Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive249

R. Mika

• I really need some assistance here. Check the history of this page and the talk page, but the long and short of it is, 216.139.219.148 (talk · contribs) is accusing me of having a Judeo-Christian bias because I don't think the bust size of a fictional character is encyclopedic (or even necessarily very important). JuJube 01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've warned the user not to make personal attacks, for a start. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 01:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Other than that, I'd encourage you to stay WP:COOL and have a reasonable discussion with the editors involved with the page. Consider asking for help from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and/or a third opinion if that doesn't lead to progress. The person may just be passionate about their topic rather than intentionally trying to rile you, so try to find some common ground to work from. William Pietri 01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Passionate about the size of a video game character's breasts. I think I'm going to have to pass the buck here... (BTW, the user has shifted IPs, somewhat dramatically, to 85.13.251.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)). JuJube 02:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hadley Junior High School

This article either needs deleting or fixing BADLY. As it stands, it's nothing more than a dartboard for random garbage, most likely from students. I can't make heads or tails of where the article ends and the vandalism begins.

--Ispy1981 01:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I appear to have a talent for turning really crappy articles into only moderately crappy articles, so I will take a look at this one for you. --Haemo 02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Much obliged--Ispy1981 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, it's been "repaired" - but it needs more information to be anything more than a stub. --Haemo 02:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I requested it to be semi-protected Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Hadley_Junior_High_School_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29. Now only established users can edits. -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 02:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jesse Brower article

The article appears to be about a non-notable student. I added a proposed deletion tag but there is absolutely no references or sources and a search around the Internet shows nobody named Jesse Bower as described on the article. Should it be speedy deleted instead of prod? -- _Hdt83 ^Chat 04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Tagged as {{db-bio}} inasmuch as there is plainly no assertion of notability here. Joe 04:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on Talk:Spam (Monty Python)

There is nonsense on the talk page of Spam, which for obvious reasons is a target for such things. The user who posted part of it keeps trying to revert it [1] on the grounds that the talk page policy doesn't allow removing information posted by others. It doesn't seem to me that that part of the policy should apply to vandalism, but can an administrator please look at this? Ken Arromdee 14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Totally offtopic (the topic is improvement of the article) remarks and vandalism can be removed from article talk pages by any editor. I've made a note of this on the editor's talk page. Kusma (talk) 14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the "resolved" tag was premature. He just put the nonsense back with a comment saying "revert war". Ken Arromdee 21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Just reverted it again. I left a warning on the user's talk page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Zscout370 on Frank Rossitano

Resolved

User:Zscout370 has fully protected Frank Rossitano to settle a content dispute in violation of Wikipedia:Protection policy. Jingra11 18:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What's the violation? Full protection can be used in cases of edit warring due to content disputes. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Temporary full protections are used for enforcing a 'cool down' period to stop an edit war." User:Zscout370 has given no indication that the full protection is temporary and apparently has the intention to full protect the article indefinitely. Jingra11 18:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll stay protected until the dispute has been resolved. Sean William 18:41, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

"Temporary" denotes that this should stay in place until there is a solution to the edit war. Time to use Talk:Frank Rossitano to resolve the issues.--Isotope23 18:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The reality is that the dispute will not be resolved anytime soon. Several users involved have stated outright that they simply will not debate the issue. Jingra11 18:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

That's unfortunate, then. Maybe they'll just have to learn to work together, or they won't be able to edit the article. Sean William 18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

The users who have refused to debate the issue have displayed no desire to edit the article. Preventing them from editing it will therefore not motivate them to reach an agreement. Meanwhile, those of us who wish to make constructive edits to the article could be locked out for weeks or even months. Jingra11 19:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Dispute resolution is right over here.--Isotope23 19:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Editprotected tag. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 19:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the second protection the article was given. The first one was a time expiration set by another user. Once that expired, the IP went back and decided to add the content in. So, in my mind, it felt like the IP kept on reverting our decision to remove a table. So, the only way we could solve the problem is the protection by me. I knocked the protection down to semi protection a few hours ago, so more folks can edit the article now. Though, personally, I wish you talked to me first before you came here. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in another section below, this user filed more complaints on other users invovled in the article mentioned and got blocked as a sockpuppet. Consider this matter closed. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

An FYI to anyone who's wondering about this, admins fully protect pages indefinitely, because we do not know when disputes are supposed to end. When a dispute is resolved, or has ended, you can request unprotection at WP:RFPP, or at an administrator's talk page. Nishkid64 (talk) 20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I can easily do the unprotection myself, so when the dispute is over, then it can be knocked down from semiprotection to nothing. But when it will be over, not sure. I started some kind of discussion on the article talk page. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to WP:LAME. Grandmasterka 08:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Daniel Chiswick

This user is currently violating consensus on Huntington Beach, California. After various attempts to plead for him to discuss it on the talk page, he has decided to attack me for using an IP rather than a user name. Please check out the article and its talk page, its a pretty clear case that he has no regard for consensus if it involves something that has to do with British spelling. I'll guarantee that half of his British to American spelling changes likely violate WP:ENGVAR. For example: [[2]], the "armour" line is part of the template and changing it has no point since nothing is in the field. There is absolutely no reason to do what he did except for his hatred of seeing British English spelling. And now the user has said this blatantly saying that he hates British English and will keep his articles as American English, a violation of WP:OWN. ANd if that isn't clear enough, he says it again here. And to make things worse, the user blatantly deletes messages off his talk page rather than archiving, likely to hide his various sock, 3RR, and NPA violations. 128.227.43.42 03:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I find it highly amusing to see an anon editor complaining about how another editor chooses to manage his talk page. I would nonetheless be quite interested to see a link to this so called personal attack on this anon user (although how exactly one can personally attack an IP address is beyond my understanding) so as to see the nature of the insult and the context in which it occurred.Zebulin 17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I have stopped editing Huntington Beach and I created the article SS Paris using American english and it is supposed to stay that way since that was the way it was originally written. It is true, I do not like British english and I had a problem with changing things to American english but I have stopped. The only exceptions are Huntington Beach because it is an American city but I have stopped editing on that page after User:Akhilleus warned me. The article SS Paris was created by me useing American english and it is a rule that if a page is originally written in British or American spelling it should stay that way. I also I wasn't attacking you for not signing in , I just said you should sign in. You were the one that actually attacked me by saying I blank by talk page which I am allowed to do but I have stopped doing it and User:Akhilleus pointed out that you told me this in a rude way. I did not violate WP:OWN because all I was doing was making sure the article SS Paris is written in American english since that was the way it was created. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also if you notice that when I am sent warnings I stop. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also WP:OWN is when you do not allow anyone to edit a page and revert everything a person does to the page, which I do not. I am just making sure that the style of english used when a page was oringinally written is maintained. Also you really should make an account. Also I would like to point out that you made a comment towards me that is age discrimination [[3]], remember you said "Daniel Chiswick,you are just 16,i recommend to comedown your hormones" and User:Driftwoodzebulin warned you about it? Infact you personally attacked me twice on that page by saying how I have been blocked before in a very rude way. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Also I is not against the rule to say I dislike British spelling. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

Since the official name used by the Huntington Beach Harbour is with a U and a consensus was reached at the talk page to include that name, this is how it should be spelled in the article. We can't change the name of a place just so it can adhere to our guidelines of American vs. British spelling. Regarding the latter edit war, if the template uses British spelling, you're gonna have to use British spelling when using it. Yonatan ^talk 03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay good, but I already undertand this and somebody sent warning to my page so I stopped. The person that started this is overreacting and everytime I tell him that I have stopped editing Huntington Beach he keeps talking about it like I am still doing it. Also as I said, I created the article SS Paris using American spelling and keeping it that way is not violating WP:OWN. User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.

There's no problem with keeping the American English but you shouldn't change the parameters of a template, as they won't work with American English... Yonatan ^talk 04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I added on the talk page citations showing the city using both "Huntington Harbour" and "Huntington Harbor" hundreds of times in their own documents, including corporate minutes, planning documents, and phone directories. Either is defensible. Harbour has the edge from Mapquest. The definitive is probably "Harbour" from the planning document. Google has tehns of thousands of sites with each spelling for the same place, so someone putting a website in a comment is not that definitive. Get a ruling from the city planner. Edison 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Another Stephen Colbert outbreak

I've noticed a sudden surge in vandalism to library, librarian, libertarianism, and similar topics: the meme is "hiding something"; Colbert must have had something Wikipedia-related on his most recent TV show. Please be on the lookout, and also for newly registered users with Colbert-related names. Sigh, Antandrus (talk) 04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales was interviewed. After the episode was pre-recorded, Jimmy told us which pages we should be protecting. We'll be fine. For the record, Colbert told people to insert "Librarians are hiding something". Sean William 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently Jimbo was on Colbert tonight..... SirFozzie 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Jimmy Wales was a guest on the Colbert Report this evening. Discussion of the previous "Elephants" issue came up, and Colbert threw out several other possible vandalisms, including a banner run across the screen saying "Librarians are up to something" so Jimmy couldn't see it. Einstein raising Alpacas was another off-the-cuff comment, but there were quite a few, so expect it to be a busy night around Recent Changes. --InkSplotch 04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yeah just saw the interview myself. Was surprised that the vandalism came so quickly. But it is being handled generally quite well.--Jersey Devil 04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Check out their "Vandalism in process" page: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vandalismo_en_curso --Jersey Devil 04:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We should probably deny them recognition as much as possible. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Bunch of articles are locked down; Albert Einstein, Spanish, Alpaca, Oxygen - so that oughta hold the little ... :-) - Alison ☺ 04:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We seem to be left with a change of former "oxygen is toxic" to "oxygen is poisonous" in high concentrations as the result of the Colbert program. Seems about as good a phraseology. Edison 04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Next time, maybe protect the library and librarian articles too? Poindexter Propellerhead 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nice work to everyone who got on this right away. A friend of mine mentioned the interview, and I immediately came in to find most of the articles already protected (though Einstein was locked down on "Colbert = God" for a few minutes). Tony Fox (arf!) 05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, I recommend adding Librarians are hiding something (currently a redirect to Stephen Colbert) and its talk page to Protected Titles. 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected titles has no effect if the page exists. Just protect it normally. —Centrx→talk • 17:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Limin8tor

