. the others light is clear: they have an agenda of imposing a nationalist (aka rowikipedian) POV. You're just an barbarian-recruited auxilia. I don't hide facts under euphemisms. People may not like it, but i won't adhere to the bourgeois infamy.Anonimu 19:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC) [9]
  • rv nationalist vandalism Direct toward the Romanian Wikipedian User:Dc76 [10]
  • Referring to others as "fascist-admirers": The Reaction is doing its job. Too bad it's composed mostly of fascist-admirers and has no credibility.Anonimu 05:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC) [11]
  • Much more of generally uncivil commentaries against other users whom he disagrees with calling them "ultra nationalists" or propagators of "capitalist propaganda.

I honestly don't know why there would be any reason whatsoever to unblock this user. As soon as he was blocked he again began a tirade against other third party admins. Habitually uncivil users shouldn't be unblocked simply because their friends come out en masse to support them. This block was clearly a reasonable one and should any admin decide to unblock this user I will re-block. Good day.--Jersey Devil 09:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Threats of wheel-warring don't impress me. The problem is that the block shopping side in this dispute is every bit as incivil and given to revert-warring. We are not supposed to apply rules selectively. As for your allegations about "friends", I hope that this claim will be substantiated, either here or in the prospective ArbCom. Who do you regard as Anonimu's friends - me, Anittas, Alex? I'm all impatience to see a bit of evidence for my "friendship" (in fact, even a single conversation) with Anonimu. --Ghirla^-трёп- 10:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess blocking Anonimu twice qualifies me as his true loyal friend. Then I would like somebody true independent to review the blocks.

Regarding the diffs showing the history of incivility by Anonimu they were not stated as a reason for the block neither in the block log nor on the user's talk page. Blocks of productive users are suppose to be preventive, the user is suppose to understand the reason for the block and correct his or her behavior. Since users are in general not telepaths they cannot read the thoughts of the blocking admin unless they are written. I also cannot help but notice that the same people who are asking for severe measures against Anonimu are often incivil themselves and exactly on the same pages they are complaining about. E.g:

• On the User_talk K._Lastochka User:Biruitorul writes:

  Biruitorul saw a chance to liquidate his opponent - he knew he was violating the commandment against murder, but was counting on absolution and hoped to be allowed to receive the Eucharist in five years. The woman instinctively screamed as he raised the weapon high, and Anonimu wheeled around. "Come, my dear fascist, you wouldn't want that on your deep-green conscience, would you? Think of how history will judge you!" The other momentarily paused, thinking to spare him.
  He roll'd his eyes, and ev'ry moment felt His manly soul with more compassion melt."Do you want to be swept away into irrelevance? It is our Party, after all, that holds the scientific touchstone to historical truth." Ah, but the ideologue did not know what pragmatism meant, and had no thought to placate the man with the big knife - quite a mistake, as it turned out. "Die, Communist vandal! Die, wretched vermin! Thou who hast for so long tormented my soul, begone, and never foul this air again!" He rais'd his arm aloft, and, at the word, Deep in his bosom drove the shining sword. The streaming blood distain'd his arms around, And the disdainful soul came rushing thro' the wound. The cancer in their midst now vanquished,

OK, I just have to explain that...it was part of a deliberately purple mock-epic (FICTIONAL) that we were amusing ourselves by writing. Our intent was to blow off a little steam by writing a satirical parody of the frequent battles that Wikipedians engage in...other plot elements included nuclear rowboats, drunken Arrow Cross pirates, Communist island savages, and a running gag involving a boatload of music-playing Czechs oblivious to the war raging around them. It was a JOKE, we intended no attack or "threat" to anyone and we both immediately apologized to Anonimu after the offending chapter appeared. I might also point out that we caricatured ourselves rather mercilessly as well, and on top of everything, at the point in the story quoted above, the fictional Biruitorul character had gone pretty well out of his mind. (Insanity defence!) In short, what we were writing was stupid and a waste of time, but we meant no harm whatsoever to anyone. Please let's not dredge this issue up again. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 17:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• The cited revert in Chernivtsi Oblast was preceding by the edit by User:Dc76 with nice summary of Undid revision 144643882 by Anonimu (talk) rva. I think rva as a summary is not better than rvv
• I could not count all the Leninist descriptions for the Anonimu

I guess it is a general level of discussions in the Romanian sector of wiki. I am all for the improvement there but usually if we want to improve civility not block an opponent in a content dispute we should:

• Distribute blocks sparingly, having many warnings per block
• Start with the durations in hours, not days
• Distribute warnings and blocks fairly accordingly to behavior of both sides
• Start from the mainspace and article talk pages rather than userspace

Alex Bakharev 12:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow! So now it's the Romanian sector of the wiki which poses problem. Dpotop 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My impression is that some Russian admin is involved in every such problem. Guess why! A hint: The problematic subjects are related to: Moldova, Bessarabia, Communism, and everything related to the Eastern Romanian border, towards Russia and the ex-USSR. Dpotop 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And of course, Ghirla&Bakharev&Mikka are in no way implied into ANI incidents against Piotrus (a Pole, not a Romanian, but also at the borders of the ex-USSR), Digwuren (an Estonian), a.s.o. Dpotop 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins and the ArbCom should understand that these 3 Russians admins are not honest brokers on subjects related to Russia and the ex-USSR. I've seen pages rotting for months due to involvement of a Russian admin (e.g. Mikka on Moldova-related subjects some time ago). No direct involvement, but supporting one side against the other in an "impartial" way, so that in the end even POV text was better than an edit war. Dpotop 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently related: User:Sceptre's edit to User:Jmabel's user page

Resolved

 – Whole situtation is getting very ugly Will ^(talk) 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

While we are at it, User:Sceptre (Will) has taken it upon himself, with no discussion with me (and presumably as part of this incident) to edit my user page. I will point out that (1) the pseudo-user-box made no threats to anyone: it simply said that there are things ["ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation"] I have no interest in listening to and (2) its placement as a "chauvin-0" language box after my many real language boxes was clearly a joke on my part. Is there now a ban on humor?

I've been relatively disengaged from Wikipedia this last 7 months, and I have not been closely tracking changes in rules. If such humor on one's own user page is now "illegal", so be it, Wikipedia can turn itself into a painfully self-serious, unwelcoming, pedantic enterprise, and I will be less likely ever to return to the sort of active participation that I gave it for many years. If the content on my page did not violate any rules, I ask that his edit be undone. In either case, I will not edit war over it, and I hope that if someone reverts Spectre's change he will then have the good grace to leave my user page alone. - Jmabel | Talk 23:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmabel, now prepare to be blocked for messing with your own user/user talk page, as Anonimu was. I would like the case to go to ArbCom, really. We need to investigate the provocative behaviour of several accounts. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, but I don't think I can organize this on my own, but I am willing to help. Can you with the help of others start an ArbCom? --Thus Spake Anittas 08:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's see if we can deal with it through standard dispute resolution procedures. --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Will apparently considers this content to have constituted an unacceptable polemic. To put it bluntly, I think that claim is absurd. - Jmabel | Talk 23:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't use the word "ultra-nationalistic" then. Humour can be indistinguishable from malice on a computer screen. Will ^(talk) 23:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Will, I was not accusing any individual of ultra-nationalism. Again, you appear to be reasserting the same claim over and over. At least as many people have spoken up here to disagree with your interpretation as to agree with it. I think you might at least consider the possibility that you are interpreting the rules poorly.

Just while we are at it, it seems remarkable to me that this small thing on my user page should raise your ire when user pages such as this (see his subpages, too) have long been tolerated? (By the way, I notice now that page contains a userbox for something called the "Counter-Propaganda Unit". How is that even arguably less contentious than what you object to on my user page?) And don't get me wrong: I think what Morton has on his user page should be tolerated, though not embraced. I believe that people should be allowed a pretty wide latitude to judge what is appropriate content on their own user page. - Jmabel | Talk 01:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This got me looking around for an example of something on a user page that I would actually object to. Here's something that at least comes close: "Any criticism harkens the threat of another genocide, and all non-Jewish humans are divided into two halves: the obsequious pro-Jews who slavishly shower praise on the tribe, and the 'Nazis', ranging from everyone who ever utters one peep of criticism of the Jews to those who want to finish Hitler's work." (From the user page of User:Zionists United.) Myself, I'd leave it there and let someone damage his or her own credibility by putting such things on his or her user page. But I think that this was rather more what someone had in mind by objecting to polemics on user pages. Again, I think that the application of this rule to my user page constitutes, at best, an excess of zeal and extremely uneven enforcement, and I would really appreciate comment from someone other than the person who made the edit. - Jmabel | Talk 01:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin, but it looks like User:Sceptre is being a dumb-ass little shit. Going around vandalising other user's userpages over something as trivial as that userbox is a clear sign of way too much free time, and a highly misplaced sense of proportion. User:Sceptre probably ought not be editing Wikipedia - he doesn't have the minimal level of clue required. Argyriou (talk) 03:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmabel's user page looks fine to me. I feel the same, SqueakBox 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• My chauvin-0 box is edited to say, "This user chooses not to listen to ultra-nationalist rhetoric, of whatever nation. The same goes for ultra-religiosity, scientism and, for that matter, obnoxious school spirit." This is a simple statement of preference, not a polemic. It says others may play these games, but I'm not participating. I don't deal in polemics. Therefore, quite naturally, I object to someone editing my user page to suit his own perception of "polemic." --Halcatalyst 03:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

To quote User:K. Lastochka - "There is nothing offensive or attacking in that userbox--it might as well have said 'this user chooses not to listen to Italian opera." It's an opinion, not a polemic'. Enough already of people imposing pushy opinions on other people, good judgement, a little wisdom, and a sense of humor, is REQUIRED. Modernist 04:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As of this writing, my user page content has been restored. I am willing to consider this matter resolved, if Will is willing to let this stand. - Jmabel | Talk 05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anonimu's talkpage is still protected due to the userbox and Sceptre's insistence on having the userbox removed. Could someone please unprotect his talkpage and unban him? He was never warned and nothing was discussed with him prior to his blocking. Some of the things imposed on him were made on false grounds. --Thus Spake Anittas 07:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I noted above, the entire situation is appaling. Your good sense is appreciated. --Ghirla^-трёп- 07:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Never warned... You mean never warned this time. It seems to me that Anonimu is a usual client of this page, and 3RR. Either reporting, or being reported. My impression is that the last few months Anonimu has invested much time in long-time edit wars, under a strategy of never trying to reach consensus and waiting for the other party to infringe on 3RR. This means that good faith can no longer be assumed, which is particularly bad. Doesn't this qualify as vandalism? Not to speak about the nice "rv nationalist POV" edit summaries that justified the current block. Dpotop 08:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then he should be warned and blocked, if admins find it necessary, for the things that he violated, not for other things that he is not guilty of. --Thus Spake Anittas 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That you and your friends "report" your opponents on this page on a daily basis is not a valid grounds for suspending WP:AGF. What does this particular form of block shopping have to do with WP:3RR? --Ghirla^-трёп- 08:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That you and your Russian brotherhood follow your interests by protecting some and blocking other on a daily basis with obvious bias is not good administration policy. It has been documented here already, and AGF can no longer be assumed. It's called "selective application of the rules". Dpotop 09:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed the block and it is seems excessive to me. There is nothing particular incivil in mentioning that ultra-nationalist (communist, scientist, opera-related, whatever) can be removed or ignored. A user is entitled to remove messages from his or her talk after he or she read them. The talk page is communication tool not a blog-host or a somebody shame list. At any rate it does not deserve 1 week block. Anonimu is a productive while fragile user. Two of his blocks are mine but I believe he deserves better than be blocked for a week for a harmless userpage stint. Among other policies we have WP:SPADE that allows to call Spade a Spade, Ultra-nationalist an Ultra-Nationalist, Troll a troll, Nazi a Nazi, Stalinist a Stalinist, etc. At any rate if you are not consider yourself an ultra-nationalist why do you think it is about you. E.g. User:Bonaparte's socks were frequent on Anonimu's talk page are we not allowed to call them trolls, vandals or nationalists? I also noted that Will broke the WP:3RR on the talk page of Anonimu. I think it is a wrong behavior and can get him blocked if continued. Alex Bakharev 08:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't violate 3RR. A), Deskana already looked at the history and told me, on IRC, "okay, you didn't break 3RR", B) removing edits that generate personal attacks is a 3RR exception, and C) the user got blocked for the offence he was doing. Anyway, I'm tagging this as resolved, this is becoming a shit-storm. And no, we can't call Bonaparte a troll or anything like that. WP:NPA still applies to banned users. Will ^(talk) 12:44, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh Sceptre, [personal attack removed]. Just two days ago! Encyclopædia Dramatica - close - SNOWBALL, nominator is a troll User:Veesicle 13:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Heh, seems like the guy that makes personal attacks is trying to get me blocked for personal attacks :) It works both ways, Will ;) User:Veesicle 13:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom's words, not mine. It's like calling Willy on Wheels a vandal or a GNAA member a troll: they take pride in it and have been specifically denounced onwiki for it. Will ^(talk) 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Incivility by admin Alkivar

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

After I saw this edit summary by Alkivar, I left a mild note on his talk page, at which point I was told to "step off". When I complained, I was informed that I am not an administrator, and should not involve myself in his affairs until I am an administrator. Nice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 02:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have had very little interaction with Alkivar, but what I did encounter firsthand made a very negative impression. I conferred with two other administrators at the time but otherwise remained quiet because I hoped that was a single incident out of character. Are there others who have encountered the same imperious tone that shuts down reasoned discussion? Durova^Charge! 03:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The only interactions I've had with Alkivar always left me with the impression he thinks of himself as an administrator first, and an editor second. Not necessarily a bad thing, but the tone pointed out by Videmus Omnia seems fairly par for the course. I'll second the comment by Quadell (talk · contribs), and suggest a little civility. Beyond that, nothing I'd question.- auburnpilot talk 03:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that becoming a sysop is *not a big deal*.