Resolved

 – Block shortened

Limin8tor (talk · contribs) made one small constructive edit in January, then was inactive until they made a pro-Colbert talk page comment and were blocked indef by DragonflySixtyseven. Then then requested an unblock which was granted by Yonatan, and then undone by DragonflySixtyseven. They're requesting unblocking again. My gut feeling is that blocking indef without warning (even for suggesting a Colbert-ism) is a bit of an overreaction and a stern warning would have been sufficient. Since this approaching wheel-war territory I'd like to discuss it here. I will contact the two admins shortly. —dgies^t_c 05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree - an indef block for something like that is an over-reaction. I mean, we don't immediately indef block even for really obvious vandalism to mainspace pages - and this was on a talk page. --Haemo 05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Still, we should take a zero tolerance stance with Colbert vandalism. That one was a sleeper. We will not negotiate with Colberrorists.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Or possibly just a fan of the show having some fun? Seems like an over-reaction to me, that's all. He didn't even vandalize in mainspace. --Haemo 05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• "Sleeper" is a bit misleading because the target was a talk page which was not even semi-protected. While Colbert may be de-facto banned, I don't think it's reasonable to assume every editor knows they may not even discuss it on a talk page. —dgies^t_c 05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Guys, remember that blocking is not meant to be a punitive measure. The question is; is the guy likely to re-offend? Judging from his talk page right now, the answer's probably no. He stepped out of line just a little and got sideswiped by the Colbert banhammer. He didn't know the gravity of the thing & now he does. His block should at least be reduced significantly. Other run-of-the-mill vandals tend to get a 24 hour block for a first offence ... - Alison ☺ 06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

His block has already been reduced to two weeks by Dragonfly. Yonatan ^talk 06:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think a day or two would be more appropriate. -- John Reaves (talk) 06:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that would be sufficient as well, we can always block for longer if necessary. Yonatan ^talk 06:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. The guy knows he's going to get clobbered by 100 admins if he does it again. It serves no purpose at this stage, apart from alienating a potentially constructive editor - Alison ☺ 06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The user's comments and indication that if the idea were rejected or laughed off, he would have accepted it seem genuine. We shouldn't be biting, unless someone asks nicely. :P They were bold, took it to the talk page but didn't receive good faith. I understand they were caught in the Colbert ban storm, but really ... calling what he did Colbert vandalism is a bit of stretch. He's been very eloquent and calm through this, and it speaks to his credit. If he commits some actual vandalism, disruption or attack, by all means block him. Given what's occurred so far, I don't think he should be blocked at all. Aren't we supposed to be friendly and helpful here? Vassyana 06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I declined the unblock request before reading knowing about this thread, but you're right. If the user promises to stop colbertizing, I'm not opposed to an unblock. Sandstein 07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and reduce the block to 24 hours. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I try to avoid wheel wars. I did consult with Yonatan (yes, on IRC, sigh) prior to re-blocking. I'm pretty sure that Limin8tor would have screwed around with the article had it not been protected - but okay, he didn't actually do what he suggested doing. We'll see what, if anything, he does once his shortened block expires. DS 13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible wikiproject conflict brewing

Resolved

There is a wikiproject conflict brewing about this article. The two issues of conflict are a) the name of the article ("list of" seems to confirm to WP:NAME and b) which wikiproject WP:OWNs the page (neither is the correct answer). While this in many ways is a editing conflict, because it is at the wikiproject level, can an admin pop over and bang some heads before we get into "my wikiproject is bigger than your wikiproject" type situation with multiple editors banging heads. A little preventation is worth a lot of cure... --Fredrick day 16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I left a message there and Alison (talk · contribs) move protected the page.--Isotope23 17:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Elie Hobeika

Elie Hobeika (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) One or several users are trying (in my view) to build an effigy to a mostly unknown policitican by removing the text and replacing it with texts from various websites. What is the best way to proceed regarding the editing of this article? Thuresson 18:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Jsw50

After User:Jsw48 and his sockpuppet were blocked the other day for vandalizing, he changed his username to User:Jsw46 and made threatening comments on my talk page. He was then blocked again as User:Jsw46. He's now back as User:Jsw50. See this. He also uses the IP 24.34.119.22. Can someone help me out again? Thanks. --Evb-wiki 02:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Jsw50 indef blocked, IP blocked for a week. --Akhilleus (talk) 03:06, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be the same guy using User:Evx-wiki. He has again attacked me on my talk page. --Evb-wiki 03:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

He has again evaded his block. This time with User:Jsw45. See this. --Evb-wiki 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And User:Jsw51. See his edit to Cynthia Ozick. --Evb-wiki 03:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked and blocked ... *sigh* - Alison ☺ 04:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And I got 47 and 49. That's all I could turn up. William Pietri 04:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI - "Jonathan Worthington" <jsw45@yahoo.ca> has sent me a real-world e-mail to continue his attacks. (yawn.) --Evb-wiki 12:26, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

This was placed on the talk page of the article that started it all, Cynthia Ozick. Apparently, this troll intends to maintain his course of conduct using various IP addresses. See this and this. --Evb-wiki 04:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Semi-protected for a week. Hope that helps - Alison ☺ 04:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For the record, User:69.177.29.245 appears to be yet another sockpuppet of User:Jsw48 et al. Today, he vandalized my user page in the identical manner as User:Jsw46 vandalized it here. User:69.177.29.245 had also made the inappropriate edit to Cynthia Ozick here, which was mentioned above. --Evb-wiki 02:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Spam and COI from CBS

So I noticed this unblock request. It identified an IP address that is registered to CBS. A quick look at the originally blocked user's contributions clearly demonstrates a pattern of spam promotoing WCBS' website. I declined the unblock, but I'm not sure what to do next. --Selket ^Talk 16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I seem to have been reverted. --Selket ^Talk 16:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I had already lifted the autoblock by the time you declined the request Thomprod (talk · contribs). Not seeing any conclusive evidence that Thomprod is a clear sockpuppet of Ggell100 (talk · contribs) and also noting that 170.20.11.116 (talk • contribs • Info • WHOIS • RDNS • RBLs • block user • block log) resolves to proxy-ny.cbs.com, assuming some good faith here isn't too much to ask for. We can always hard block the IP address if Thomprod starts spamming too. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Assume good faith, perhaps, but it's obviously the same person. In any case, this user will just be blocked if he/she continues. The Evil Spartan 00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain how you came to that conclusion considering Thomprod only has 2 edits to his account. --  Netsnipe  ►  06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm betting most of the CBS officies and radio stations go though the same (or same set) of proxies. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Doing a Wikisearch on my username today, I came across this discussion which I had not been aware of. Although I do often post from my business PC (which happens to be located at a CBS Television Station, although not at WCBS), I assure you that I am neither a sockpuppet nor a spammer. Thank you assuming good faith, as I try to do. Cheers! --Thomprod (talk) 23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Redsox04

User Redsox04 is claiming to have banned the shared IP User:147.114.226.173 and has placed a {{Uw-block3}} on the user page, together with the following message

• Hello User:147.114.226.173, Unfortunately, your recent behavior at Wikipedia was deemed detrimental to this website, therefore I am forced to block your username. Many have given constant warnings and have pointed out your violations as clear as they could but your actions continued, causing me to make a decision that is in the best interest of our site and the viewers of our site. Sorry. Redsox04 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

on the talk page.

There's no actual abuse evidenced, and Redsox doesn't seem to be an admin. Is this not, in itself, a form of abuse?

Paul Tracy_|\talk 21:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I've notified the subject of this discussion. This makes no sense to me. Grandmasterka 22:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Nobody had told him on his talk page that he can't impersonate an admin; I have done so, we shall see how it goes... Georgewilliamherbert 22:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] This isn't the first time the user claimed he blocked someone. However the response to the action I linked to did not reference the fact that he can't impersonate an administrator. Funpika 22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

And he claimed to have blocked a school IP for vandalism. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Several times I've seen people think that a page can be protected just by placing the protection template. And it appears he has made the same mistake. Perhaps the fellow is just unusually ill-informed about how Wikipedia works, rather than out to impersonate an admin. William Pietri 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

That was my impression as well. In the absence of any evidence of pernicious intent here, AGF would surely serve us just fine. Joe 04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I feel that is important that I address the situation at hand. With all do respect, I feel that many punishments here at Wikipedia seem too lenient. I feel that the "three strike rule" should be enforced. After 3 warnings regarding the same violation, a suspension, at minimum, should be in order. All I am trying to do is keep this site free from vandalism. Yes, I can be strict and a bit "rouge" but if you're strict, you get the message across much easier and keep this site as fully functional and accurate as possible. I do, although, want to apologize for my wrongdoings and hope that you'll take my requests seriously and work with them. Redsox04 21:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Nembard

Resolved

 – editor blocked for gross incivility - Alison ☺ 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I had requested a block on this user based on his silly contributions but it was unheeded. Now this guy has left a very "nice" message on my user page in response to my warning:[5] --Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Blocked. That kind of behaviour is just not on - Alison ☺ 07:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!--Deepak D'Souza (talk • contribs) 07:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal threats by User:Parsecboy

I have recieved personal threats from User:Parsecboy as he is accusing me of sockpuppetry in conjunction with the voting on the Dokdo article.[6] He has left two nasty messages on my talk page. I have explained that those edits were not mine, and clearly someone is trying to make it look like I voted and signed my own name a second time with a different account.

On his talk page, I have asked him not to message me. [7] He refused to comply leaving yet another nasty message on my talk page. [8] I have been a Wikipedia user for quite awhile and have never had a sockpuppet (nor will I ever do such a thing). I know there isn't a hell of a lot you can do, but I would appreciate it if an admin would ask him to leave me alone. Davidpdx 12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Personal threats kind of implies threats "against your person." Was there some personal threat not included in the diffs you gave? I watched this little exchange and didn't chime in because I thought I might make it worse, but I was surprised you brought it to the level of an AN/I report when it was basically just two messages accusing you of sockpuppetry with some evidence he thought made it look like you were pulling a fast one. The talk page in question has been ravaged by some people attempting to disrupt the poll, and someone by mistake signed your name on a second vote and then change the message (he thought you were likely, since it was your name).

Keep in mind also that you don't "own" pages on Wikipedia, not even your talk or user pages, so you can't really "ban" a user from posting any messages at all there. Telling another user that you'll report them (and then following through with it) if they ever post any message to your talk page again doesn't seem like it's going to promote the best relationship between editors. --Cheers, Komdori 12:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

While it's true I don't own my talk page, I have the right not to be harrassed. While the threat was not implicitly against me (physically) it does constitue harassment. In terms of your bit about not promoting the best relationship about editors by reporting them to an admin, what do you think leaving nasty messages on someone's talk pages does to promote relationships? How about nothing, but nastiness. It's clear this guy was looking for someone to go off on, dispute no proof the the allegations he was pushing were true or not.

I still have a right to report harrassment and the fact that I've asked him no to post a reply on my talk page. His continued messeging is harrassment and if need be I will take any further steps to prevent him from abusing me including filing for mediation or arbitration. Davidpdx 13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In my own defence, I was never "nasty" with you, Davidpdx. Perhaps you're exaggerating a bit there. There was indeed proof enough to make the allegation that I did. One editor (created yesterday, with no other edits) signed his/her name as yours, and then changed it. You have to admit that is highly suspicious. If I was in error, I apologize, I don't want to falsely accuse anyone. But I feel I was justified at the time, with the evidence I had at that point. Parsecboy 14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you were nasty with me, I have the comments in my talk page history to prove it. As stated below, if you had at least asked me, I would have told you it wasn't me. It's easy to go around accusing everyone of being sockpuppets, but when you accuse someone who isn't doing it you make enemies. Flying off the handle does nothing but piss people off. If that's what your trying to accomplish, then you were successful. Hopefully you learned your lesson about that one. It's nice to see at least a half-hearted apology, although you certainly could do better in that department as well. Davidpdx 00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Asking for clarification about the edit would have been preferred to accusing Davidpdx of blatant sockpuppetry. I myself think it would be highly unlikely for an editor using a sockpuppet to make the mistake of cutting and pasting their own signature to the sock post. It doesn't take much good faith to believe that this may have simply been a confused new editor...who also received a threatening message about the block he was going to receive after his first attempt to contribute. --OnoremDil 15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I will do that in the future. I have, however, seen the same exact thing happen with a user who openly admitted using the sock puppet after being confronted. Parsecboy 16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Mayor Quimby and Anonymous IP 207.81.56.49

After I declined an unblock request, this message was left on my talk page:

Nice to meet you, JPD! Thank you for your review of and assistance with the blocking of 207.81.56.49. I am not sure if I am going about this in the right way, but I would like to draw your attention to this anon. IP. I am concerned that the person behind this anon. IP may been a user called Mayor Quimby who engaged in similar disruptive behaviour and was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. I have requested a comment on 207.81.56.49 and the hypothesis that I make above at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. I would appreciate your input if you are so interested. Thank you for your time. Mumun 無文 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mayor Quimby was indef blocked for doing nothing other than attacking other users. I don't have time to look into it further now, and possibly won't until after the (long) weekend. JPD (talk) 17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I lodged the original 'request for comment' at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. Please take a look. I think that if my hypothesis is plausible to you all, we need to block this anon. IP indefinitely because he/she made legal threats against Ryūlóng (竜龍) and other editors, is highly disruptive, and firmly opposes the aims and goals of our encyclopaedia project. Mumun 無文 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I was involved in the original MayorQuimby case and, yes, that IP address is definitely the same guy. Same articles, same edits, same POV - Alison ☺ 00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Isn't that a little presumptive and circumstantial. Are you attempting to silence any and all discussion that is counter to your POV ?--207.81.56.49 03:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Not really, no - Alison ☺ 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Someguy0830

This is a WP:STALK complaint.

I originally got into a dispute over an edit at this page with the user User:Someguy0830 for removing a link that was used on one page but not removing it on another. The person claimed that wiki verifiability did not allow the link, but allowed it to be placed with a secondary link verifying it. After going back and forth, the guy game up with criteria that, when presented with, still refused to act on what he said. I left the situation, not wanting to deal with someone who didn't seem to want to deal with anything except what he already predetermined. After butting heads with the admin User:Jossi about a similar page, Shane Ruttle Martinez, over editing conflicts pertaining to WP:BLP, this user complained about me on Jossi's talk page. When I was having a dispute over Jossi's objectivity at the Village Pump Policy forum over possible objectivity issues relating to the current BLP conflict, the user decided to take over the argument, trying to question me constantly. I told the user that unless he wanted to be a mediator between Jossi and myself, that I would not have anything to do with his questions. His questions did not stop, and Jossi and I later resolved our issue on our own.

Then I decided to blow off steam and create the Warhammer 40,000 page on Graphic novels, titled Graphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000). This was named based on Graphic Novels being used as a proper title by Warhammer 40,000 as a series of their works. The name follows the conventions of the Wikiproject for Warhammer 40,000, and other such pages like Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) and Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) follow. This user came to the page, removed a lot of my edits and then moved it. This has caused me great stress, because not only did he not respect the already decided conventions by the Wiki group, he started claiming that I was owning the page by creating something already determined by my wiki project. Now, he has protected the page and furthers his campaign. Not only has he followed me to various places, he disrupted a wikiproject to harass me. This is very disturbing and User:Jossi asked for me to place my concerns here. Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh please - whatever other issues there are between you and User:Someguy0830 (which frankly I don't know about and don't care about) - my hour of interaction with you shows that you have serious WP:OWN issues and a serious misunderstanding of the power and scope of wikiprojects. So in regards to your first complaint - I have idea of the validity of that, as for the second - there are straightforward concern from multiple editors about the warhammer page - so to suggest he's "disrupting a wikiproject" is bunk - because if he is, there are quite a few of us helping him. --Fredrick day 17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that user Fredrick day is not a member of either wikiprojects, according to what he said on the comics project page and is a possible sock puppet/working with Someguy to further this disruption of Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000 in order to harm me. "I'm not a member of this project, I'm not a member of any project - I'm a Wikipedia editor - that's ALL the authority I need to get involved. Neither wikiproject has any power over that page. --Fredrick day 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. He also shows a clear disrespect for consensus or approaching the members of a wikiproject during the creation of a new page. SanchiTachi 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah, my first AN/I note. I'll start off by being honest. I did find Sanchi's page through his contribs. I was bored and went looking for something to fix. Graphic Novels isn't a proper title, so I moved it. Then I checked the talk page to find Sanchi threatening to remove a Wikiproject banner simply because the opposing user felt graphic novels wasn't the proper term. I told him in no uncertain (and undoubtedly frank) words why such behavior is unacceptable, as well as the reason for my move. Rather than try to discuss this rationally, one need only read his contributions to see him go on a crusade against all would would threaten his page. This user simply has ownership issues and a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.

As for all those accusations, though I'm flattered by the effort he's taken against me, perhaps because I'm one of the few people willing to put up with his behavior over any length of time, Sanchi's points are falsehoods. He didn't resolve anything with Jossi. He simply left the conversation after realizing his nonsense wouldn't fly. As for the Marxist-Leninist thing, I asked him not only to provide a second source, which he only half-did, I asked him why it was relevant to the person in question. I never got an answer to that, or my request for proof with the Jossi thing for that matter. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Notice the dates:

[9] 22:16, 24 May 2007 was the time of original establishment. 04:00, 25 May 2007 was the time of his moving. Note, he is not a member of the Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000, nor did he ask for consensus before a move. SanchiTachi 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. Nobody has to ask a Wikiproject for permission to edit or move an article, nor do they need to be a member of said Wikiproject. As I said on your talkpage SanchiTachi (talk · contribs), you appear to have an incorrect understanding of exactly what a Wikiproject is.--Isotope23 18:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I take it that Isotope23 no longer understands that "Consensus" means or that you should seek Consensus before moving a page? I'm pretty sure thats one of the most importan Etiquette rules. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment I have had no dealings with either SanchiTachi or Someguy0830 before today (that I can recall) so I cannot comment on previous behaviour interactions but I have had a chance to observe them both in the recent incident that seems to have kicked this up a gear. The whole thing can bee seen on the talk page but it arose from my querying the name of the entry (which conflicted with general naming guidelines) and added the Comic Project header. Someguy0830 moved the page to its current location and while I would have preferred more debate about the correct name he was within his rights to do (especially as we tell people to be bold). What followed was SanchiTachi removing material added in good faith, moving the entry back again, making wild and baseless accusations and rapidly escalating this otherwise minor problem to the point of (amongst other things) making accusations at all of the Comic Project [10] and bringing the issue here. I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia blow up out of all proportion like this and have seen enough disputes over the naming of entries and the conduct of editors to know that something this minor can almost always be resolved simple and amicably. The speed with which SanchiTachi has made a mountain out of a molehill has been quite startlingly. Anyway that is just my perspective. As far as I can see the person who has grounds for a complaint is Someguy0830 but I'd hope they'd take the higher moral ground and walk away or just agree to disagree and try and stay out of each other's ways. This whole thing seems awfully unnecessary and could/should have been sorted out before it became such a big issue. (Emperor 18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

What material in good faith? Actually, material was removed from the main page, and I removed the Comics project title from the page until it would be officially deemed by consensus to be part of the comics project, especially seeing as how the page didn't actually deal with comics. Furthermore, when a user, like Someguy, follows you to 5 different unrelated pages and startes responding, attacking, and editing those pages, then claims that he is doing it because he believes you have an "own" problem, then that is WikiStalking. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Editors like myself are free to add project headers where appropriate - it isn't for you to decide what is or isn't relevant to a page but, like everyone else are welcome to put forward an arguement why it might not fit. (Emperor 21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC))