I think perhaps I'll go through semi-willy-nilly and make a bunch of people who have been around for awhile sysops. I want to dispel the aura of "authority" around the position. It's merely a technical matter that the powers given to sysops are not given out to everyone.

I don't like that there's the apparent feeling here that being granted sysop status is a really special thing.

— Jimbo Wales, wikimedia.org archive entry, gmane archive entry

I tried to raise an issue with Alkivar recently, only to be told to "f**k off." Par for the course, indeed. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 06:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems a lot of this stems from the massive image deletion project that appears to be going on. I'd chalk it up to frustration with having to validate lots of images. A lot of editors appear to be on edge because of this. I'd let it go and move on. --Tbeatty 07:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If it is a single instance, sure. If it is a pattern of incivility, no. Treating someone as Alkivar did in that edit summary, even if they argue that an image you are particularly attached to should be deleted, is inappropriate. --Iamunknown 07:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It was not single instance at all. Alkivar has a history of being rude and incapable of accepting criticism.

My first encounter with Alkivar was in a discussion about an image of "his girlfriend" he wanted to use in Brassiere. Many editors felt that the image lacked quality. He left the discussion with "All i've gotten is shit over this picture ... fuck you all its deleted." [12].

In other situation, Alkivar was criticized by many admins [13] [14] [15] for blocking user CyberAnth, (that was enforcing WP:BLP). Even Jimbo told him that that was a "very bad block" [16]. Alkivar's response to that was to remove the criticism from his talk page with the edit summary "remove worthless crap" [17].

Some days after this episode, I had my second encounter with Alkivar, when he blocked me for 24 hours without left any message on my talk page. The block was then reverted by ChrisGriswold.

When asked about his reasons for blocking me ([18], [19] and [20]), Alkivar listed himself in Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians [21] and left a goodbye message on his talk page explaining his frustrations with the project and his intentions to leave. He also thanked those who helped him and, again, asked all the others to f*ck themselves

Less than 15 days later, we was back to his activities.

No, it was not a "single instance" of incivility at all. --Abu badali ^(talk) 12:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Errm, shouldn't this be a request for comment? Physchim62 (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No. How about people stop running to ANI and RFC/U with tales of woe whenever an administrator is less than pleasant with them. Don't you people have anything better to do than start pathetic, nauseating, whiny threads because someone said something you didn't really like. Get over it and go do something constructive. Nick 14:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Inflammatory posts like this, especially from an administrator who has deleted his talk page and protected it from recreation, are inappropriate. Mike R 15:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Based on the posts here I think admin conduct WP:RFC is warranted. I haven't had enough firsthand experience to initiate it but I'd endorse it, and BTW my encounter had nothing to do with image deletions. It happened via e-mail or I'd have posted diffs. Here's hoping Alkivar gets the message and adjusts accordingly. Durova^Charge! 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorese the usage of a request for comment, this notice was highly incivil and bitey, yes the user infringed copyright several times, however one could have just left {{uw-block3|repeat infringements of copyright}} instead of that highly incivil message, he seems to have no ability to keep his cool. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pure and simple nonsense. There's nothing wrong with that warning at all, as well you know. More people need that sort of treatment, boilerplate warnings simply don't work with persistent offenders. I'm also all for blocking more and more image thieves who persist in committing copyright violations. I hate to repeat what Alkivar said before, but until you've spent hours deleting images and spent hours explaining copyright policy to users, only for them to continue to violate the law and our policies, commenting on the behaviour of an admin in this case isn't appropriate. Nick 16:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So people now have to earn the right to comment on an admin's behavior? That is "pure and simple nonsense". No situation justifies incivility, regardless of how many images you deleted or users with whom you've discussed copyright. - auburnpilot talk 16:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm still unable to find this incivility you and Rlest persist on commenting about, however. Nick 16:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm even more confused. Could you show me some diffs where I "persist on commenting about" Alkivar's incivility. I made one post at the top of this discussion noting my interactions with Alkivar, then I responded to your comment. I also note Rlest has only made one comment. I suppose somebody could be impersonating me somewhere... - auburnpilot talk 16:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You want diffs - pedantic or what. Go find something more useful to do. Please. Nick 16:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As much as I love when incivility is defended with more incivility, I believe I'm being quite useful right here. You've made an unsubstantiated accusation, and I've asked for some form of proof. Not a trivial matter. - auburnpilot talk 16:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That's because you don't seem to consider "fuck you all"[22], ".. fuck you... fuck you very much" [23], "get off my ass"[24] examples of incivility. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have spent hours explaining copyright policy to users, and hours nominating images for deletion (that is more tiresome than deleting images) and I had never been such uncivil, nor do I believe I have to right to be so. If he can't keep civil while doing his voluntary admin work, he should resign his position. --Abu badali ^(talk) 16:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've opened a request for comment on user conduct here, despite my lack of long history with the user. Editors with more in-depth knowledge of the issue are welcome. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Then I recommend closing this section to focus the discussion in one place. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

possibly unfair blocking of User:Anonimu

Anonimu (talk · contribs) was recently blocked for a week following some edit warring on his own talk page about a banner he had put there. (see previous ANI discussion here.) He was blocked for supposedly ignoring warnings and continuing to harass users, but as Anonimu said, he was never warned (not even informed of the previous ANI discussion.) Add to the confusion the fact that, as obnoxious as those banners on his user and talk pages were, they did not actually contain personal attacks, so there wasn't really any justification for removing them (and without any prior discussion, at that!) In short, I suspect this may have been an unfair and unjustified block. I have asked the previously-uninvolved admin User:NCurse to take a look at this case, but in the interests of full transparency (and getting more opinions), I decided to post here as well. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 15:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

While the banner wasn't a personal attack, it was definitely inappropriate. The blocking admin, Jersey Devil, had posted a long explanation here. Will ^(talk) 15:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree the banner was obnoxious, and I'm not saying Anonimu is a fabulous guy. I'm just saying that this particular block, especially coming with no warning, may have been unjustified and/or for the wrong reasons. Whether or not he deserves to be blocked for incivility is fairly obvious, but it's this particular case I'm concerned about. K. Lásztocska ^{Review me?} 15:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's an automatic right to warning - but if he was reverting mine and Springeragh's edit that removed the banner, he certainly read our warnings to read the policies we linked to. Will ^(talk) 15:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, please scroll up above. How many threads do we need to discuss Anonimu and his really weird block? --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Problems with Miranda

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

OK people, firstly this is likely to attract incivility so could all parties please just keep calm whether they are in the right or the wrong. An experienced Wikipedian, Miranda is becoming very uncivil. After a comment by Miranda left on an ANI thread, Miranda obviously made made a small mistake when a user asked about getting their account deleted she said to add {{db-g7|reason for deletion}} and obviously accounts cannot be deleted so I left a comment below with:

Just what I was about to say, I think Miranda must have mis-read it, .

just to avoid the user getting confused and it was just a little mistake and she is human so thats acceptable but she replied with this. The comment was acceptable but in the kindest possible way, Miranda has quite a bad habit oversighting the assume good faith essay and constantly citing WP:DISRUPT to defend here edits, and although I have made it clear that I am Qst and Tellyaddict she insists on using that username, despite the fact this is my new username. The this comment was left by After Midnight (someone whom has done nothing wrong) in which sums up everything I think about how Miranda downgrades users by mentioning her edit count and 6+ months experience which seems rather self-centred and patronising, their are many users (even myself) who could say that I have more edits and much more experience than here (as I had 13k edits as Tellyaddict and 7k as Qst and 2k on my account) so I could brag and say I have nearly eleven months experience and 20,000+ thousand edits but frankly what decent person would downgrade someone by bringing up edit count. I'm not saying I always keep my cool (those of you who were around at the Qst incident will know and for this I'm very sorry) but Miranda repeatedly emboldens text to try to over-rule others comments and "be the boss" and when I left a comment; I then left a further note and she removed it, having the cheek to call it vandalism, I then re-added it (yes my edit summary was to show here how it feels to be downgraded and feel second best) and I left a further note and she decided to archive just that one comment so she wouldn't look in the wrong which I reverted and she did and I realised this was becoming completely lame so I tried to calm it down and then she replied by saying I was on the brink of violating WP:3RR and I was harassing her and as she usually does always citing policies to editors who are either more experienced or have just as much as her, looking at the page history you can see the she too was on the brink of violating the 3RR like me, her repeat over citing of policies and guideliens (inc. essays) is frankly beyond a joke, she has an extremely bad attitude, when I adopted her as Tellyaddict I did not teach her to behave like how she does, her constant clams for attention (i.e the other day she was taking a long Wikibreak and that was gone by the next day) and saying late June she would retire then changing her mind after people start giving their sympathy for here. She is highly uncivil and totally ignores WP:SLAP even though it is an essay. Something needs to be done about her. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I could say something needs to be done about you too, but that would be nasty, just like the above. Nick 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nick, I know we dont really get along but what needs to be done about me? — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

...wow. She probably should have been more civil, but you were saying "I have more experience so I'm better" while simultaneously telling her that you could be rubbing your experience in her face but weren't. Not her fault in the slightest. -Amarkov moo! 16:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Were did I say this? When I mentioned it in the edit summaries I was showing her what it feels like to be downgraded by people. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"I'm your encyclopedia elder, how dare you disrespect me, I didn't raise you to treat people like this!" Of course, "teaching people" what being downgraded feels like is unacceptable too. -Amarkov moo! 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is not worth getting upset about. Reverting your comment on their talk page as vandalism was inappropriate, but so was edit warring to keep a thread they obviously wanted no part in on their talk page. --Onorem♠Dil 16:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes because I realised it was becoming lame, hence I left the comment saying that we dont agree. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec) I don't see this as an ANI issue, as I'm not sure that it can be dealt with by an admin. (Perhaps RFC?) However, I don't see why Miranda or anyone would routinely refer to you (Rlest) by your other usernames, especially since you make no attempt to hide who you were. And I find bolding text to be irritating to read, a bit like ALL CAPS. Rlest, I'd suggest ignoring her. Miranda, I'd suggest ignoring Rlest. (non-admin) Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a marvellous idea. One of the best all day. Nick 16:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think so to, I'm not saying I'm the innocent one as I'm not we were both in the wrong.... — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rlest, how do you expect people to react when you make edits like "I have 20,000 edits and have been editing for 11 months, so I'm better than you". That's a colossal failure to assume good faith. There are people here who have been on Wikipedia for...hmm, 5 years now? There are people here with over 100,000 edits. Doesn't make anyone better than any other. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As said I only said that in the edit summary because I wanted Miranda to see what it felt like to be downgraded by someone with more experience as she does it to others, I dont conisder myself better or worse than anyone else, in my view we are all on the same level. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In other words, you were just making a point? --Onorem♠Dil 16:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

And she sings...

If you have a conflict with an editor, file an RFC. If you think someone is acting...un...civil...ish, file an RFC. If you think that someone is...not-acting-in-good-faith...file...fIlE...FILE...an R-F-C! Miranda 16:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Wtf? — Rlest (formerly Qst) 16:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Rlest, please quit your harassment of Miranda – it shines of trolling to me. Edits count don't equal experience. Oh, on the subject of you, what's all this "Non admin notice" junk? It stinks of "Please nominate for me adminship"-itis. Matthew 17:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict with Matthew.) Rlest, are you kidding me? You restored your uncivil comment twice on Miranda's talkpage, and then threatened her with 3RR for removing it ? She's entitled to remove your comment 3,000 times if she likes. Have a read of WP:3RR, section "Exceptions". You're not entitled to restore anything she removes. Quit harassing her on her page before you get blocked. Bishonen | talk 17:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

Excuse me. She started going on about 3RR first, and that non admin notice stuff is so the user knows. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 17:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

'k. Matthew 17:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nah... I don't think I will excuse you. You are actually capable of breaching 3RR on her page. She isn't, because 3RR doesn't apply to reverts she makes in her userspace. Bishonen | talk 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC).

The first person to explain to me how this thread remaining open could possibly be of any use to anyone on the planet wins a shiny new tricycle. --barneca (talk) 17:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll take you up on that offer, it doesn't. — Moe ε 17:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

User:9shaun

User:9shaun has been uploading like crazy, tagging them with {{GFDL-self}} but it is very highly doubtful the s/he created those photos. --Howard the Duck 09:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

All of his uploads are of Philippines related things or people, leaving the possibility he's a professional photographer based there. Although I guess it's also possible he found the website of such a person and copy pasted them onto here. Disappointingly though, his edit history would show he pays no attention to warnings about copyrights, or at least chooses never to respond to them. (just providing a little more information). Someguy1221 09:35, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No way. Look at the pictures. Some are cropped others are not. Of the ones that are not cropped, they are different sizes! many have a colour casts on them, but the colour casts are different on different photographs. Most of the photographs do not look professional (one has aa very over exposed sky for instance). He's lying about the GFDL self. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 09:45, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, a...um...amateur Filippino photographer ;-) (or stealer thereof) Someguy1221 09:53, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

So what's the solution on this? Anyone? --Howard the Duck 09:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the first step it to talk to him. I shall try doing that now. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 10:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What if he doesn't respond in time? --Howard the Duck 16:30, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In time for what? Corvus cornix 20:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Like in a few days? S/he doesn't respond. --Howard the Duck 02:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What do we do now? I'm appalled the copyright freaks aren't going ga-ga over this. --Howard the Duck 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

9shaun ignored Theresa Knott's message on his/her user page and has uploaded more pics. --Howard the Duck 11:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given him some advice on his talkpage, because some edits do look to be in good faith. Perhaps, if he is a little on the daft side, all the 'Thanks for uploading...' confused him --Hayden5650 12:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for the record that the pics are pretty but I doubt if it's really free and/or s/he took them by him/herself; that's why I'm quite worried. What actually sent me off was this collage where the rightmost image is a photo of a teen "actress", and no way s/he could've produced that photo. --Howard the Duck 12:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the guy/girl is also increasing the sizes of his/her pics for 250px or more. --Howard the Duck 12:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree completely, most of those images probably shouldn't be on Wikipedia, but he doesn't seem to have had anything higher than a level 1 or 2 warning, assuming good faith, therefore each one has begun with a Thankyou[25] . If he doesn't heed my advice, I or someone else should slap him with a Level 3 and 4 and then an admin can ban him. --Hayden5650 12:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So what warning should be slapped? Admins can ban him easily, we don't have to go through bureaucracy. --Howard the Duck 12:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just issued him with a final {{subst:uw-upload4}} warning, he is just showing plain disregard now to any advice or warnings --Hayden5650 12:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

So if he is blocked, can any admin just delete his/her photos? --Howard the Duck 13:00, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

If he is blocked and he still doesn't talk to anybody about the images then yes. I'd be willing to delete his images as likely copyvios. However, in my experience, a block sometimes gives people the wake up call they need to start talking to people. In which case he may explain ou concerns away. We shall have to see. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 12:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: S/he increased the size of his/her pic yet again. --Howard the Duck 11:53, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

And he has uploaded another pic. I have blocked his account atpo get his attention. If he does reply please could another admin unblock -I'm off on holiday for a couple of weeks so will not be able too. If he doesn't reply I'll delete his images when I get back. (unless they are deleted in the meantime). Howard the Duck will you please remind me if I forget? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:58, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll do that. --Howard the Duck 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, since there is a thread for a simmilar situation already I might as well let you admins know that User:Endlessdan is engaging in the same behavior (see his logs), what's even worts is that he doesn't even try to cover up his actions for example these [26][27][28][29] are obviously not self made, on the same line can someone delete them? -凶 04:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit summary

Is this an acceptable edit summary? SqueakBox 00:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[30] <------- how about that one? accusations of trying to harm a family I don't know. Fighting for Justice 00:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not so, FfJ has reverted 4 times, I have only reverted 3 times. Yes it is acceptable to say that categorising a non public figure as a rape victim is unacceptable and distressing to the victim's family while giving graphic details of some nut pedophile's actions is not acceptable, SqueakBox 00:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Squeakbox, have you read WP:POINT? You should probably limit your action in this area to the "Rape Victim" CfD, your actions across the wiki are becoming disruptive (just my opinion). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Facts don't stop being facts because they might "distress" somebody. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 00:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article is so bad, then check it meets WP:BIO. If not, including it in its proper category is hardly distressing to the family. I'd say getting raped was the distressing part, not the damn wikipedia category. --Hayden5650 00:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENC, I can't believe that the attitude of some editors here, is to degrade the information within the article just in case the deceased' family might not want it there. I was actually quite surprised that you would chose to delete what looks to be a very notable murder victim, Leslie Mahaffy, and yet keep an utterly inconsequential half-hour radio program on Radio 4, The Wikipedia Story. It should be about whether a subject is notable and encyclopedic, not whether we can crowbar in a BLP "concern". And no, they're not the best of edit summaries, but he does have a point. And you know when you're arguing over how many reverts you made, it's not good on both sides. - hahnchen 01:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The wikipedia story does no harm but outing rape victims does, SqueakBox 01:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Squeakbox - While I sympathise with your cause - 25 million people already know this about Mahaffy - I'm not sure it's fair to call this "outing". WilyD 13:49, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks from his contribs as if SqueakBox may be wikistalking Fighting for Justice. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I feel like he does. I've had all these crime victim articles on my watchlist for the past 2 years. I wrote a few of them myself. I would never have encountered SqueakBox had he not removed the rape victim category. I felt compelled to give that graphic description, because I can't believe SqueakBox has the audacity to claim he's no rape victim after everything the child went through. I think it's more insulting to the victim's family to omit the category then to remove it. Furthermore, the victim family saw the very pictures of this crime. Just the visuals must have been way worse then my words. In my opinion the victims family must be a lot stronger then SqueakBox is willing to give them. Fighting for Justice 01:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Give those descriptions agin and you wwill be blocked, as promised by admins, SqueakBox 01:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Did I say I was going to give one again? No I did not. It was one administrator not administrators, so there's no need for the plural form of the word. Fighting for Justice 01:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? How did you conclude that, Videmuus? I was looking at the rape victims cat not FfJ's contribs. That accusation is out of order, and yeah FfJ is right that we met re the rape victims cat, which is completely unacceptable given we are writing an encycloipedia and nothing else. Facts being facts does not justify us outing rape victims and there is certainly policy that says we should, SqueakBox 01:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue seems to be your near unilateral attempted depopulation of the category while it's still undergoing discussion at CfD. (Note I haven't commented there.) The category has existed this long, can't you wait another few days for the consensus/decision rather than causing disruption? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cfd does not affect our policies and to claim we must ignore BLP, verification and other policies because of a Cfd is absolutly contrary to the wikipedia spirit, and to claim my action is unilateral is incorrect, SqueakBox 01:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Samantha Runnion's categorization as a rape victim falls under WP:BLP? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Same for Mia Zapata, who happens to be dead. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Tragically not but somebody murdering her doesnt mean we stop protecting her reputaion and she is not a public figure, please read the rape victim cat page and talk page where we have agreed that only public figures nshoudl eb included. I dont beleieve weither of you really mean that because some nasty murders somebody that we shopuldnt take that person and their family seriously, SqueakBox 01:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If Mia Zapata is notable enough to have an article, she can be classified appropriately. If you don't find her notable, then submit the article to Afd. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll also add that "well known" is an un-wiki requirement for category placement -- if a subject is notable enough to have an article, they are well-known enough to use any appropriate Wikipedia classification. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 02:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No there is no agreement yet. That's false. There is 4 or 5 comments about it and most of them are from you Squeakbox. I think it's important to also note that Samantha's mother, Erin Runnion, has a very public foundation in her child's memory. you might want to check it out So Squeakbox you are wrong that her family doesn't want her name and story out in the public. Fighting for Justice 02:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also agree that it seems like SqeakBox is trying to discredit and harass FFJ. He even filed a RFC about his username, which was closed very quickly because no one thought there was a violation. As for the category, how does categorizing someone as a rape vicitm cause any more distress when it will invariably say they were raped in the article? i ^{(said) (did)} 02:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually that wasnt my suggestion, see above. Fighting for justice, with its implication that the user is in the right, isnt a POV name? Any stalking claims re me are well out of line as FfJ doesnt own the rape cat or the articles in it. All I an trying to do is impose policy, if you dont likre our policies you should try and change thenm but to create policies that out victims isnt going to get very far, IMO, SqueakBox 02:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

POV doesnt appy to usernames...? He doesn't your correct, but neither do you. And what policy are you imposing? The one that says we cant out rape vicitims by putting them in a category? Well, the article says they've been raped so the only thing that would be any more outing would to put a huge notice on the top of the article that says THIS PERSON HAS BEEN THE VICTIM OF RAPE in red flashing letters. As said below, most people don't think the cat violates policies. i ^{(said) (did)} 03:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You are trying to impose your view of policy. Given how the Rape Victims CfD is going, it would seem that your actions are hardly supported by consensus. Resolute 02:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh if the community has no problem with his name nor do I, and I made very clear I was looking for him to change his name not be blocked. You can taccuse me of having a PIOV name and the use box controversy indicates your claim that POV is only for main space isnt backed up by reality. Having a list of rape victims is not a good idea and that only happens in the cat, hence my description of this cat as outing rape victims. IMO there is no consensus either way on the cfd but anyway perople's opinions dont pre-empt policy. We arent here to stalk people as most of the responsible admins well realise. Nobody has answered Slim's question on this page as to how this cat improves this encylopedia, I guess criticising me takes less effort than addressing the real iisues, eh? SqueakBox 03:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, This page in a nutshell: All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing views fairly, proportionately and without bias. Nothing about usernames. The userbox war wasn't really about POV is was about it being polemic. And why is having a list of rape vicitms not a good idea? As for the CfD, I think there's consensus, but I'm not the closing admin. And why did you pick out SlimVirgin's question? i ^{(said) (did)} 03:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

SqueakBox you know perfectly well that my user name wasn't a problem. Because you have looked at my block log and you know only administrators can block people. Therefore, you know this name wasn't a problem. You reported me because you dislike the fact I endorse a category you hate. Fighting for Justice 03:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Iwas following Swat's suggestion, nothing more, see the thread above with my name on it, SqueakBox 04:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I suppose everyone should know this battle has moved to the 3RR noticeboard, where SqueakBox was not blocked but the argument continues. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • That isnt so actually, see this, please feel free to leave me a message if you have anything to say to me re this issue, SqueakBox 04:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
• Comment/question - Squeakbox, can you please explain how including somebody in the category "rape victims" is harmful to that person IF its ALREADY public knowledge? I would say that if the person's name has not been reveled, then it should not be "outed", but in this case, the material is already "out" there? thanks, --Tom 15:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Because if they are alive, it is a BLP issue and a WP:NOT violation.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't really anwser the question. Anyways, no biggie to me.--Tom 20:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I have blocked FightingForJustice for 48 hours for repeatedly making incivil, bad faith accusations against SqueakBox here. Ffj's self avowed POV of "always for the crime victims and their families" is becoming disruptive to the project and will not be tolerated. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Removal of tags

Repeted[31][32] removal of tags. // Liftarn

Casually thrown tags are expected to be removed. Please don't clutter this page with wanton complaints. This is not a Wikipedia complaints department. --Ghirla^-трёп- 13:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also not a page where you are allowed to be rude to folks. RxS 13:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

A stern request is different than being rude. My only concern would be that it appears English is not Liftarn's native language, so he may have been uncertain of how to address the issue. Leebo ^T/C 13:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to Ghirla. Please don't clutter this page with wanton complaints.... is rude. RxS 13:57, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know you were talking to Ghirla. I disagree with you. It's a stern request -- the instructions are pretty clear that this page isn't for disputes that don't require administrator attention. Leebo ^T/C 15:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You can read my response to Ghirla here. Basically it's about how we talk to each other here, and how, by example, we teach newcomers what's expected when communicating with each other. It's counter productive to "sternly" warn someone about something they rarely do...RxS 18:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Liftarn is not a newcomer. He's been editing Wikipedia since 2002. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC

From the looks of the article discussion page you guys need some help. Have you considered WP:30 or informal mediation? I'm not sure this needs to be here. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting Images

user:Nakagawa0 is constantly reverting images in the Resident Evil 5 article to make a point about alleged racism in the video game. Users on the article's talk page have already addressed the issue, and decided to keep it removed since there are no legit sources to verify any of the claims. The User and reverted mine (and another users') edits over three times. We've asked him to stop, but he keeps persisting. I informed him about WP:A and WP:3RR but he did not bother reading the polices, and parroted the warning I have him onto my talk page. What should I do? --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 13:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like you are looking for dispute resolution guidelines... --Aarktica 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Transnistria

The article Transnistria has been in the past subject to a bitter edit war. This spring, the ArbCom agreed to review the case: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. After the imposed bans on 3 former users (which was enforced when the ArbCom started to review the case), the article has enjoyed a period of return to normality, with very helpful and productive contributions from several editors (having occasionally different personal political viewpoints, but all determined to hold serious, constructive and very civilized discusions, to edit very mindfully and avoiding any rv to each other): Alaexis, MariusM, Ilythr, Dpotop, Mcarling, Icar, Lexicon, Monegasque, ClockworkOrange. This process was partly supervised in the first weeks by a couple admins, e.g. Future Perfect at Sunrise. They did not edit the article, but helped establish a very good working atmosphere between editors. There are many delicate issues that the article covers, but the discussions (and edits) have been almost like accademic ones until recently.