Fredrick day is a sockpuppet now? o_o JuJube 19:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems I'm a wikistalker at least. --Fredrick day 19:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

When one user picks up the argument from another user, and that user is a self proclaimed "non-participant" in the group projects and has no other reason to be there, then its either a strange coincidence or sock-puppetry. SanchiTachi 19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You need to get over this Wikiproject "non-participant" thing SanchiTachi (talk · contribs). Every editor has every right to edit any articles here. Fredrick day has every reason to edit the article in question if he so chooses. Many of the statements you've made here and at Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels are veering into WP:OWN territory. I suspect you feel ganged up on, but you have to understand that Wikiprojects don't hold a monopoly on any article, even if one of their members created that article.--Isotope23 19:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope - it's because you turned up on the wikiproject for comics with your WP:OWN claims (I don't join wikiprojects BECAUSE I feel they have OWN issues and need independent editors such as myself to keep them honest) - while I am not a member of any wikiproject, I watch quite a few of them for various reasons. It's quite laughable for you to claim that I am trying to work against consensus when I was the one to start the debate on what the article name should be and came here for admin intervention to try and prevent an edit war. --Fredrick day 19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. If Sanchi Tachi hadn't made his unkind accusation of "hijacking" on the WikiProject Comics talk page [11], many of us would have been unaware of the article. --GentlemanGhost 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

From my dealings with SanchiTachi I am also of the opinion that he has WP:OWN issues. On many a page it is "his way or the highway" (and to be honest [and before anyone else brings it up] his attitude was the reason I quit the 40K Wikiproject group). Darkson - BANG! 20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Returning to the subject at hand (the WP:STALK accusation), following someone's contributions in good faith is not a violation of any guidelines or policy. Often times you'll find "messy" users (such as those with poor English skills or whatnot), and following them around cleaning up their messes can be very productive. WP:STALK is not an issue in this case, as it would appear that Someguy was not acting with the intent to harass (as we should assume). In the instances where Someguy cleaned up after (i.e. "wikistalked") Sanchi, it seems that he had a valid stance in each case. –Gunslinger47 22:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A "valid" stance? You mean going over and interfering in a conversation which he didn't belong in, and then looking through my contributions and following me to a new page and moving it without placing a move tag or asking for a consensus? Really? You think those are "valid" edits? Wow, you need to reread WP:EQ then. Thanks. Furthermore, where was his assuming good faith? Where was his looking for a consensus? Where was his unwillingness to not harass me on Public Pump Policy when he was asked kindly to stop? SanchiTachi 22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Who are you to decide who belongs in what conversation? JuJube 01:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So if I went around and interupted disputes between you every where you went, you would think that falls under proper Wiki Etiquette? Please read WP:EQ, and you will see that it does not. SanchiTachi 03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:EQ: "If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."

Is this the only part of this page that you read? Something tells me might have glossed over a certain part of it. –Gunslinger47 05:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More revert war at GNAA and Talk:GNAA

Resolved

Pretest (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been re-adding the troll group to GNAA against all consensus on the talk page, and keeps adding flamebait such as this to the talk page. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 18:35Z

In 1 hour he's up to 3 reverts in both the article and talk page space. — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 18:38Z

Why hasn't this user been already blocked for his previous vandalism? Corvus cornix 18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the 3RR warning made him stop. If he reverts again, I will block, although I would not be offended if someone else blocks him before. -- ReyBrujo 18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Looking at his edit history, I'm having a bit of a problem assuming good faith here. It seems to me to be an entity we shouldn't be feeding.--Isotope23 18:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

ifdef blocked by user:W.marsh. -- Finlay McWalter | Talk 19:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And the troll created a sockpuppet exactly 3 minutes after the block: Theburk (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) — BRIAN0918 • 2007-05-25 19:23Z

Request to block sockpuppet of banned editor

Resolved

 – Blocked it hours ago - Alison ☺ 00:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ychromosome (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), going back to articles that have been repeatedly edited by his previous sockpuppets to reinstate the reverted edits. Please block, thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 19:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs)

• EdwinCasadoBaez (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Multiple references of personal attacks [12] "Do you think i give an F*** about the no Personal Attack policy" [13] "This Annonymous User is so stuped." [14] "Where the fuk did i said that...you stupid idiot..."(keep it short). As well as on user talk pages, [15] ,[16]. He has been warned numerous times [17], [18], [19] . As well as uses multiple IP's and usernames [20] . A block due to these multiple and flagrant violations is believed to be in order. YoSoyGuapo 20:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, he seems to have realized that he went to far sometime yesterday, and some other recent edits are him apologizing and sitting down to work with people politely. Given that he realized that, stopped on his own, and is behaving himself right now I'm inclined to leave it at the warning message I left on his talk page. Georgewilliamherbert 20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

These 2 were today from annonymous IP addresses. [21] YoSoyGuapo 20:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

If i ever get blocked...i shouldnt be blocked alone because theres an annonymous user that User:64.131.205.111 that was reverting my edits and doing inappropiate things which made me get angry and caused me to act the way i did...Did was my first time i ever had trouble with a user because i alwayys got along with every body until the last couple of daysEdwinCasadoBaez 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Screen captures in Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope

I thought that the policy was that only one screen capture can appear in each article. The article Star_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope, which is a featured article, has a total of 5. Each one has a fair use rationale, but that still doesn't exempt the images from the screen capture policy. Rhythmnation2004 20:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The wording from the rules on fair use is "minimal use". There is no numerical standard. If five fair-use images have five good fair-use rationales, then it is certainly possible that five images is "minimal" in this case. (ESkog)^(Talk) 20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There appear to only be four screenshots, actually. Lexicon (talk) 20:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I suppose there's five if you include the Nazi thing. Lexicon (talk) 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

So then five screen captures is acceptable, as long as there is a fair use rationale for each one? Rhythmnation2004 21:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but fair use galleries are not acceptable, and the fair use rationales have to be very, very solid, and any more than 5 would be dubious at best. Minimal fair use: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That's free as in free-content, not just beer. Moreschi ^Talk 21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

hacked account

Please have a look at the move log for Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 May 25.

The edit summary indicates a hacked account.--User:Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr) 21:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't in my eyes - it looks like Gay Cdn was simply nominating a lot of pictures with similar but confusing names for deletion. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Gay Cdn wasn't being reported, he/she made the report. He/she was reporting Saltwynd110, who is now blocked. —METS501 (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec)Ryan, he means this guy. Sean William 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think maybe he meant that it had been moved by a vandal (I fixed it [22] and thanks to the others who just now helped clean this up). Antandrus (talk) 21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm assuming that a checkuser isn't necessary to make sure it actually wasn't BuickCenturyDriver? —METS501 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm in the process of filing one. Sean William 21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Looks like Real96 beat me to it. Sean William 21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SocialistBasturd

Indef block? What do you think? He/she has only made one edit outside of his/her userpage, and it was to vandalize User:UBX [23].

I think a hard username block is in order for this one. Ryan Postlethwaite 21:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the hell was the Libby Hoeller page deleted?

Resolved

 – This isn't an administrative issue; see the deleting admin of the article. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I thought Wikipedia wasn't supposed to be censored. 151.197.191.191 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review. —METS501 (talk) 21:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

GBpacker4 7 block

I've indefblocked GBpacker4 7 for trolling. In addition to the recent events of recreating his autobiography and subsequently requesting others to do it, he blatantly violated our WP:OR, WP:NPOV, WP:V, and WP:NPA policies throughout his entire contribution history[24] [25] [26] [27]. He was warned several times regarding this, but didn't cease his behavior. Michaelas¹⁰ 22:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have notified the user both of his block and of this thread. Aecis^Brievenbus 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Good call, although I'm generally opposed to noticing users of such discussions. Michaelas¹⁰ 23:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ronz

We have been trying to mediate a dispute on Stephen Barrett for quite sometime now. The mediator was fed up with the incivility and felt that meidiation would not be successful given the hostile environment. The mediator made his comments here. In an effort to move forward with more civility, I have pointed other editors to this page so they can read what our neutral mediator's take on the state of our dispute is. Ronz takes our mediator's comments as personal attacks against himself and therefore has engaged in removing my link to our mediator's comments and further engaged in talk page edit wars when I tried to revert this censorship. Overall, Ronz is behaving with gross incivility, rampant censorship and is preventing us from reaching a compromise to this dispute. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Deletion?

Resolved

Hi - another editor just noticed that this article has had a deletion tag on it for almost a month now - despite the fact that there appears to be a clear "keep" consensus. Can an admin either close the delete, or relist it, so this can be settled? --Haemo 00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it's been dealt with! Thanks! --Haemo 00:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently the nomination was never included in any categories, and thus was likely miscalculated by bots. Geez, what a rare case. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Violent threats

Dear Sir or Madam: There have been a number of long-standing serious disputes on the Jat people and associated pages (such as the Indo-Aryan origin of Jats page) - as you can tell if you read the notes by myself and others on the Talk pages and even in the archived Talk pages.

But just today I have noticed a new and very worrying progression to threats of violence. They are not directed at me specifically - but I thought I should report them right away. Here they are:

"WE ABOUT TO FORM [[JATTISTAN COMANDO FORCE.WE DEMAND SEPRATE STATE OF HARIYANA,WESTERN UP,EASTERN RAJASTHAN ETC.PUNJABI JATS INVITE TOO.JO BHI JAT KI AULAD HAE SUPPORT US.JAT IS GREAT.JAT IS GREATER THEN ALL OF CAST OF INDIA.JO HUMSE TAKRAYEGA CHOOR-2 HO JAYEGA.JAI JATtISTAN,JAI HINDUSTAN.

===Dispute===[[maa ki ....dispute ki.no cast greater then jats.if anyone stand fingure on jats.we cut his hands."