Unfortunately, however, recently there appear new editors, who are less committed to this delicate process: Dikarka, Ursul pacalit de vulpe, Daniil naumoff. I am not saying they are bad editors, I am just saying they interpret the expression "edit boldly" as liberal as they imagine in respect to this article. Up to now, their contributions have been successfully scrutinized in the talk page by all sides to provide sourses and citations, to write in neutral tone, and controversial versions have not been the case.

Unfortunately, recently, we have the involvement of an admin, Mikkalai, who instead of supervizing the civilized character of the discussions and edits, as previous admins supervizing this article before him did, started taking sides with respect to these new controversial editors, and make reverts to controversial versions (the latest edit). The problem is that these edits are not commented in the tak page at all. They contradict the established "consensus"es and jeopardize the lengthy and delicate process that went into scrutinizing every word, esp. in the introduction.

Because of the volatile history of this article, I believe it is imperative to report any potential problem. My request is:

• Would it be possible for 1-2 other admins to supervise the article (1-2 times a day) and prevent any rv war before it could even start?
• Would it be possible for some admins to suggest in the talk page that the unwritten rule that has been uphold in the last few months ("no edit without comment in the talk page") be used by the new editors, as well as by the admins?
• Would it be possible to ask the admin Mikkalai to avoid spelling his conflict with Ursul pacalit de vulpe to this article? The article would really do better without the "boldness" of both of them, no matter how "justified" they think it is.

Thank you. :Dc76\^talk 17:18, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nobody on this page is going to solve your ages-long content disputes. And it is somewhat cheap to accuse your opponent of revert warring, when it was you who made the first revert from the stable version and introduced POV-tinged stuff. If you have some specific suggestions (as it seems you have), you are expected to discuss them on the relevant page, rather than here. I don't see what admin action is required in this particular case. --Ghirla^-трёп- 17:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, read the article history before accusing. The latest show of controversial edits started on 24 July by Ursul pacalit de vulpe. The problem is that Mikkalai used the pretext of reverting Ursul pacalit de vulpe to rv to a version on the opposite extreme, an equally controversial verion that appeared in reaction to Ursul pacalit de vulpe.

On a personal note, I would like to add, that it would be nice if you, Ghirla, could stop seing me as your personal enemy. I had disagrements with you in the AfD of 2 articles. Our disagrements can stay in those 2-3 artilces. Why are you spelling it out in all WP articles? Please, read the content, don't assume everything I say is bad b/c I once had a long disagrementing discussion with you on a particlar subject that has nothing to do with this article! It is very rude to show your fists every time I write something on the board. Please, be civilized. :Dc76\^talk 17:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't even recall your name and I don't recall an article where I have had a "dispute" with you. That's why I don't buy into your claim of "spelling it out in all WP articles" as you term it. This page is supposed to be a place to seek promt admin intervention in urgent cases. Lengthy diatribes against one's opponents in content disputes are not welcomed. --Ghirla^-трёп- 18:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Soviet occupation denial and Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). Remember? By "spelling out", I mean that since then, every time I posted anything on this board or on 3RR board, you were among the first to comment (just check the archiv), and you never missed a single one to comment. Prior to that, you never commented on my posts, not a single time! If you can do this without remebering a name, that is totally up to you.

I should also add that IMHO your comments on secondary issues derail the subject of this notice on the board. I hope this is not your aim.:Dc76\^talk 18:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Quigia (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – blocked indef. by ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin remove a couple of his edits (he's only made 3), but two of them contain serial keys for products.--Crossmr 19:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Argyriou (talk · contribs)

Resolved

 – See below Will ^(talk) 20:29, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can we get this user blocked? His recent edits are either to harass me (see "add userbox from Jmabel to annoy Sceptre") or to attack me. Will ^(talk) 20:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See thread immediately below, which deals with this very issue. MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Another userbox conflict

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Resolved

 – Will ^(talk) 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In reference to the above sub-thread on Jmabel's userbox, Argyriou has decided to add the userbox to his page "to annoy Sceptre". Not cool. Sceptre has responded by repeatedly removing the userbox from Argyriou's userpage, citing variously WP:UP#NOT, vandalism, and harassment (see page history and my talk page). They've now gone back at forth at least 3 times each. I asked Sceptre to drop it, but he feels he's being harassed. Personally, I think:

• The userbox is, at this point, acceptable and not overly polemic
• Argyriou is being, at best, childish and attempting to provoke Sceptre
• Sceptre is allowing himself to be provoked and is edit-warring by removing a legit userbox from another user's userspace, leveling unfounded vandalism accusations to boot

Given the unwillingness of both sides to back off, I'm tempted to hand out 12-hour WP:POINT blocks both ways, but they're both longstanding contributors and I'd prefer not to sully their block logs. Can I get some constructive community assistance in defusing this? MastCell ^Talk 20:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Sceptre harms the project and should be dealt with. You should not act on a user who protects the right that was given to him by Wiki to his userspace. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage isn't quite yours. Please read Wikipedia:User page. --Eyrian 20:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

My userpage is not mine at all. Where did you see me say that? --Thus Spake Anittas 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

"You" in the general sense. A person's userpage isn't strictly theirs. If they are using to be unnecessarily disruptive/offensive, others can (and should) modify it. I just don't happen to think that's necessarily the case here. --Eyrian 20:56, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Remove the userbox. He's not using it as a statement, just to annoy me. Will ^(talk) 20:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, no one told you to stare at it. —Kurykh 20:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest a toothy-warning to eachSceptre. The userbox is an acceptable statement, and I don't think that you can harass someone through a generic userbox on your own page. --Eyrian 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

But you can through an edit summary. Reinserting the content is still harassment. Will ^(talk) 20:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

As I stated when removing the speedy-delete tag, this userbox serves a much greater purpose than annoying User:Sceptre. Ultranationalists are probably the biggest internal threat to the integrity of Wikipedia, and most of the conflict I've been involved in here is a direct result of ultranationalist POV-pushing. I'd encourage all users sick of ultranationalist POV-pushing to place this userbox on their page. Argyriou (talk) 20:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am tempted to get some user boxes just to add this one. I completely agree with you Argyriou. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:55, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with MastCell and Eyrian that the issue just needs to be dropped. If you're annoyed by the userbox, don't view his userpage. Edit warring over its inclusion/removal is just ridiculous, and gives Jmabel Argyriou the reaction he wanted. - auburnpilot talk 20:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Jmabel did not ask for any kind of reaction, but to be left alone. --Thus Spake Anittas 20:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; I copy/pasted the wrong name from the above comments. - auburnpilot talk 20:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Since the issue of nationalist pov-pushing is important to me, I've changed the text in the userbox on my userpage to more accurately reflect my beliefs, and to remove the specific text which offended User:Sceptre. Argyriou (talk) 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me, then. Just don't disrupt that way again. Will ^(talk) 21:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Canvassing accusation

Please see Talk:Wikipedia community#Proposing un-merge> Three was recently an Rfd on Wikipedia community (now a redirect following a merge) In that RfD discussion, some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. Therefore i started a discussion on a proposal to undo the merge. So far, the only other editor to join the discussion is QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who apparently opposed the idea of undoing the merge. To obtain more input, i placed a carefully neutral msg indicating that the matter was under discussion on the talk pages of each of the people who commented in the RfD, with the sole exceptions of myself and QuackGuru (since we obviously did not need to be informed). QuackGuru promptly made these two edits implicitly accusing me of improper canvassing, and threatening any editor who I notified of being reported for meatpuppetry should that editor comment in the current discussion. Note that at least one of those editors had commented on the previous discussion on the merge here and so would be considered naturally interested. The others, by commenting in the rfd, at lest implied interest in the merge, on which several of them remarked during the RfD. I request confirmation that my notification of a small number of editors who had previously expressed interest was proper, and that QuackGuru's response to that notification was not proper. DES ^(talk) 21:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've recently commented on the WP:CANVASS talkpage that that policy needs some refinement, and this is a good example of why. QuackGuru's reaction was, at least to my taste, excessive and the threat to report contributors for "meatpuppetry" is an odd misuse of that term. However, since you have mentioned QuackGuru by name, you should let me know that this thread involving him has been opened so that he can present his side of the story. Newyorkbrad 21:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Before starting this thread, i had posted in the thread linked above that I was going to raise the matter on ANI, giving a link here. QB was obviously following that thread closely, and in fact came here almost at once. I presumed that that notice would serve to alert QB to this thread. Had he not appeared here propmptly, i would have put a msg on his user talk page.DES ^(talk) 22:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

In the recent redirect discussion some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. That is the position of DES. Then he contacted those editors to help him in the discussion.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't see why there is a problem with contacting editors who have shown interest in a matter, and letting them know that there is renewed discussion of the same or a related matter. In any event, in no circumstances should editors be told that they are disallowed from participating in a particular discussion, and the loaded term "meatpuppetry" should not have been used. Newyorkbrad 21:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Note that I was careful to contact every editor who commetned in the RfD in any way, no mattter what opnion that editor did or did not express on the merge issue. That is the proper way to inform people of discussions. I also placed a note on the talk page of the merge target. If there are other places where you think editor who might be interested should be informed of this discussion, please indicate what it is. DES ^(talk) 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This reminds me of the recent MfD for Wikipedia:Policy shopping. Blaxthos (talk · contribs), who initially authored the essay, contacted everyone who participated in the previous MfD with a neutral message asking them for their input.[33] The user who initiated the second MfD then accused Blaxthos of improper canvassing. I believe this sort of thing, when an XfD occurs just one month after the previous XfD, is not only proper, but falls into the "friendly notice" section of WP:CANVASS. DESiegel's edits appear to be in the same "friendly notice" manner. - auburnpilot talk 21:52, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a problem because some of the editors he contacted support his position. DES said in part above: some editors suggested that the merge had been unwise. DES's position is that the merge is unwise. Who did he contact. Editors who support his position.  Mr.Guru  talk  21:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you deny that I contacted every editor, no matter what views that editor had or had not expressed, who had commented in the RfD discussion? (With the obvious exceptions of myself and you, because we were already aware of the new discussion.) Are you implying that I would have acted differently had more of those editors expressed support for the merge? I can't act more neutrally than to contact every interested editor that I was aware of at the time. I also posted a notice on Talk:English Wikipedia, the merge target. I knew of no other logical place to attract interested editors, regardless of the direction of their interest.

Since I sent the notices you provided me with a link to another, somewhat older, discussion on the topic. I would be glad to contact every editor who commented in that discussion with a similar notice. By my count those editors were pretty much evenly divided on the issue. Continuing to accuse me of improper actions, as in "Who did he contact. Editors who support his position." is to continue to fail to assume good faith. Please stop. DES ^(talk) 22:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Guru, I think its the consensus here that you were a little over the top. He notified all participants. Do you disagree? JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 22:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• See this edit for after-effects of QG's comments. DES ^(talk) 03:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

University of Phoenix employee deleting criticism from University of Phoenix

User:Poweroverwhelming is repeatedly deleting the entire #Criticism section from the University of Phoenix article. He is an employee of the University of Phoenix as he states here. Obvious conflict of interest. I wrote the section, so I'm a little too involved to be the one warning him. Reswobslc 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor's actions are a clear and obvious violation of the COI policies. However, the actual critique offered in the diff you reference is actually a good reason to remove the section as well, and the editor is correct in that the site cited is a smear website. It's not a viable resource or citation. As such, I'm going to go remove the section until it's sourced properly, but I'd also support a block against Poweroverwhelming on the COI grounds. ThuranX 22:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

COI is a guideline, not a policy. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Reverting someone who's trying to undue libel, or blocking them, is a terribly stupid thing to do. Don't do it. Ever. WilyD 22:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There are no grounds for blocking re COI. Poweroverwhelming has been quite candid regarding his position, and the grounds for removing the content, and is continuing to discuss the matter. LessHeard vanU 22:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)This seems to be a content dispute. Since the source of the negative criticism is from two internet sites, one not known for their editorial control and the other with user driven criticism, it is pretty fair to say that Poweroverwhelming has some argument. Since this argument is ongoing at the UoP talkpage I don't think admin intervention is required. LessHeard vanU 22:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and in general, we should probably be careful about using FooSucks.com as a source in an article about Foo. With Foo, in this case, being the University of Phoenix. MastCell ^Talk 22:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You guys are all right about this. I felt the article already referred to the majority of the sources and I didn't need to tag every sentence. I suppose I'm clearly wrong as I can understand it's especially important with publishing any sort of criticism. So, the appropriate cites have been added. As I was going through it to put a specific ref to every point, I found more strong (non-"sucks") sources for the exact same allegations that weren't even in the article. The article is that much stronger because of it. Reswobslc 23:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. MastCell ^Talk 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Multivariate testing

Not sure why this is happening, but Multivariate testing is a long series of edit reverts right now. --65.78.213.96 23:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that User:204.15.3.211 is going nuts here, and that nobody has given him so much as a welcome or a warning about it. Dicklyon 23:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I warned the two users who mostly are doing this. i ^{(said) (did)} 23:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Temp semi-protected. Sorry 65.78.213.96, since you won't be able to edit it either, but stopping the edit wars is the bigger issue.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blatant linkspammer and self promoter needs blocking

Resolved

Dcs1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) continually inserts self-promotion into the Syd Barrett, Pink Floyd, and Roger Waters articles.[34] [35] [36] The linkspam directs people to his personal blog which advertises for his upcoming "tell all book" about Barrett. This person claims he lived next to Barrett for years and spread a bunch of lies to a sleazy tabloid over in the UK. Now he is here, placing unsourced OR repeatedly in these articles, despite repeated warnings from several editors and constant reverts by several editors. He has now, on my talk page, threatened to Wikistalk me. [37] This person has no intention of behaving and I think it's time to block him. The Parsnip! 01:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He has also threatened to wikistalk another editor and claims he has an "army of helpers" to vandalize. [38], [39]. The Parsnip! 01:15, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User has been blocked. IrishGuy ^talk 01:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can another user remove my WP:Citing sources, WP:Verifiability#Sources without substituting WP:Citing sources?

Resolved

 – Content dispute. Discuss on the relevant talk page(s). Everyone else, move along, nothing to see here... —Kurykh 03:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Guidelines

According to Wikipedia:Deletion_guidelines_for_administrators#Rough_consensus "Note also that the three key policies, which warrant that articles and information be verifiable, avoid being original research, and be written from a neutral point of view are held to be non-negotiable, and cannot be superseded by any other guidelines or by editors' consensus". Why, is some text which covers the three key policies, still NOT non-negotiable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Standardname (talk • contribs)

What part of "This is a content dispute" do you not understand? A content dispute involves different interpretations of rules in conjunction with article text. This board is for conduct disputes, which deal with the actions of editors that may have broken our rules regarding conduct. —Kurykh 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute with User:Dreamlover13

Resolved

 – user given final warning⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never been in a situation like this before, so I hope this is the right place for this. User:Dreamlover13 and I both frequently edit articles related to BeForU. Particularly on the BeForU article, he/she frequently uploads copyrighted images of the band with no fair-use rationale, and when they're deleted, he/she just re-uploads them. I tried to offer some help on the user's talk page (see here [40], I was under a different username then), but my post went ignored. The user has in the past reverted useful contributions from other members on the BeForU article, but I figured it wasn't my dispute so I stayed out of it.

However, recently this user and I have begun an editing conflict over BeForU discography. This [41] was the page before I edited it, this [42] was the page after my first edit, this [43] was the page after the user's first revision of my edits, and we've gone back and forth a few times since then. This page [44] shows the basic source of our conflict. I attempted to contact the user to resolve our dispute here [45] (the last edit on the page), with no response. I can provide sources for all of my edits, but I cannot find a way to discuss the issue with the user, and they continually revert my changes. If the article is not important enough for this to be a major thing, I can understand that, but the whole thing has me really frustrated as I would like for the information on wiki to be as accurate as possible. アンジェリーク★Angelique 05:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is your solution for the edit content. WP:DR. The fair-use image repeating is troubling. I've left a final warning regarding it, and if it continues I will block the account. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG and Violetriga blocked

JzG (talk · contribs) and Violetriga (talk · contribs) have been blocked for wheel warring over AJ. I have informed them and recommended mediation. MessedRocker (talk) 22:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

While wheel warring by anyone is wholly inappropriate, in my opinion JzG was in the right here to remove this information. Violetriga was previously admonished in the Badlydrawnjeff RfARB for undeleting potential BLP content without careful discussion first. Krimpet 22:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I endorse the blocks. Wheel warring is totally unacceptable. In Violetriga's case in particular she seems to have learned nothing from the outcome of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. In light of the criticism of her conduct from ArbCom and the "do no harm" principle, wheel warring over a page deleted for BLP reasons was utterly outrageous. We have all sorts of lovely processes for deleting and undeleting pages - there is absolutely no need to wheel war if we disagree with another admin's decision. We should always seek input from the wider community rather than reverting them. WjBscribe 22:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

The case also suggested that if there was any further undeletions by Violetriga she would be immediately desysopped, now, we need to come to a conclusion as to whether or not this was a BLP violation that Violetriga undeleted. In my opinion, if she was not happy with it, the best venue would have been DRV, not wheel warring over it. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Since JzG stopped about 22 hours before he was blocked, and Violetriga stopped about 13 hours before she was blocked, I don't see that the blocks serve any purpose other than to punish two administrators by humiliating them. The wheelwarring seems more serious in the case of Violetriga, and should be reported to the ArbCom (if it hasn't already been), but blocks should really be kept for situations where they are necessary to put a stop to something that is continuing. I would endorse unblocking both. ElinorD (talk) 22:26, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would endorse an unblock, provided there is a strong warning that any further wheel warring will result in another block. Ryan Postlethwaite 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ryan that an unblock is probably warranted here, but it should be up to ArbCom, not us, whether Violetriga's actions are sufficient to trigger the consequences set forth in that arbitration. (ESkog)^(Talk) 22:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocking an admin for attempting to uphold BLP isn't acceptable imho, nor is blocking an established user 22 hours after their last "troublesome" edit. I support unblocking JzG. I don't wish to comment on violetriga's case as that would appear to be a matter that's heading for ArmCom. --kingboyk 22:55, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether or not the redirect qualifies for BLP deletion is under dispute, apparently. Lots of people were involved in deleting/restoring. MessedRocker (talk) 23:09, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I think the blocks are necessary, the wheel warring was spread over more than 24 hours - given neither showed any sign of backing down I think Messedrocker was right to assume they would be likely to continue wheel warring when next online. If anything the block period may have been too short, but hopefully the fact of the blocks will be enough to bring them to their senses. WjBscribe 22:35, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I would also support unblocking, especially of JzG who seems to have felt that he was upholding WP:BLP. Still, they'll be back in a few hours anyway, whatever we do! Physchim62 (talk) 22:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Endorse block JzG has been acting very weird lately, removing posts from his talk page as trolling and crap, even though most of the posts were from admins asking for both of them to stop. That tells me alot. Endorse Violetriga block as well for BLP wheel-warning Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 22:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

In light of the latest comment on the matter from Violetriga: "Wheel-warring is bad, yes, but sometimes you have to do it when an admin is simply wrong and refuses to go along with what has been decided" [46] I oppose any unblock. To have an admin so openly prepared to wheel war is totally unacceptable. I must say I am appalled her ongoing defense of her wheel warring. WjBscribe 23:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

With that comment in mind, I agree that she should remain blocked until Arbcom determines the outcome. (ESkog)^(Talk) 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Me to, maybe indef until arb-com decides her fate, she admit she won't stop. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:21, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Valid blocks, valid unblocks I just read Violetriga's comment, that is an unacceptable attitude, OFFICE can deal with things that need that level of unilateral decision. It should not be decided with one admin warring against another. A lapse in judgment is one thing, but this looks like a decision to wheel war. Until(1 == 2) 23:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the comments. Jaranda, I disagree with the notion JzG should be blocked for acting oddly. I blocked him for wheel warring and nothing more. His block might be able to go before 24 hours is up if the conclusion arises that BLP-authorized deletion is right (it's very confusing because it's just a redirect to a name that was already published on the article, but BLP most likely applies). Also, even though Violetriga committed political suicide with that endorsement of wheel warring, I think indefinitely blocking her is a bit much. Let her be blocked for the day, and then we can tell the ArbCom about it. MessedRocker (talk) 00:54, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said that though, but still edits like this [47] is clearly unacceptable Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:09, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see them unblocked. These are two respected, long-term users who got annoyed in the heat of the moment. I feel we should cut them some slack. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 01:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Here, here, SqueakBox 02:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

SlimVirgin -- I am as long-standing as the people I blocked. I don't subscribe to that "they're long-term" nonsense; if they're long-term and respected, how come they can't handle a disagreement without wheel warring when they should know very well that it should not happen and measures should be taken to stop it, even if it means blocking? Being able to cope with stress without reacting immaturely (wheel warring is incredibly immature) is part of life. MessedRocker (talk) 02:02, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Indef blocking is no way to respond to wheel warring, if anything a punishment should reflect one's admin status(and only if really really necessary), not their ability to edit. No sense in throwing out a good editor over a bad admin decision. Until(1 == 2) 01:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

They were only blocked for 24 hours. --OnoremDil 01:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG in one of our very best, and should be unblocked immediately.Proabivouac 01:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG is going off the rails as some of his recent actions (before and after the break he is supposed to be on) show. The diff from Jaranda is just one example. Viridae^Talk 01:44, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Saying someone is "going off the rails" is not a constructive comment absent truly egregious action, which this isn't. It's not like he extorted the Foundation or violated 25RR. The sooner all concerned put this incident behind them, the better. Raymond Arritt 03:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have unblocked both. No need for any comments on my part. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 01:39, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Blnguyen.Proabivouac 01:40, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I am asking for comments on your part. MessedRocker (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Overturning a block merits a comment, at the very least. --ElKevbo 05:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Consensus, futility, consequences of the block etc....It's best medicine sometimes to simply ignore things and edit while they die down. Editing and getting on the job is always a good option when the block is likely to be controversial. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 09:06, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have never been blocked before, for anything, and I think this just shows that Wikipedia is probably no longer the place for me. Violetriga appears to me to be one of those who is determined to turn Wikipedia into a tabloid aggregator (though not at all the worst offender, to be sure), and I want no part of that. This also appears to be punitive, not preventive. Regardless, I am really struggling to give a shit any more. Guy (Help!) 07:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I've never been blocked either. I'd thank you for not thinking that you know anything about my edits and contributions, and to call them "tabloid" is offensive to someone that has done so much around here. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

JzG: you should have known better, and the fact that you've not been blocked before says you DO know better. Likewise for violetriga. I personally would not like to see any more deletion/undeletion warring from either of you - here or elsewhere. Both of you think you're right, which is fine - but both of you know this isn't the way to settle the disagreement. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 22:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't this settled back in May[48]...I see efforts then to ensure the article was redirected appropriately as per BLP issues. When long standing editors are blocked, it is should always be for only the most egregious of reasons. Furthermore, JzG appears to be pretty disillusioned these days, so why are we antagonizing him further. Bad block...bad block.--MONGO 07:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Being "disillusioned" does not give someone carte blanche to wheel war. Neil ╦ 14:41, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought it was settled (and indeed further discussed) so the deletion of one part of the picture just seems pointy. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I note that multiple admins have both deleted and undeleted that page, and specifically deleted and undeleted the redirect. (deletion log). This is definitely a wheel war, and sanctions on both parties are appropriate. Assuming the redirect to be a BLP violation, a redirect is the least problematic of all possible BLP violations, and is no basis for wheel warring. An even treatment of both wheel warriors is correct. The ArbComm completely screwed up in the BDJ, as despite their claims "to review the behavior of all parties" they only actually looked at the behavior of one side. JzG should have been under ArbComm sanction at least as much as Violetrega as a result of that case, so I oppose differential treatment of the two. GRBerry 13:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear god. It should be apparent at this point that the ArbCom thinks we should delete first and then take to DRVs and there seems to some community support for that. I don't completely agree with it, but waiting to take to DRV is always better if there is any issue. Violet's actions we unecessary, and we shouldn't block for admins trying to deal with BLP issues. In any event, we should all know by now that blocking in these sorts of situations does nothing but create more drama. JoshuaZ 03:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine if it's about content, but when it's a redirect while the redirect title remains in the article and is bold it's a bit daft to have to go through DRV. It would've been different if he'd removed the name from the article too, and the alternative spellings of that name that were also redirects. violet/riga (t) 08:46, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Violetriga should be desysopped

She was admonished once already by Arbcom in the BDJ case for wheelwarring, and was notably unrepentant.[49]. As I was a party (tenuously as it was) in that case, it would be inappropriate for me to make the request, but I think someone else should. Swatjester 06:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

FloNight has been informed already. As for your call here I wouldn't have expected anything different from you given the way you have responded in all related matters. violet/riga (t) 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