"== NO IF NO BUT ONLY JATT ==

   * If anybody have bad thought about jats.give me his addrss.i meet him personally"

Would someone please do something to stop this sort of misuse of the Wikipedia? Many thanks, John Hill 00:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The account apparently responsible is Dharamveer singh (talk · contribs · page moves · block user · block log); they're indef blocked for threats. Georgewilliamherbert 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much - but the threats still stand on the main page of Jat people - they have not been reverted. Could this please be taken further? Many thanks, John Hill 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You could have reverted it yourself, but I just went back to your last edit on the 23rd, before all the random cruft and threats started. Georgewilliamherbert 01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

user:Theyoungstunna

Theyoungstunna (talk · contribs), also known as the (non-notable) rapper Magnificent, has for the past four or five days been trying to promote himself, the record label he is signed to and several colleagues/friends. See the article history of Magnificent, Special:Undelete/DJ Yung Stylez and Special:Undelete/Magnificent rapper. The user has been warned and warned and warned not to use Wikipedia for advertising or as a free webspace provider. I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to block the account for up to one week, per Wikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption: "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week." Aecis^Brievenbus 01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for more eyes on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules

Could I request some more admins watchlist Wikipedia:Ignore all rules (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)? (I suppose it is on many watchlists, but I want more, more I tell you.) Billy Ego, a banned user, has already employed three socks today, one as I was typing this message. It would be preferable if everybody could just rollback and block the further ones which are likely, as opposed to protecting the article - although that option might become necessary. Thank you. Picaroon (Talk) 01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've semiprotected for a few days. Brand-new editors are unlikely to be drawn to this page. Feel free to lift the semi if anyone cares to, especially if a checkuser can find and block the socks' IP. Newyorkbrad 01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Watched for new socks. Sean William 01:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Watched here as well. Someone might want to keep an eye on the account creation log as well. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, though, the edit that the socks keep making, although I don't care for it too much, isn't the sort of trolling I was expecting. There must be a history there I don't get. Newyorkbrad 01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Should the accounts be CheckUsered against Billy, for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Billy Ego-Sandstein#Log of blocks and bans? Aecis^Brievenbus 01:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

David Gerard already did, he's using some sort of something which went over my head (this being a different something than whatever he previously used.) Not sure if the IP can be blocked, and if so for what amount of time. So yeah, I think a full report listing all four would be good, and seeing if the underlying IP can be blocked. As to logging all his socks on the case page, I'm pretty sure the arbcom won't care for every single on to be listed from now on. Picaroon (Talk) 01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Without wanting to feed Billy beans, you'd probably need a separate subpage for all the socks in no time, judging from the amount of socks he's already used. Aecis^Brievenbus 01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Both are on UUnet dialups, which is a HUGE chunk of net, about a /10. And those dialups could be ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE USA OR CANADA! yay. So it's not a close match but it sure isn't a miss. And of course he could just use a different ISP. And of course it could all be coincidence - David Gerard 01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For further proof that this is Billy, compare edit summaries from a known sock, here, and one of those from today, here. And then compare the usernames. Voila, socks beyond a doubt. Picaroon (Talk) 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This probably should've been posted on AIV...

Resolved

 – User blocked and edits reverted.

...but I'm not sure, and this person is not editing right now and has no warnings. Yet it is clearly either page move vandalism or really odd edit tests...

I just spotted a whole bunch of user talk archives of User:Dmcdevit, placed in the Main namespace (example). The interesting thing is that they apparently were put here by User:Silent Majority (example diff). I'm not sure what to do with this - don't feel like putting someone's talk archives for deletion, afraid to move. 夢の騎士^{Yume no Kishi - Talk} 03:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AMA

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

---

There appears to be a mis-understanding at WP:AMA. Can someone please explain this entire thing about making it historical. I didn't see any RfC's and there is actually a discussion that is happening on one of the page and right now user:Aeon1006 is saying they're closing the thing. The constant need for re-directing all the pages is truly disruptive to our discussion on the board at AMA. --CyclePat 02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry but it's history - no-one uses it anymore. I think it's best to let it die in peace. Ryan Postlethwaite 02:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

  Agreed. Let's try to make this happen in a way that's not as messy as Esperanza and Concordia were. Sean William 02:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't be sorry. Show me the community RfC and I'll be happy. Until then I find the actions highly disruptive as we try to rebuild the AMA and work on various cases. Could an administrator please revert the changes back to something quasi functional. Thank you! --CyclePat 02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

MfD'd - Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates (second nomination). Ryan Postlethwaite 02:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ryan, a MFD was just closed earlier today. Sean William 02:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

A bit out of process one could argue. Nonetheless, AMA needs to be killed with fire, sooner rather than later. Dragging this closing/historical/deletion process out is only wasting time and delaying the inevitable. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I didn't realise an MfD had closed today for it, I've got no objections to it being closed early - but there does seem to be a clear consensus for it's closure. Ryan Postlethwaite 03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Whether it's tagged as 'historical' or not, it certainly seems to be historical. Has the AMA helped to resolve any sort of issue recently? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• Its historical. It should be marked. Navou 03:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Here's a comparative analysis... Though I don't think these things ever work as well as I would like them to. The WP:AMA and all our subpages have actually seen a lot more activity than WP:EA. Should WP:EA be considered historical? No... The use of each group have their use. If I want a question answered I'll go to EA... if I want someone to help me out and talk for me I go to AMA. I would like for someone to please explain how you measure the worth of a page as being considered historical, because I really don't see it in this case? --CyclePat 04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks like WP:AMA hasn't had any cases taken in over two months (see long list of unclaimed cases at Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Requests/By Date Filed/list), whereas WP:EA has had cases followed up as recently as today. —Centrx→talk • 05:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And that is only up to date as of the last edit by the bot to it - the backlog is likely to have risen in the tme that I've taken the bot offline. Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, the extent of your 'activity' appears to be to hold "elections" for a "co-ordinator", rather than actually responding to the people requesting assistance and cleanup. —Centrx→talk • 05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't forget the constitution which they spent a long time writing, earlier up the message board... Martinp23 10:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Pat, please drop it. Guy (Help!) 08:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm open to consensus and, if people don't like us, we're out. It's simple. But I'd like to know if it wouldn't be better to have an RfC to have people's opinion on this matter. Don't you think? I know there's people wanting me to be the coordinator and so on, but I honestly don't have any interest in leading something that simply doesn't exists and no one wants it to exist. Do you agree in doing this last and definitive step? Or am I just dreaming and it's absolutely useless? --Neigel von Teighen 10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes lets close the AMA down it did its duty but now it has become bogged down in process and red tape. I nomed if for MfD eariler (the one that was closed as invalid due to it being tagged as Historic) and I'm thinking of sending the invalid MfD up to Deletion review to have it restarted so we can end this before it becomes the circus that the EA debate became. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm happy to see it deprecated, I think it's counter-productive. I think the first mfd showed a pretty clear mandate for closing it down and don't really see the need for an rfc. As someone who went to hell and back over the Esperanza deletion, I don't really want to see a repeat of that, it would be better if the mistakes made there could be learnt here and we could just gently deprecate it. I admit I'm currently involved in probably the last case involving an advocate, so people will have to work out whether that biases me, but from my experience it just doesn't work. Hiding Talk 15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The historic tags are back up on it, Killerchiuauha replaced them. Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 15:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

OK. I myself accept our fate and hope all ex-AMA will do the same. --Neigel von Teighen 16:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Neigel, just because 3-4 people decide to gang rape does that make it right? Just as it is wrong to be sexually assaulted, to kill someone, or any other moral reason, it is inherently wrong to first allow it just to happen and then to think nothing more of it. (ie.: "ex-AMA") You are talking as if you have lost your membership. *(secondly that statement, when you think about it is quite paradoxal). How can you be an ex-AMA, prior to accepting this alleged faith?. Cheer up chum! AMA is as active as we use it! And right now, I'm feeling a little anxiety. 1) because our conversations at the AMA are reverted... 2) because our conversations are reverted 3) because I know there is something wrong. Trust me! --CyclePat 07:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

AMA spent a week fighting an MfD (which failed) and since then has been putting its effort to correct the issues brought up there. Closing a group for being inactive at its core function because it was compelled to devote its efforts to its own persistence is the peak of disingenuity. The whole thing stinks, horribly and moreover, unwikily. The PTB want AMA out because it made it too hard to exert minority control over the project and its members. When the MFD failed, the AMA's sincere attempts to resolve the issues were instead used to close it down? Unbelievable, and unconsensual. - Keith D. Tyler ¶ (AMA) 21:05, 25 May 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.