• Agreed, sadly. Seems like it was bound to happen sooner or later, and probably best to get it out of the way before additional damage is done. Andrew Lenahan 12:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another RfAr in the works? Corvus cornix 18:36, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The arbitration committee is aware of Violetriga's activities and will take action under the admonishment if it thinks it necessary. It may well be that there are mitigating factors in the most recent case. Violetriga has been told by a fairly representative proportion of the community that her recent activities were neither necessary nor welcome, and will no doubt learn from that. --Tony Sidaway 18:45, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Tony, I disagree with your last statement. She was told that her activities in the BDJ arbitration were not necessary nor welcome, and stated she does not believe she was wrong. Then there is this block and its circumstances, and she once again has been told by a large portion of the community that wheel warring is wrong, and once again has stated she believes that it is an acceptable practice. She apparently has no intention of learning, from my viewpoint. Now, as you mention the committee is aware of this (which I know individual members were obviously aware of this, but I'll assume your statement to mean the committee en banc is aware of it.) so there's nothing further for me to discuss here from me.Swatjester 03:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If she doesn't learn, and continues to pose a problem, the admonishment will probably use its teeth. --Tony Sidaway 16:57, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course the arbcom would also have been able to "use its teeth" to react to Guy's inappropriate actions had the case been handled properly. violet/riga (t) 17:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it may have become necessary. A fundamental disagreement over BLP with the project and a propensity for wheel-warring when not getting her way do not a good administrator make. --Cyde Weys 03:47, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Does it matter at all that she was completely right? -- Ned Scott 03:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

"A fundamental disagreement over BLP"? You what? violet/riga (t) 07:21, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see how any of this has been helpful. The blocks were late, not preventative, and JzGs was completely unwarranted. If Violetriga disagreed that some content violated BLP, a less destructive course of action would have been to follow dispute resolution. When in doubt, the content stays out until the dispute is resolved. Warring over BLP rather than following DR and/or bringing to a wider forum by posting here was extremely ill considered. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

When in doubt that is certainly the case, but when a redirect is deleted while the content remains in the article there's something going wrong, and while there is consensus to include the name and that BLP is not being violated it is not up to one person to simply ignore everyone else. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I do feel that violet's apparent feelings on the suitability of wheel wars to resolve a dispute are incompatible with the ethics of Wikipedia, and the rules. I've not examined violet's behaviour regarding BLP closely, but a question that has come to the fore of my mind is: "Would she be blocked on BLP grounds if she wasn't an admin?". I don't know. Martinp23 17:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly not as there is (was) consensus that BLP accepts the inclusion of this person's name. violet/riga (t) 17:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

No excuse! Reversion-limitation (WP:3RR and WP:WHEEL) policies apply to all, no matter what argument they may have to back up their actions. Neither of the parties should have wheel warred, but I think that a heavier burden is placed on yourself, Violet, given the ArbCom's ruling on BLP deletions and that caution they administered to yourself. It may be true that consensus did accept the inclusion of the person's name, but consensus can change - and more importantly the reasons surrounding BLP actions can do also, weakening the previous decision (for example (but not in this case, it seems): OTRS tickets). Martinp23 20:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change, but not when the discussions finished over a month ago. Guy didn't try and talk about it before or after his removal of a redirect. And that is an important thing - it was only a redirect. Wheel warring over actual content is different to wheel warring over a redirect when the target includes that exact content. The former is much worse than the latter and I would not have engaged in such actions. violet/riga (t) 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Response from my user page

Some people might not have read this, taken from my user page. I hope it explains how the BLP policy was not broken by my actions. In fact, Guy's deletion was after lengthy discussions on the matter:

Wheel-warring significant content is clearly a bad thing. The deletion of a redirect when (incorrect) variations of said name are left and when the name itself exists within the destination article (and does so by consensus of people fully aware of BLP) is inappropriate. BLP, it has been decided, does not apply here as has been discussed. Note that this is a significant reason behind my actions - it was already discussed. Perhaps Guy didn't check through the talk page properly and his first deletion would be understandable, but a second was certainly not warranted when he had sufficient time to comment on the relevant talk page. When citing BLP in a deletion (especially a clearly contentious one like this) Guy should do more than refer to the BDJ case (first deletion) or be rude (second). Guy appears to have gone through the articles in the BDJ case and restarted the crusade to remove them (the other remaining one he tried to AfD).

violet/riga (t) 07:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You have not commented on your actions, except for the rather ambiguous "this is a significant reason behind my actions" stating "it was already discussed". Are you claiming community support for wheel warring with JzG over a BLP issue? Your rationale is unclear to me. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have commented on my actions already. I'm saying that JzG twice performed a deletion against consensus. violet/riga (t) 16:32, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, but so is not correcting what is blatantly wrong. -- Ned Scott 19:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

So in response to wheel warring, you feel that Violetriga, very recently and sternly warned against wheel warring, should have wheel warred some more? There are, contrary to apparent belief, more than just two or three admins on this project. We can afford to discuss something for fifteen minutes before throwing our buttons all over the place. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Wheel wars are bad, full stop. There are authorities higher than admins, if a dispute still exists, appeal to them. --InkSplotch 19:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Once the page was deleted the first time (in this saga), it should not have been undeleted without seeking further discussion. Whether some previous discussion deemed that there was a BLP vio or not is immaterial, because situations can and do change. We have at least a couple of hundred admins active within a reasonable timespan after an incident occurs. We also have a massive community who can offer input. If you, Violet, or anyone else disagreed with the original deletion, the correct action would be to bring it up somewhere, rather than simply reverting. This is most true for BLP violations - whether you think it is one or not, the burden is on the person seeking to restore the page to prove (by consensus or reasoning) that it is not a vio, with appropriate discussion. Blind reversion is a big no-no.

Dealing with BLP problems, whether as part of OTRS work or individually, is an onerous task, made all the most difficult by the vocal few who disagree with your actions, and (although often not in possession of all the facts) decide to make a fuss (usually by reverting). If I may be permitted to express my personal feeling - this has to stop. Now. Users and admins alike on this project need to learn the importance of BLP, and respect the decisions made under it, until a clear consensus can be formed in opposition to the BLP action. It doesn't take long to ask for a sanity check somewhere, and, in all likelihood, being without a redirect for a few hours isn't going to cause the world to end. Sigh. Martinp23 20:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

HistoricDST

Resolved

Miranda 09:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I have been editing the article Delta Sigma Theta in order to get the article to quality standards. HistoricDST is a member of Delta Sigma Theta and has been editing the article as well in order to match it to the orgnaization's website and has not made any effort to improve the article's content. In addition, I, as well as other people, has warned her of this conflict of interest. In my opinion, HistoricDST is in violation of WP:COI and is owning the article. Now, I have given up in improving the article because she is "policing my edits". Please see this regarding problems in content, this as a problem with content, this where she "accused me of being a member of another organization" and where she says that I am a member, when I am not and the argument which started it all. I just need a third opinion on this. I am not trying to bite the editor, but she is not understanding the whole concept of Wikipedia. All imput would be helpful. Thanks. Miranda 04:26, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello Administators,

I need assistance on deleting my account. Thanks in advance. HistoricDST 05:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Place {{subst:speedy|User requested}} on the top of your user page and talk ::page. If you do ever decide to create another account, reading the welcoming message is crucial in order to understand core guidelines of the site. Thanks and best wishes. Miranda 05:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Userpages and talk pages may be deleted, but accounts cannot be officially deleted, due to licensing issues. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Just what I was about to say, I think Miranda must have mis-read it, . — Rlest (formerly Qst) 12:05, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I meant for deleting your talk page content, not your account because that never may happen. It was late at night when this incident occurred. Might want to assume good faith QST. Miranda 12:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that approaching the other editor in another manner may have been more appropriate here. Specifically, Miranda, you have made many contributions to that area of Wikipedia and have a possible appearance of ownership yourself. Perhaps, less of an attitude expressed by putting so many phases in bold text, piping policy links at the newbie and instructing them how you are such an experienced editor (with 6+ months and 14K edits....) may have been helpful. I do notice that HistoricDST did seek assistance at WP:EAR, while you chose to come to ANI to basically settle a content dispute, which could have been more easily settled by invoking some of the ideas at WP:DR. Also, WP:COIN is well equipped to handle possible issues with COI matters. I don't see any evidence of vandalism or incivility attributed to the new user. New users may have much to add. This user claims to have books and per the help at EA, may have been able to make a number of reliable, sourced edits. It appears that we will never know. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 12:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't own anything. She was reverting information that I included in the article as well as was a member of the sorority who said that the Wikipedia's article DST must coincide with the national website of the organization. This is a serious violation of neutral point of view and of advertisements of companies. Believe me, she was warned by me, Nick, as well as others that her conflict of interest would interfere with the article's development, but she didn't listen. She was confused by policies as well. And believe me, AM, there was incivility (hint: look at the links). As for WP:OWN, I don't own articles and realize that many different editors can improve articles. However, at that point, I was the main one updating that page as well as AKA's page. Hence, your argument about me "owning" anything is a moot point. Look at the argument from both sides instead of one side. That is why I came here. Miranda 13:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Miranda, the facts don't add up here. The HistoricDST account has made a grand total of 6 edits to the article (compared to 98 for you). The last one was more than 3 weeks ago. The account has made a total of 4 edits to the talk page of the article (plus 3 more edits to correct their typo and add signatures). None of those edits are uncivil. Nick made one edit to HistoricDST's talk page instructing to use the talk page which is exactly what happened here. I read every post the account made to your talk page, only 1 of the 14 approached incivility, and appeared no worse than the messages they were receiving from you. I encourage others to look at this objectively, but I find your claims to not be accurate. Looking at this account, I see no egregious offense. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I am/was not asking for you to block her. I was asking for someone else to explain to her what she was doing was wrong. She was critiquing all of my edits to her sorority's article, nearing own and conflict of interest. For me, this topic is resolved because 1.) the editor has left and 2.) a serious conflict of interest and ownership was made to the article. Miranda 13:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

More piping links and bold text I see. I disagree that this issue is resolved. No COI was made to the article, obviously, since they didn't edit it. The fact that this user left Wikipedia is not necessarily the good thing that you make it out to be. As I said above, this editor may have been able to a positive contribution to this or to other articles, but you have run them off with what appear to me to be false accusations. You told me to look at the links, I did that and more. I now ask you to re-examine those links yourself as well as your behavior in this matter. Perhaps the problem lies somewhere other than with that user. Finally, please note my comments about better venues than this board for asking for help with editors that may be used for COI issues and dispute resolution. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 13:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Having examined some of the contributions, I agree with After Midnight. People bandy about "WP:COI" all the time without being careful about it. In this case, the user was a member of the organization but not necessarily employed by them or anything like that, and was following policy by providing sources, and was met with WP:BITEs. I have undone Miranda's marking of the user's pages with speedy tags, BTW: in my opinion, the user wanted to close her account, not necessarily to delete her user page (and certainly not her user talk page, which is often not done even with a request). HistoricDST, if they want their pages deleted, should at least make an explicit request. Mangojuice^talk 14:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Delta Sigma Theta is an organization where women are initiated. It's not a corporation. Delta Sigma Theta is a sorority. You don't have to be employed by the sorority, unless you work in the sorority's offices. And, I am sorry AM, but I have a habit of linking information in order to back up my points because I don't believe in heresy. I haven't "ran off this editor", so again, please quit making accusations which merit no content. For example, what happens if someone from Donald Trump's Miss Universe pageant came and told you that you couldn't edit their article because it goes against company guidelines and have not done anything to improve the article. That would be a blatant conflict of interest. As far as the conflict of interest board, I did not know about it. Thank you for pointing that out. I thought that this is a board where you report users who were potentially disruptive or going against policy. Miranda 15:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So to extend that point, are users who live in a particular state unwelcome to assist in improving the article about that state? Are Americans not welcome to edit United States? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, of course not. That's not what I meant at all. I meant that she placed information such as, Miranda don't put this in our page, because it goes against our policies. Miranda, do not put the shield in the page, because it goes against the Grand Chapter of DST. (hence the shield is protected under fair use). That's blatant conflict of interest and ownership. Miranda 15:19, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is typical behaviour for a new editor who does not understand our policies and should be welcomed, treated respectfully and guided to become a member of the community who makes positive contributions to the project. Also, as a side question, when you sigh in your edit summaries, should I treat that as if you are looking down at me, or as if you are rolling your eyes at me, or as if you are exasperated by my or others behavior and believe that we are somehow inferior? I would like you to clairify that, because not knowing your intent, and while I like to assume good faith, I perceive that I am (subtly?) being insulted. --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 15:33, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

After Midnight, no, I am not insulting you at all. Where did you get this from? "Sigh" means that I am tired of harping on this point and providing evidence where a conflict of interest is made. And, yes, she was pointed in the right direction many times. I provided her with links of policy as well as told her to read her welcome message. Miranda 15:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Er Both those edits were on talk pages - that's what people with a possible COI are supposed to do. Did you actually read the guideline before you brought this up? Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:39, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I did, but she did those after making edits to the article with her IP address as well as other instances provided above. To AM: And, the only contributions that she made to the page was to critique my edits to her sorority. Yes, she was a member of a sorority, true. We have members of sororities and fraternities who edit their articles, which is a WP:COI. But for her to tell me what to put in her sorority's article is WP:OWN. Miranda 15:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

What exactly was the problem with the user making these comments on talk pages? I can't see one and since you cited them perhaps you can help me out? Thanks Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:46, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh and by the way Miranda, in a respectful way I have been on Wikipedia for months longer than you as both Tellyaddict and Qst and with my contribs from the accounts and my current I have over 20,000+ contribs and almost 11 months experience, so see its not very nice is it to be downgraded by somebody who thinks they rule the world as they have more edits, is it? So please stop emboldening text as you're getting annoyed and slapping editors with policy citations, and your repeat citation of WP:DISRUPT is also annoying, oh and it was not QST, it Qst. — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind I am beating a dead horse here. Miranda 16:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps we should move this thread to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Give me attention please or Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Ego clashes? -- John Reaves 00:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with John. It's a newbie, Miranda, they don't know how to say things; they just say things. Perhaps what HistoricDST meant to say was "I don't like the way you're editing the article", and wanted to reach a compromise. Another thing, Rlest is right. You've told me and countless others to assume good faith a googleplex too many. Read the policies before you accuse people of violating them and emboldening them. Also, your repeated use of *sigh* is getting quite old; your rebuttal to AM's comment sounds as if it is to say that we are ignorant and do not understand. —« ANIMUM » 00:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I will make an effort to e-mail the user in question in order to reach out to her to continuing editing Wikipedia. As far as the other comments in general, I will make an effort to improve my behavior. Regarding Animum's commment, I have already explained myself above concerning the usage of my "sigh" comment. There is no use in order to bring up this moot point again. Please don't try to make this a battleground of who's ego is bigger, because that would be a waste of my time and others time. We are trying to build an encyclopedia. Thank you. Miranda 09:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

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

User:Imdanumber1/Sandbox

Resolved

I'm about to get pissed off, so an admin please review the violation of fair use on this userspace. — Moe ε 15:54, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Change the images to image links, and it'll be fine. --Eyrian 15:58, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, without the fair use images this is fine, hence I have added {{Resolved}}. Regards; — Rlest (formerly Qst) 15:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the problem, people were readding the fair use images. Whatever.. — Moe ε 16:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Moe, the route map doesn't seem to be fairuse, only the one sign. I've replaced it with a placeholder image - if problems persist, people can be stopped from adding unfree images to the userspace - I'll keep an eye on it. WilyD 16:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't realize this. If you check the fair use image it appears to be nearly identical. — Moe ε 16:11, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Which fair use image? Surely you don't mean the sign one? WilyD 16:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:WilyD. — Moe ε 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand. it looks to me as if this user is working on an article in his sandbox prior to moving it to mainspace. If that is the case why remove fair use photos? Theresa Knott | The otter sank 16:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I tend to think WP:NONFREE stating that fair use images only being used in the article namespace means one thing. Users can comment out the images and whatnot which aren't appropriate for the userspace. This page has almost been in creation for 11 months, a little long to assume it's going to the main namespace soon, don't you think? Well, thats when the sandbox was created, my mistake. Still, images presumed under fair use shouldn't be used under the userspace regardless, policy strickly says the article namespace is only permittable. — Moe ε 17:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we need to interpret the policy using some common sense. The reason for the stipulation is to prevent people using non free images to decorate their userpages. Creating a sandbox is a whole diffferent matter as that page is clealy an encylopedic no matter what the actual namespace is. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I think then we need to bring it to WT:NONFREE for a rewording then, because as it stands it clearly says, "article namespace" and gives no exception to a permittable sandbox, unless I'm missing it (like always :p). — Moe ε 17:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really need to list every possible exception. As it says on the top of the page:This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.. That is all I am advocating here. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 17:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm reading from the policy portion, not all of it is guideline. — Moe ε 17:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are. I didn't notice that. Actually having had my dinner, and thinking on it some more, I'm making an issue of of nothing. If somone intends using a sandbox, they can easily leave out all nonfree images until the end of the process. If they want to tweak image placement and such, they can do it just before the page goes live. It's no big deal to do that. Most people who use a sandbox do so because they want to make sure the text is perfect before letting it loose on everyone. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 18:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

People really should leave adding things like categories out of the userspace anyway, so it's even less of a big deal. JPD (talk) 18:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to the admins for resolving this issue. At some point, some jerks blatantly removed content from my user subpage, and the worst part is, they didn't bring up the issue to me. I reverted, because I only ask that people edit my subpage to prevent conflicts. Where the heck did the guys come from?

Anyway, the page is going to go live tomorrow. And as for Moe, I suggest you calm your attitude down, seriously. People like you are a bad example to WP, and it is ugly. And please don't edit my sandbox without my permission. That goes for all. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 02:54, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You don't own your userspace, see WP:UP and WP:OWN, it belongs to the community and you have no choice as to whether you can violate policy on it or not, you just can't, thus I don't need your permission. — Moe ε 12:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

How about you fix your attitude before you make any other comments? And it is MY userspace, I don't need ignorant people like you getting my say-so in my business. —Imdanumber1 (talk • contribs • email) 13:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

No, Moe is correct; it is not your userspace, and, yes, you are correct in that other people should not edit it outside of WP rules and policies. Of which, WP:NPA is considered very serious around here, and the term "ignorant people" violates it. Uncivil language brings nothing to the discussion, and can even result in warnings being posted and blocks issued. It would be better if everybody just chilled a bit here. LessHeard vanU 13:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

FT2, Attachment Therapy Advocates for Children in Therapy and block of User:DPeterson

This editor has been actively involved in working in User:Fainites on the NLP article and many other related articles. FT2 then involved himself in the arbitration case regarding attachment therapy, etc. His block of DPeterson is uncalled for. If anything the articles should be frozen because of the constant reverts by editors working with Fainites. Specifically, FT2 objected to: 1. "'Attachment Therapy' is not a term found in the American Medical Association's Physician's Current Procedural Manual, 2006. It is also not found in Bergin and Garfield's Handbook of Psychotherapy and Behavior Change, fifth edition, edited by Michal J. Lambert, NY: John Wiley & Sons, 2004

2. "The group is led by Linda Rosa, RN, Executive Director; her spouse Larry Sarner, Administrative Director; and Jean Mercer, Chairman of Professional Board of Advisors" the text "none of whom are licensed mental health providers."

both of these statements are facts and were supported by verifiable citations or references.

I believe FT2 is abusing adminisrative status here. RalphLender^talk 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see what's wrong with his edits on Attachment Therapy, haven't looked at the other one. You have your own POV here, and it looks to me like he's trying to keep it neutral. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Basis of block is re-re-re-re-re-re-re-re-adding of problematic pointy/subtle attack text (OR, POINT, NPOV, CONSENSUS, TE, DISRUPT, etc), despite numerous warnings on what policy says if disruptive editing continues, and requests to more fully address concerns over neutrality and OR. Full details on WP:RFArb/Attachment_Therapy/Evidence#Blocks_issued_pending_arbitration_decisions, including details of arbcom clerks who were requested to double-check the decison to block. The rest is a bad-faith claim also discussed there.

Note that the decision to block was discussed openly and reviewed in the presence of around 45 admins and 2 arbcom clerks (neutrality/appropriateness check), and is fully documented on the arbcom case page. This is because DPeterson (a proven POV war sockmaster facing probable long term ban at arbcom) has a distasteful habit of untruthfulness, and not much compunction at arguing by fabrication and smear. RalphLender is a behaviorally-evidenced sock of DPeterson himself. FT2 ^{(Talk | email)} 12:41, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:RUReady2Testify

Resolved

• RUReady2Testify (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

I marked for CSD two inappropriate articles Southpaws Unite! and Scott Morgan (rock musician); an administrator agreed, and speedy deleted one and redirected the other. The user who created the article is very very unhappy and persists in leaving lengthy "warnings" on my talk page[50] accusing me of vandalism because of the CSD, and refuses to listen to reason on his talk page, such as how he can address his grievance. (And is now continuing the vendetta to insults in four-month old conversations on my talk page.[51]) Since I was once blocked for "edit warring" on my own talk page the last time I had to deal with an unhappy editor repeatedly disrupting my talk page, I'd appreciate it if an administrator could deal with this user. Many thanks. THF 04:48, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It is your talk page and you can remove what you want from it. You should consider that some editors see this as bad form, but that doesn't mean you are not allowed to do it, nor does it mean that it is good form for another editor to replace info you removed from your talk page. The fact that you removed 'warnings' shows that you have read your talk page and received the messages. If RUReady2Testify wants to take it further he should use other dispute resolution processes - not your talk page as it is disruptive. I can remove his warnings from your talk page if you like. --Merbabu 05:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Note to THF... the policy on removing warnings from one's talk page being considered vandalism was changed quite a few months ago. It's no longer considered vandalism to remove warnings from one's talk page. So feel free to remove them if you want, especially if the're badfaith warnings. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 05:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. A few months ago, I had been blocked for 31 hours for reverting an editor who repeatedly blanked my talk page on grounds that I was "disruptively editwarring", and didn't want to run afoul of another strange interpretation of 3RR. An administrator gave a short block to this user for disruption, so the matter is at least temporarily resolved. THF 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Anatolmethanol

Resolved

 – 08:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to draw the attention of the admins and preferably the members of the arbcom to User:Anatolmethanol, which is a self-admitted sock of the banned User:Fadix: [52] [53]

I want to know if it is OK for the banned users to bait others with a sock account and then report them to the arbitrators and present evidence to the arbcom case. I don’t know what the best way to draw the attention of the arbitrators to this issue is and since urgent clarification is required, I decided to use this board. Grandmaster 07:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Never okay. Any action instigated by a banned user is inactionable. Will ^(talk) 07:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits reverted and his evidence section removed per WP:BAN. Block forthcoming. Will ^(talk) 08:50, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked by Seraphimblade. —Crazytales ^{(talk) (alt)} 15:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Malicious editing

Grettings:

My name is Greg Felton and found out recently that "eternalsleeper" (<redacted by Ryulong>) had started a page about me. The page consisted of libelous unsubstantiated commnennts about me being a Jew-hater drawn from the Jewish Defence League website.

I have asked Eternalsleeper repeatedly to refrain from posting these libelous statements, regardless of their prior publication, yet he persists. This action is not only a defamatory attack upon my character, but it violates Wikipedia's rule that encyclopedic content be verifiable, a fact which eternalsleeper deliberately ignores.

I respectfully request that eternalsleeper be censured and blocked from making any alterations to my page.

Thank you,

Greg Felton

Voxveritatis 07:57, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It appears that you have already contacted OTRS about this matter. Perhaps this is something that another similar ticket should cover.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Nothing against you, but I've deleted your biography as it does not conform with our guidelines on inclusion based on notability.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You removed the middle man. I was just about to tag it db-a7. shotwell 08:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Might not cascading protection be applied to the page so as to avoid further inconvenience to Mr. Subject here? -- Zamkudi ^{Dhokla queen!} 09:53, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mbz1

Hi,
I could be using this space to complain a little about this user's lack of civility, but what I really wanted a second opinion on is her insistence of blanking her user talk page. I've tried to raise this up with the user, but she (as per standard) deleted without answering. Now I really dislike this, but before going all heavy handed with block threats or whatever I wanted to find out how others feel about this sort of thing, and whether or not anything can be done about it. --Fir0002 09:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:USER#Removal of warnings says "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages" -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 10:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I closed the FPR nomination concerned. MER-C 11:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Self-promotional spam

Resolved

 – JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Theo777 has been repeatedly inserting a spam link into Song of Solomon, despite the efforts of a number of other editors. The external link is to a publisher's website for the works of one Colin Leslie Dean, who has a long history of self-promotional spamming on the web under various assumed identities, many of which have been banned by other websites for that very reason. (See Talk:Song of Solomon#Evidence of spamming.) There is every reason to suppose that User:Theo777 is yet another of his avatars (the style of writing is identical, and the pretence of being a "third party" extolling Dean's work.) Another editor has already issued Test-3 and Test-4. I'm on 2 reversions and don't want to push it, so we need admin intervention, please. Vilĉjo 10:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

He's blocked for 31 hours for 3RR. If he's a sock we can make it indef. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 11:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

If you think he is a sock we would need more information, diffs, etc. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor removing tags

Jamakra77 (talk · contribs) is removing DB and article issues templates from Imam Zakaria Badat. [54] [55] Reinis^talk 12:38, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Now 81.98.105.130 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) removed them. [56] [57] Reinis^talk 12:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Mind meal

Mind meal (talk · contribs) has been a little hot under the collar over the past hour or so, I think s/he's been frustrated by several things but the straw that broke the camel's back may have been a dispute with Viridae (talk · contribs) at WP:DP. In addition to the spat over the policy, there has been incivility and lecturing towards Viridae [58], [59] and Violetriga (talk · contribs) [60] on their talk pages. After warnings from myself and Violetriga, Mind meal left me a nice long message which basically said "block me" [61]. Resisting the temptation to do just that, I'll throw this one for someone else to look over. Deiz talk 13:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

See above on List of Folk-blues musicians as Mind meal is also frustated, though not out of line, with me. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 13:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that message, any block for that would look like a Cool down block, which are more trouble than they are worth. — Moe ε 14:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Some patience is needed. He sounds frustrated, but the edits I've seen have been well on the hither side of disruption. --Tony Sidaway 16:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Kiev/Kyiv issue

Resolved

List of Folk-blues musicians request for review

I thought I'd ask someone to look at this other than me. This list was at AfD here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Folk-blues musicians. It ran its course and I closed here [62]. I closed as not having consensus to keep because I felt the community wanted something else done with it. I offered to move it to a user space for work which I did upon request. At the moment, I feel like I did a reasonable thing. One involved user is quite passionate about the list and posted at my page here [63] after I moved it to his userspace. Another user recreated the talk page here [64] with an inaccurate closing AfD tag. I could use some guidance/criticism about this case. BTW, I am not offended at the postings on my talk page, just curious what you guys think. JodyB _{yak, yak, yak} 12:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I would direct them to WP:DRV and tell them that until then your decision stands. Until(1 == 2) 00:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very frustrated!