Atze Schröder

Please protect the page. People (mostly IPs) are trying there to abuse wikipedia as an instrument in a campaign of protest against a German court decision that confirmed the artist's anonymity rights. The real name of the artist has never been encyclopedically relevant, since he always kept it private, and only in the context of the inappropriate protest against the court decision as alleged censorship, common knowledge of the real name was forcibly pushed. That's stalking by the masses and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not become an instrument of these masses. --rtc 16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• If his real name is verifiable, I don't understand why we wouldn't include it. --OnoremDil 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • His real name is public record in germany thanks to a trademark filing. Also german court decisions do not apply to EN wikipedia, as has been proven in the past.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 17:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Whether German court decisions apply is irrelevant. What is relevant are our content policies, which apply strictly to biographies. The biographical content is improperly sourced, being sourced to a trademark filing where person X happens to file a trademark with the same name as this comedy figure. (Ronald McDonald has been trademarked too. Clearly, the name of a trademark holder on a trademark filing is not conclusive evidence that person X has name Y.) It's obviously controversial, too. Per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I've removed it. Any editor who wants it in can best spend their time finding a reliable source that gives the real name of this person. Uncle G 18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on this topic, I know nothing about him, but a) couldn't you print who copyrighted the name without coming out and saying it is actually his name? b) if the statement stays that he sued a newspaper after they printed his real name, then it stands to reason a good source would be whatever the newspaper printed as his name, wouldn't it? If my name is Bob and a newspaper prints Charlie, I wouldn't sue them for printing my real name since it isn't my real name. Or am I missing something here? --Cheers, Komdori 19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is this: This German comedian, who goes (only) by the stage name Atze Schröder, is in the habit of suing anyone who publishes his real name. A Berlin court has granted an injunction prohibiting this against a newspaper; the verdict is being appealed. The name can probably be verified through reliable sources, notably the court verdict at issue. De.wiki has decided not to carry the name. This is probably something to be decided at Foundation level, but until at least a complaint is raised against the name's publication on en.wiki I fail to see why we should not carry the name. Sandstein 20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you could in principle find a valid source for that name, and I have no doubt that it is correct. However, this name has become known only because of a court dispute revolving around someone who disclosed the name without permission that was previously explicitly kept private. The artist has always been anonymous, and hence his name is not relevant information. There are also some remarkable differences to the Tron case. 1. Tron was dead; 2. Tron was widely known by his real name and not anonymous or strictly pseudonymous (his name was just not spelled out entirely before his death); 3. Tron also used his full real name for publishing his thesis; 4. Tron's article was about his person himself, not about a fictional character played by him. In fact I agree that Tron's full name should be mentioned, but the circumstances are completely different here! Further: Such details about the person's name dispute certainly don't belong into an article about a character played by him; they don't have anything to do at all with that character. Further, I'd like to point out that it is obviously schizophrenic to claim a name to be relevant for an encyclopedia if it became public solely by a source that was judged as an illegal invasion into the person's privacy and anonymity rights. If you exclude that source and the sources created by people who incorrectly think that this is censorship and should be protested against by civil disobedience, by pushing his real name in as many places as possible, then you don't have a relevant source left that makes an explicit connection between the character and the real name of the artist. The trademark registration mentions his name, but the connection is not explicit; by itself, it could as well have been the name of his agent. So the trademark register by itself cannot be a source for the connection between his name and the character he plays, and we are only left with a publication of his name that has been deemed illegal and the attempts to controversy it provoked. Finally, Even if the article was a biography about the artist, which it isn't (compare it to Captain Picard), it is clearly the desire of the artist to stay anonymous and keep his real name private, so please respect WP:NPF and "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". The artist is not notable for his real name, and hardly for the naming controversy, but entirely for the character he plays. Of course the naming controversy is moderately notable among active internet users, and one could give a small note about the original court case, but that's it—please don't mention the name and please don't give hints on where it can be found. This group of internet users is really only a negligible minority compared to the number of people who know the person only by the character he plays and hence doesn't justify basing the whole article mainly about that issue. --rtc 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

As I mentioned before, we could note the name of the character is copyrighted by whoever holds it, right? If the actor hadn't gone around and sued people it might not be relevant, but now isn't he starting to be known as the guy who sues when his real name is published? Perhaps paradoxically it seems that might make his name relevant to the character itself. --Cheers, Komdori 22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that it is clearly wrong. What becomes perhaps moderately relevant about the controversy is that he has successfully sued against the publication of his name. What has not become relevant is his name itself! Referring to the trademark registration can only have the intention of giving hints about his name to circumvent the ban on publishing his name. The information in this registration by itself does not make the connection that the trademark owner is the same person as the artist. If you cannot give the original source and the name directly in a faithful way, then please be aware that using such 'tricks' is not any better. In fact, using the original source would at least not be as dishonest by playing such tricks! As a side note, please make a difference between copyright and trademark law. They are entirely separate and independent and must not be confused. The name is trademarked, not copyrighted! --rtc 22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of rtc, I'd like to say that his argument is the correct one; the information is clearly contentious, and were this artist to hear about it it would make him sad. We aren't here to make people sad. I don't buy the argument that the name in this case is potentially incorrect, as it is a matter of public record, but in my view that is not what trumps the case. --Edwin Herdman 05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I like your point Edwin and it gives me pause to consider... but the problem I kind of have with the whole deal (admitidly only for a day here) is that if someone reads that he sued to protect his name (which is clearly notable), then a reader's first instinct is to want to try to find out what the name is. While I'm not a big fan of trivia based sections of wikipedia, the name of an actor portraying a character seems intensely encylcopedic, and it seems odd to send them scurrying off to another source of information because of a lack of completeness. Just a thought. --Cheers, Komdori 10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User blocked

Rtc has been blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "Three-revert rule violation: repeated 3RR violations with no sign of stopping". The user is requesting to be unblocked. I believe the block was valid, but also that it should have a clear, finite period of time. Since this issue is already being discussed here, I welcome comments. - auburnpilot talk 20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked indefinately because I see severe edit warring in his edit contributions... his recent behaviour on Atze Schröder (5 reverts in a couple days) is just one example.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Am I missing something? I don't see any 3RR violations in his (recent) contribs. Edit warring, perhaps, but no violations so an indef seems strange. Trebor 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Added to that, the change he was trying to make was arguably valid (or at least should've been open for discussion) and has now been made by Uncle G anyway. This seems odd. Trebor 21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The user is clearly edit warring (and a block would be warranted for this), but I don't believe an indefinite block for an apparently nonexistent 3RR violation is appropriate. - auburnpilot talk 21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Well possibly (although it's usually harsh to block for only a couple of reverts), but the block reason is wrong and the length way too much. I'd endorse unblocking now. Trebor 21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

24 hours should be the penalty for 3RR. Then grow it if it repeats. Indefinite for what appears to be the first block in some months seems excessive. Orderinchaos 21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User clearly violated 3RR, but the block is out of proportion to the violation. Give rtc 24 hours. --Edwin Herdman 05:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Urgedspana's odd edits

Resolved

 – User was blocked as a suspected sockpuppet of indefinitely blocked User:Jagjagjagjab.

Kyoko 12:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I was checking my watchlist, and I noticed that User:Yan guien's page had been altered, hiding its suspected sockpuppet tag of User:Jagjagjagjab, an indefinitely blocked user. More importantly, it was altered by a new user on his/her 3rd edit to the site.

I've reverted the change, as well as another edit the user made to Collège Édouard-Montpetit.

It just seems odd to me that a new user would be aware of another editor who was a suspected sockpuppet, but I didn't want to go straight to WP:SSP. I'd appreciate your advice and vigilance about Quebec-related articles. Thank you. Kyoko 19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:64.126.24.12

64.126.24.12 (talk · contribs) is canvassing for votes on the Gracenotes RfA. Corvus cornix 20:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I see nobody is concerned about this. Corvus cornix 15:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Copyright status of image being disputed for two months, no resolution

In March of this year, User:Argos'Dad uploaded Image:HellenicNavy.png for use on Template:Hellenic Navy [28]. Subsequent to this, significant discussion ensued which can be read at Template talk:Hellenic Navy. At the time, User:Argos'Dad indicated the image had been published in the United States before 1923, thus clearing it of copyright concerns. I requested he provide proof of that, and gave him instructions (OTRS) for doing so (see template talk page again). It's now been two months since that discussion, and he has yet to provide any evidence of his assertion. I therefore retagged the image as a non-free logo, and tagged it as orphaned fair use since it is not used in any actual encyclopedia articles [29]. Shortly thereafter, he reverted the orphaned tag (but not the non-free logo tag) indicating this was still under discussion. The discussion ended two months ago. I left him a message on his talk page regarding this [30], and restored the orphaned fair use tag [31]. Per my statement back in March on this and per my statement left on his talk page today, I am referring this matter to WP:AN/I.

The non-derivative image is available at http://www.hellenicnavy.gr/agen_en.asp, which has a copyright tag at the bottom of that and the rest of the site.

Another version of the image is located at Image:GEN Greece.PNG, which is also marked as a non-free image.

My position at this time is that

• The image is clearly a derivative of the source work,
• The uploader was informed of this, and responded that the image was published in the U.S. prior to 1923
• The uploader was asked to provide evidence of this
• Two months have elapsed since this request and it has not been done
• The image is therefore appropriately retagged as a non-free image and marked for deletion as an orphaned image.

I'd appreciate it if an admin would review this image and make a determination regarding its status and inform the respective parties. Thank you, --Durin 20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Image:HellenicNavy.png deleted, Image:GEN Greece.PNG kept. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Buy out the Foundation"

Resolved

 – General consensus seems to be that we shouldn't feed the troll, nothing more to see, move along... EVula // talk // ☯ // 02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Er, not sure whether this belongs here, but I thought it may be worth drawing attention to the intention of Jeff Vernon Merkey to either "buy out the foundation" or "put in enough resources to move it away from the hostage situation", presumbly referring to financial resources. Does Wikipedia, or the Foundation, have any established process for handling situations where an editor professes an intent to bypass the site's normal workings by applying financial pressure? Jeff has repeatedly stated that he expects certain concessions as a "major contributor" towards the Foundation's costs - is there any chance the Foundation could make some sort of statement one way or another as to whether it intends to honour those concessions (and to what degree Mr. Merkey has actually contributed)? --YFB ¿ 23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone is blabbering away doesn't mean we have to care. :)
(seriously, though, I don't think this is an issue; if it was Bill Gates, I might be worried. Just ignore the troll.) EVula // talk // ☯ // 23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The foundationseesm to be doign well enough for the moment, no one can force them to sell. I estimate that it would take multiple tens of millions of dollars to render the foundation independant of ongoing contributions, and soemhow I doubt that Merkey gives or will give anything like that much. DES ^(talk) 23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Considering that the conditions outlined on his userpage would make it impossible to block anyone, there is really no chance that it will happen. Just ignore it until he does something disruptive enough to be blocked. -Amarkov moo! 23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Does "not blocking anyone" include not blocking the trolls who stalk him, who he's often insisted (sometimes successfully) get blocked? *Dan T.* 23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Well, it says pretty clearly that anyone must be able to edit without having to worry about being banned. -Amarkov moo! 23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• The "buying out the Foundation" thing could be construed as a veiled legal threat, but he seems to have good (yet quite misguided) intentions behind his comments. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that is streaching, the only thing he is arguably threatening to do is not give money, or not ask others to give. Abnyone is free to say "do this, and I'll give you money" and if it isn't an illegal act, that's fine. No one has to take such a payment. DES ^(talk) 23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • The only sort of threatening part is the fact that he wants to use money to "move it away from this hostage model" Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

We can pay him in blocks, will that be enough for him? -- ReyBrujo 23:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Just a troll who attempts to set impossible conditions for the Wikimedia foundation to achieve before allegedly donating. Nothing to see here, move along. Michaelas¹⁰ 00:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. It is not a company that is outright "owned" and can be sold. It is held to its mandate and ran by committee. ^(H) 14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I know Evula closed this, but looking at the RfC, it's nice to know that trolling your own RfC gets you out of it scot-free. ThuranX 15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi

He's reported me here today, might as well do the same, eh?

In all seriousness, though, I've had it with this user. To cite a recent incident as just an example, getting these user to answer a question on Talk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is like trying to pull teeth from a cheetah. He has continually insisted that he has sources to back up his claims outlined in the Name of this article discussion to reach consensus section, let is absolutely refusing to answer the question. These refusals come in the form of recommending the article simply be deleted (after which he would just recreate it under his title and this BS would start all over again), personal attacks, and more personal attacks. He only gives actual sources once, and the two sources have nothing to do with his claims. This is not the only problem. This user has a fundamental disregard for any type of policy, guideline, or rule that isn't shoved down his throat by the force of several other editors. Add onto that the severe WP:OWN issues he has with not only that page, but basically everything he does. See #User:Someguy0830 for people pointing this out. I'm honestly not too concerned with the method in which this behavior is dealt with, but it's disruptive and needs to be stopped. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user does not realize that he does not have to follow me from page to page. The above user has had a "problem" with the way I work in many different pages with admin present. However, the person has taken it upon himself to be the one to edit out, revert, and do all sorts of other harassing actions upon my posts in order to cause me emotional distress.

I have tried walking away from him and posting in places that he is not there, but he keeps following me. The above user is not following NPOV rules and is taking things personally. The only way this can be dealt with is if the user is forced to stay away from me and leave me alone. The user has no actual information on the topic posted above, and does not own any of the material discussed in the book. However, he wishes to pass judgment on a project that conforms to the Wiki rules.

He has even come to my own sandbox to "correct" me. If I wanted another use to adopt me and correct every single mistake, I would have gone to a wiki based around such. Last time I checked, this Wiki isn't based around that. SanchiTachi 01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As mentioned above I had hoped we'd be able to resolve this without Someguy0830 also reporting SanchiTachi but, as mentioned, I believe he is well within his rights too. My comments above also apply here and the rest is played out on the talk page. As it stands requests for SanchiTachi to clarify claims or address suggested solutions are being met with accusations. As a result attempts to hammer out some mutually satisfactory path forward are stalled. The entry is locked until such an answer can be reached and, as it stands, I am not confident that such a solution can be arrived at, at least not involving SanchiTachi, and without them all that is going to happen is this situation is going to be revisited once a week or so. What could have been solved quickly and with little fuss has spiralled out of control and spread all over the place almost entirely down to SanchiTachi's actions. This all seems a pity as the entry (as it was started, by him I should) had a lot of potential. (Emperor 01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

Note that I specifically didn't want to report this here, and tried pointing out to the user that I felt he could reform (see here). His answer was to blank the entire section. I didn't want to deal with this, but by this point I feel some heavy-handedness is the only thing that brings results. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As for unwillingness to cooperate or provide sources, one need look no further than this edit summary. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh I'm not blaming you, I was hoping ti could have been fixed sooner but I have run out of ways to say the same thing. As those edits you highlight (and others) show, it is almost impossible to actually have some kind of ongoing dialoue which is an essential foundation for arriving at a solution. There aren't actually many options left other than this. (Emperor 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC))

[32] As you can notice, Someguy felt the need to impose himself on an argument between an admin and myself. The above user, Someguy0830 feels that he personally needs to be a vigilante force upon Wikipedia. Need I remind everyone of WP:EQ: "Forgive and forget." "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." "If you're arguing, take a break. " Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism." "Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you.""

The above user has followed me to different threads, he has imposed his own bias against me, he did not take a break (though I did, hence I created the page which he followed me to), he felt the need to revert and delete without consensus, and I doubt he wants me to follow to each of his pages and complain about different violations whether on naming, linking, or the like.

He did not: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said." He decided to move and delete without even asking. He has no knowledge of the topic, yet he proclaims he knows how the topic should be written.

I have asked the above user to leave me alone many times. What does he do? Constantly follow me from page to page and try to start fights with me. If that is not a WP:HARASS violation for stalking, then Wikipedia is not protecting its members. SanchiTachi 02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I forgot a main point:

"If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."

He is clearly violating that. SanchiTachi 02:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More evidence of incivility and hypocrisy: User makes an ad hominem attack, then claims the user he's attacking doesn't know what it means and makes the same attack again. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that a user is friends with User:Someguy0830 and is not approaching the topic without POV as required is not adhominem. Calling a user stupid, making fun of religion, etc, are personal attacks. What does the above user wish to do besides point out where he had his friends criticize me on my talk page? SanchiTachi 02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can see the concept of friends is quite foreign to you. I did not ask them to point out your faults. They feel obligated to do so on their own. To immediately assume they have ulterior motives is a lack of good faith and a personal attack. It also shows that your position is so week you must belittle the character of your accusers rather than assess the situation on its merits. On that note, user makes baseless accusations regarding me. He also apparently thinks everything I do is out of spite. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Without poisoning the water, please review my recent exchange with SanchiTachi:

• I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within.
• I step in, without prejudice, to support one of Someguy's edits (stripping of non-free content in a list) and try to explain why it happened.
• Half of the conversation was deleted (several times), but I've archived it all at User talk:Gunslinger47#Need I Point Out.
• Following the final association fallacy, I posted {{uw-npa2}} to his talk page along with a brief comment finalizing the conversation.[33] That too was deleted, repeating for the third time the attack on my objectivity in his edit summary.[34]

–Gunslinger47 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Geez. It is almost unimaginarily self-centered to think that other users are conspiring against you. SanchiTachi, you seriously need to step back, take a chill pill and walk away from this for a time. JuJube 02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

So Gunslinger47, who was not a part of the original page (that has only existed for one day now), just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that? Or are you ignoring this, this, this, this, this, this, this and on and on and on. Now, I would ask you, JuJube, are you seriously implying that there was no prior relationship between Gunslinger47 and Someguy0830? Please strike your comment accordingly. Thank you. SanchiTachi 03:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ooo, you caught me commenting on mundane issues. What amazing deductive skills. Now prove that my rapport with this user proves your point that I'm allying him against you in some grand scheme to spite you. I suggest you not comment unless what you type is more than heresay and conjecture. Note the previous post aas yet more proof that this user is not only incapable of assuming good faith, but resorts to taking conversations out of context in order to build a conspiracy around himself. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"…just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are you really suggesting that?"

Umm... yes?

My prior correspondence with Someguy0830 is only relevant in that your using it to attack my objectivity is a violation of WP:PA. –Gunslinger47 03:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someguy0830 and Gunslinger47 appear to be friends, yeah. I'm friends with Masamage, does that mean that I'm conspiring with Masamage against everyone on Wikipedia that dislikes me? Seriously, think about what you're suggesting here. JuJube 04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There was no way he could have just coincidentally stumbled on the page. He was either brought there by another person, or was searching through the contributions of Someguy and followed him there. Either way, he was operating under biased interest, and it was proper to ask him to recuse himself from commenting on the situation. SanchiTachi 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sanchi, pay attention to what Gunslinger wrote. "I watch User talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within." It's two paragraphs above this line. You're accusing Gunslinger of things that he admits to openly. Do you think that will better your position? Because he found your conversation does not mean he commented on it to gang up on you with me. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand by my original statement. Sanchi Tachi, you are being self-centered, and pretty much the whole community is requesting that you stop. JuJube 11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As a pattern of behavior, Sanchi has been very contentious over 40K articles. He has made the same claims, and furthermore believes that he is the sole arbiter of what is valid and relevant and what is not. He also believes his interpretations and usages supersede those of Games Workshop usages wrt 40K. No one has ever seen these sources he claims cited, and dialogue is indeed impossible. Resolution of these issues has been to either give in or let them peter out. MSJapan 03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Article, not articles. I was contentious over the changing of one section without asking for consensus. It was the main page of the Warhammer 40,000 group and I wasn't the only one who had a problem with the change. I would, however, point ou tthat MSJapan was on the opposite side of the argument. MSJapan claims that I had no sources, but if MSJapan is refering to the previous debate at Warhammer, I provided sources for all of my claims, and if MSJapan is claiming that I haven't provided sources now, it is because the person is either directly lying, or unwilling to see that I have indeed provided sources. Seeing that a company calls them "Graphic Novels", provides articles about the characters, provides miniatures released by the same publishing company for those models, providing certificates and rules for those miniatures, and then writing articles for the magazine revolving around the miniature game which discusses the rules, armies, and the rest. However, it is obvious that MSJapan is saying what they are saying now because of the previous argument where MSJapan did not have their way. Please see WP:EQ where it says to forget the past, or to get over issues.

Furthermore, you can see that there are many contributors over at the Warhammer group who have thanked me for my work and my contributions, and that I rarely revert people unless there is clear vandalism or if its dealing with a contentious issue on the Warhammer 40,000 page. SanchiTachi 03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

MSJapan can agree with you an a particular stance while disagreeing with how you argued it. This is not a conflict. The entire reason we are here right now is not because of any particular dispute, but how you acted (win or lose) during them.