Who can help me? I placed the page John Baselmans in the English Wikipedia. It is a translation of the Dutch Wikipedia page. The reason was that Dutch moderators wrote in some briefings that maybe it is interesting for placing this article in the English version. It was for me an honor to do that and so I placed the exactly translation in the English version. After a week this page was tagged by the user FruitcakeNL and I did my best to change the article. I asked for help because I'am new in this world of Wikipedia. Till today nobody is helping me and the article is still tagged! Is there anybody who can help me with this article? The Dutch version accepted the first version but it looks like the English version has other rules. Please help me. Makako8 15:44, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. Tag removed and explanation for why added to the talk page. Given the number of exhibitions, published works and references, the presence of this tag mystifies me. AKRadecki^Speaketh 15:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes people get a little trigger happy with CSD tags. Natalie 17:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Akradecki and Natalie Erin. Thank you so much for helping me.20:26, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new user

Zachery93 (talk · contribs · logs) has been vandalizing Dylan Patton multiple times. The user has, obviously, intentionally vandalized the article three times, being reverted each time. It even caused a minor confusion of the article's real name because he had edited so much in the article that I thought the article was mistitled. Anyway, that problem has been fixed, but the user is still making these changes, and I believe needs to be blocked. Thank you for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 17:56, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe you're looking for AIV. The Evil Spartan 18:52, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, thanks for your help. --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 19:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandal blanking pages

Edi43 (talk · contribs) is a vandal user that has blanked several pages in a row. Could someone look at it, please? Reinis^talk 19:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Misza13 has sorted this out. LessHeard vanU 19:30, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Please direct future vandalism reports to the correct place, Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User SurvivorsHope

The main page of User:SurvivorsHope seems a blatant violation of WP:SPAM, or am I wrong?. I am sure that this user is in good faith, but I am afraid that he/she/they can't have such account and user page.--B J Bradford 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I tagged it with {{db-ad}}. Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:84.43.29.130

Resolved

This IP user had a couple of previous blocks for vanadlaism and personal attacks and the urge to vandalise seems to have over taken them again see here, here, here, here and here. I would like to assume good faith but despite warnings I don't see this account being used for anything other than vandalism. I think another block may be appropriate. Darrenhusted 21:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This IP was previously blocked in 2006 for a period of six months and just earned the same honor today. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 21:34, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Protecting pages

Is anyone else having trouble move-protecting pages but not protecting them? Try a random page (where the move permissions are not already unlocked) and try to unlock them. It doesn't work for me. —METS501 (talk) 21:33, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not working for me either. I believe this was mentioned somewhere once before, but I can't recall if a bug report was filed or not. It sounds like a reoccurring issue. - auburnpilot talk 22:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Dustin Mitchell

This site is no user friendly at all, so please help me if this is not the right screen to place this. I recently reposted a press release about this guy. I have a lot of other sites to cite, but I do not know how. The press release that I posted was blocked. Something about it being an advertisement? What do I need to do about that?

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Outlookstl (talk • contribs) 23:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I added heading since user did not specify which article. I believe they are talking about Dustin Mitchell --SevenOfDiamonds 23:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, that content is copyrighted; it may therefore not be posted on Wikipedia, unless the copyright holder grants permission for it to be reproduced here. If you are or represent the copyright holder—I presume from your message you aren't/don't—, this page may help you. It also helps if you sign your comments on Talk pages or noticeboards by adding four tildes (~~~~) to the end of each comment, so we can track who made each comment more easily. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rayiscreepy

Resolved

 – Rayiscreepy indef blocked

User:Rayiscreepy appears to be an account created solely with the intent of vandalising Ray Evernham and Erin Crocker. Could someone check it out? Theirishpianist 23:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. By the way, the warning on the above user's Talk page was the only message I've ever seen that violated BLP while telling a user to stop vandalizing :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bah. Nanoed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 23:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Someguy0830 blocked

Resolved

 – Assumed by all--Atlan (talk) 00:54, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Someguy0830 was blocked for 3RR on Ben 10, what do other think? Given this this user's histroy of harrasing and atagonising other editors, I feel this block is justrified until he promises not to do it again. 144.139.85.56 00:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So you are just voicing your opinion here for some reason? -- John Reaves 00:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think lovely sunsets are a good thing! Until(1 == 2) 00:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are...(pointless discussion) --Dark Falls ^talk 00:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I like chocolate milk! HalfShadow 06:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm only reporting it, and I was hoping that it would just be assumed. 144.139.85.56 00:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright then.--Atlan (talk) 00:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT

I am concerned that these edits here and here (these are the most recent two, there are more in contribs) to RFA by Kmweber (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) are appear to be disrupting Wikipedia to make a point after warnings to the editors talk page. Will an administrator take a look into this please. Best regards, Navou ^banter 01:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

He's as entitled to his opinion as much as anyone else is. -- John Reaves 01:36, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be what the nigh-interminable discussion at WT:RFA#Disrpuptive_editing_by_Kmweber boils down to. Raymond Arritt 01:39, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:POINT violations require bad faith, I consider it very possible that this persons opinions is sincere and that he is not trying to be disruptive. I personally think it is a foolish reason to oppose anyone for anything, but that person can have a different opinion than me without violating policy. Until(1 == 2) 01:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

TBH, and in my own opinion, which can be taken or discarded, I think Kmweber may be manipulating this policy of "everyone is entitled to their opinion on RFA, however foolish it is" to allow himself to troll without violating policy. Thoughts? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 01:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Very possible, but short of any sort of evidence which makes it unreasonable to assume good faith, I am going to assume good faith. Until(1 == 2) 01:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand one can not compel participation, however, after attempting to engage the editor in discussion of this here at this RFA and here on the talkpage of the editor I have a difficult time finding the edits in good faith after the non response to my concerns of the edits. Navou ^banter 01:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I myself don't find the opposes to be made in good faith either. But, really, please, if it bothers you so much, don't look at it. Pretty much everyone disregards it now, and if it turns up on your own RfA, ignore it. We block people because they are harming the encyclopedia, not because they are making frivolous opposes on RfAs. —Kurykh 01:59, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If that same approach was taken on all trolls, who attempt to disrupt the building of this encyclopedia, we wouldnt get very far would we? -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 02:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"Harming the encyclopedia" naturally means including the community and the article- and community-building processes. —Kurykh 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

His opposes are not particularly severe in terms of causing harm to the encyclopedia, in my opinion. Because they don't appear to have any substance to them and look like an automatic response to any self nomination, they lose most of their weight. Engaging him appears to feed the trollishness, which isn't improving any situation. He feels a certain way, likes to remind everyone ad nauseum, and it can be left at that. Hey, I almost saw it as a badge of honour, being opposed by Kmweber!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 04:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Linkspam and libel being inserted into article

Resolved

- the IP has been blocked. - Philippe | Talk 03:43, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

After a nine-month hiatus, Wikiwriter100 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have renewed his drive to insert a link to www.etvscandal.com, a site detailing a supposed asbestos scandal at South Carolina Educational Television, into the SCETV article, along with a related section on this "scandal." The problem with this is that this is not only linkspamming (it is primarily a vehicle to sell a book), but the site contains potentially libelous material, and even linking to it could expose Wikipedia to legal problems.

After I reverted his attempt to insert this link, 76.26.214.149 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), an IP registered to Comcast in Goose Creek, South Carolina (a suburb of Charleston), inserted the very same link here, which I immediately reverted. This IP has made several other edits in a similar vein:

• [65]
• [66]
• [67]
• [68]

Clearly, Wikiwriter is bent on being disruptive. JTRH has had more experience with this person, but asked me to make the initial report since he isn't as experienced in the ways of our little project--we both ask that action be taken. Blueboy96 03:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Blueboy96's comments. The linked Website's content is completely non-verifiable, it contains libelous allegations about a former South Carolina state public official, and a Google search reveals that the alleged "scandal" has been the subject of exactly one article in a reputable newspaper. Thanks for your attention. JTRH 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Falsely licensed images

Wneedham02 (talk · contribs · logs) first uploaded images loosely sourced to fansites, which were deleted. I'm not sure if some of the images after that were genuine, but (s)he has uploaded several images which are definitely not self-made. I've found one image that's blatantly copyrighted (a screenshot from a music video whose name was in the title) uploaded after WikiLeon warned Wneedham02, but I don't know which, if any, of the images are genuine. Should someone block the user? Is a {{PD-self}} tag enough to constitute a source, or should they be tagged with {{nsd}}? 17Drew 03:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

self-destructive behaviour.....?

ok, so slashdot have an article about Wikipedia and intelligence agencies - more aimed at entertaining than being factual (and certainly more than a bit sloppy - with Jimmy Wales saying it's a 'new low' for them).

The article talks about our own User:Slimvirgin and is certainly not as respectful of her right to privacy as the culture here permits.

I'm here though to ask for Administrators to take a look at the on-wiki behaviour that this tea-cup-tornado has inspired, which from my perspective looks like destructive behaviour for the wiki....

• Behaviour on Slim's talk page - I'm concerned because i saw some (borderline) valid questions and comments being removed, and users blocked, by admins (User:Crum375 and User:ElinorD and User:ST47) who determined that this was not on - the page is currently semi-protected against vandalism.

• The Thread on this subject (on this page) started by User:Oleg Alexandrov, here was removed by User:ElinorD with the stated reason 'Is some terrible harm going to come to Wikipedia if we refrain from distressing a fellow editor' - I don't really think that some on-wiki discussion will overly distress Slim - I've had some (very) limited contact with her in the past, and she has seemed more than able to respond reasonably and rationally without distress.

I'm just a nosey wiki-gnome and having heard about the slashdot and digg stories was surprised to find the knee-jerk removing comments / banning users thing happening - it smacks of sweeping under a carpet to me, and elephants in rooms don't fit! There's a point at which wanting to starve something of the oxygen of publicity is also pushing one's head further into the sand - not good!

The most serious point here is that this could look terrible to outside interested parties - I don't believe anything that's been written would appear to be a big deal from (for example) a journalist's point of view, expect perhaps our own reaction to it...

thanks all - Purples 03:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

User:71.164.0.121

Resolved

This user has made repeated reverts to the Fahrenheit 9/11 page, claiming that it isn't a documentary without consulting the discussion page after I warned him/her several times. Reginmund 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I have looked into the claim and anon did make well more than 3 reverts, and has been blocked for 24 hours. I reverted the most recent as a 3RR violation; other edits have been made subsequent to the other reverts in excess of 3, so this was the best recourse. I think that this resolves it for today. Carlossuarez46 06:00, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• Anon relogged in as User:Arcade123, explained situation on my talk page (feel free to read it) as did complaining editor. I unblocked anon IP. That the editor explained the situation on my talk page rather than use the unblocked account to continue the edit war showed a lot of good faith and swayed my decision. If someone sees further edit warring among these, feel free to do what you need, but I think there'll be some resolution. Carlossuarez46 06:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Survey?

Resolved

My old user talk page was just posted with a survey asking a bunch of semi-personal questions in connection with work on the VT massacre. I don't recall contributing that much to it, so I'm guessing it's "phishing" of some kind, although it could be honest and legitimate. I just wonder what to do about it, if anything. [69] Baseball Bugs 03:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The red-link user has posted similar questions to many users in the last few days. [70] Baseball Bugs 03:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

By all appearances the guy is who he says he is; the email address and so forth match up as shown here. I don't see anything of obvious concern. People are free to reply or not as they see fit. Raymond Arritt 03:20, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Folks have tried this sort of thing before -- on the fly "research" about the strange animal that is Wikipedia. With a redlinked userpage and no understanding of how Wikipedia actually works. I expect the user is legitimate, at least in the sense that yeah, they're probably writing some paper, but misguided, not just about Wikipedia, but about researching online communities as well. No userpage is a clear indicator that this researcher hasn't spent any time actually looking into how Wikipedia works. My suggestion is to post to their talk page your concerns about their actions, or ignore it. There's no rule against it, so far as I can tell. However, the promises that one's privacy won't be violated, while possibly meant sincerely, are not something I would trust as a matter of course without more information about the methodology, intent, etc. of this survey. Cheers Dina 03:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, this user has been blocked and some of his edits reverted. I am concerned that this is a rather heavy handed move, as the requests appear to be made in good faith. Obviously, nobody needs to reply to this user's request for email responses to his survey. Was this truly harmful to the encyclopedia?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 04:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The editor offered up a quite sincere seeming apology and was unblocked. I have posted some advice about ways he could handle such matters better on his talk page and I suggest that other's with strong opinions do also, as he seems inclined to listen. Dina 13:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)