…and for the record, thank you for your contributions. –Gunslinger47 03:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous section break

• I was on WP:RPP patrol earlier (as I do :) ) when a request came in from Someguy0830 to move-protect the List_of_Warhammer_40,000_graphic_novels article. I reviewed it, found out that there was a move-war in progress and move-protected the article. I left a polite note on the talk page, asking the relevant editors to work towards consensus first. It was largely met with assent (apart from one person). This then led to the following comment on my talk page. I tried to answer as best I could. Having moved on, I later found out that the article needed subsequent full-protection as the war escalated. It seems to me that SanchiTachi is taking this whole matter way to personally - Alison ☺ 04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Anyone checking out SanchiTachi's talk page should probably look closely at the edit history - Alison ☺ 04:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Based on your response, Alison, you feel that people who are self admitted people who don't understand the original use of graphic novels with the topic, nor had any experience with the topic, are some how better to determine where the page should have been than the naming guidelines based on the wikiproject page or the only person who contributed to the page sources and verifiable information? Furthermore, your implication of pointing out my edit history appears to be an attack upon my removal of entries on my talk page which I have every right to remove. Why would you point that out? And why would you ignore the fact that the people causing the most problems now have nothing to do with the original topic nor have any knowledge, sources, or the like on the topic? How would you feel if someone came to your pages and started saying that the labels were wrong, that you didn't provide adequate resources, etc etc, when they had not one clue about the topic? It appears that you did not, actually, examine the situation and instead protected based on the first person that came to you. An admin's job is to be unbiased and to look at the facts, not jump on the band wagon of the first person that says something. Thanks. SanchiTachi 04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you again for proving my point. Yes, you're completely overreacting here, you're assuming bad faith on my part and your discussions seem to be descending into some sort of strange paranoia (seriously!). You've also been sanitizing your talk page - yes you have - you're not exactly performing maintenance/housekeeping over there. It's pretty obvious, actually, as to what you're doing. However, let's leave others decide. I've been largely uninvolved in all this and have actually zero interest in your article but frankly, I'm disappointed in your accusations of bias here and your suggestion that I "did not, actually, examine the situation", etc, etc. - Alison ☺ 04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and one more thing; "How would you feel if someone came to your pages" - I don't have pages on Wikipedia, though I've created hundreds of articles and edited thousands. As has been constantly pointed out to you by all and sundry, you do not have any articles. Please read WP:OWN to understand why - Alison ☺ 04:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

As an admin, you shouldn't be reminded that AGF and ABF do not apply to dealing with criticism. I have not stated that you are intended to destroy the project. I am pointing out your mistakes. I am asking you to explain why you made those mistakes, which is within my right. You are assuming bad faith by claiming that I am not assuming good faith. If you would have examined the issue, you would have seen that there was no asking for consensus before the move, that the move was contentious and the procedure was not followed, and that user Someguy was revert warring improperly without consulting the Wikiproject on the matter. I am the one disappointed in you, because admin are expected to do research into what the situation is, not randomly attribute blocks and leave the situation as a flame war that was obvious to erupt from the first movement from the original page without consensus. I thank you for encouraging Someguy and inflaming the situation. You have provided assurance into the admin as being able to resolve issues before they become problematic. SanchiTachi 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And Alison, when did you lack a user page or a user talk page? Oh, while you were preaching about assuming good faith, you ignored what my question was and instead tried to construe wording into a claim of rule breaking. That is a violation of good faith and etiquette. Could you strike your comments now? Or am I the only one left on Wikipedia with the courage to strike comments that are false or no longer apply to the situation? SanchiTachi 04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

(ec) Here's what I think; dude, you're waaay out of control. You need to take a break and have a cup of tea or something. You've burnt through a ton of goodwill & inflamed a large number of editors. I don't like your attitude, I don't like your baseless accusations, your wikilawyering nonsense, your passive-aggressive tone nor your complete and willful disregard for rules nor the concept of working in collaboration with others. I'm not about to strike any comments, frankly, and your final, ridiculous false dichotomy really tops it off. I don't normally speak in this manner but ... you're way out of line here. Your emo rant on my talk page earlier was your first contact with me & guess what - it was deleted by another admin with the words, "Please keep your emotional problems out of Alison's talk page, thank you". I chose to restore it and respond to you politely; give you the chance and to try to help, somehow. In retrospect the other admin was right. Silly me - Alison ☺ 05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"out of control" is a personal attack. I have taken a break and the person followed me to another page. I have not burnt through good will, as most of these people have nothing to do with my wikiproject or have anything to do with the pages that I have edited. What you seem unable to understand is that most of these people are friends of the above user or have come only to join in a bandwagon. The other admin was not right. The other admin did not have the right to delete my text like that. You had the right to only because of Talk page guidelines. It seems that you, and other admin that are your friends do not seem willing to respect the rules of being an admin. This is very offensive. I have issued a serious complaint about your action, and what do you do? Say that I am out of line. Why? Because I criticized your actions as not being justified when you have yet to justify your actions appropriately? You have not given a legitimate reason for ignoring the rules of consensus and approving of a move that was not following the move guidelines. Heaven forbid someone challenge someone else of inpropriety in a forum which says at the top that you have the right to issue complaints on administrative actions. But see, you are unable to see this objectively, which is the source of the complaint. You have personally attacked me. Prove you are here for good faith and strike through your insults. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not about to strike through anything. Please. File a complaint about me, by all means. You're just so not listening here. - Alison ☺ 05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Saying that she thinks you are out of control and in dire need of a break isn't a personal attack. Personally, I would also say that you could use some milk and cookies and a nice nap. (That's not condescending, by the way; that's what I'll sometimes do when I'm too agitated or cranky for civilized company.) You could well have some legitimate grievance about something going on somewhere on Wikipedia, but your behavior here gives me no reason to think so. You are doing yourself no favors by declining to spend the morning on a long, long walk. Once you've done that, I'd start with WP:NAM. William Pietri 05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Edits do not require approval from a Wikiproject to be done. And edit warring is bad, period. It doesn't matter if everyone else is on your side, it doesn't even matter if you're right. You can not edit war. -Amarkov moo! 05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Which is exactly why I left any page that User:Someguy0830 was editing under, but he decided to follow me anyway. Hence, the Wiki Stalking complaint above, which no one seems willing to respect. A major part of WP:EQ is leaving users alone and not harassing them. You can say AGF all you want, but if I feel harassed, it has obviously gone beyond innocent action. This is a large project. I have proven that I have moved to another place. I only work on the Warhammer pages. I have contributed a lot to them, revamped a lot of stubs, added tons of resources and cleaned up tons of random vandalism. If you are going to claim that I need to try and move again, where should I go? And what is to prevent Someguy and his friends from following me and doing the same? You have an obligation to protect users from other users. Unless Wikipedia wants to claim it doesn't. If thats the case, I will just go over and contribute to the Warhammer Wiki instead and abandon these pages. They are more strict on who they let in and they would keep someone like Someguy from following me around. SanchiTachi 05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just remember Sanchi. I moved the page in good faith. You edit warred because you have ownership issues. I also edit warred, and for that I apologize, but you won't listen unless your options are limited. As for your striking thing, you're the only person willing to strike comments because you're incapable of resolving disputes. Your comments are still relevant. You just can't admit when you have no position to argue from. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for anyone else, but with all these accusations and constant cross-posting you've done, I didn't even see that complaint. I'll have to see if it's justified. -Amarkov moo! 05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please scroll up for the listing of Someguy0830, thanks. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, complete disregard for WP:AGF, instead jumping to the worst possible conclusion and assuming everyone's out to get him. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I swear this is almost getting too easy. Yet more cross-posting in an attempt to garner support for his position. User poses a vague hypothetical on the village pump, which I reveal and other users also point out. User proceeds to tell both to "stick to the topic", and post etiquette warnings on both user's talk pages. This kind of thing proves his inability to listen to what others are telling him. He just expands his efforts to bypass it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Sanchi's behaviour is the focus of this thread I'd like to post a diff to my talkpage here where he just admonished me regarding my post at the Village Pump. I've never encountered this editor before, and almost feel like the term "browbeating" might apply; I really think Sanchi needs to ease up on the throttle a bit. Doc Tropics 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is proper to ask people to stay on topics and to remove off topic material from discussion pages and talk pages. Your comments to me at Village Pump Policy were off topic and did not seek to answer the question that I asked. SanchiTachi 04:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Since I was hauled into this debate by a post on my talk page which fits the profile of the "browbeating" Doc Tropics received, I will also comment that I am disturbed that SanchiTachi posted a message at the Village Pump without context and actually admonished people for attempting to provide context. We are trying to get a handle on what's going on so we can help you; telling us that attempts to illustrate the character and nature of what looks like a run-of-the-mill personality conflicts was "inappropriate" indicates to me that you consider yourself able to own discussions. That is not so.

All this fuss from SanchiTachi has, incidentally, been extremely at cross-purposes to his intended goals, since I have been occupied with responding to apparent misconceptions of Wikipedia policy, and unable to review the actions leading to this complaint. I would attempt to parse the questions at the Village Pump, but the basic truth of hypothetical questions is that they often do not contain enough information to make a good judgement.

In short, if you must ask questions about basic Wikipedia policies regarding harassment, it would be wise to ask yourself whether you have the breadth of knowledge to be criticizing others' understanding of policy. --Edwin Herdman 04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I must point out that you are complaining because I asked you to stay on question about a topic, then accused me of all sorts of violations in a very inappropriate place. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Look particularly at his own edits of his Talk page and you see that he has deleted several messages from several Wikipedians (myself included) who asked him (some rather stridently) to modify his uncivil and disruptive behavior. But even if one looks only at the messages that he has not deleted from his Talk page (at least as of the last time I checked), he has attracted a remarkable number of disagreements with his conduct in the one month that he has been active on Wikipedia. Also examine his contributions, especially on all types of Talk pages, and you will see for yourself why SanchiTachi's behavior has drawn the reactions it has. His conduct here also does not reflect an appreciation of WP:OWN. SanchiTachi's responses to others, including his edit summaries, accuse his critics (including admins) of conspiring against him, of trolling, edit warring, of being unqualified to participate on HIS projects and pages, and of violating such WP policies as WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, WP:POV, etc., which are precisely the Wikipedia values that his own conduct ignores. His behavior rejects and ignores other Wikipedians who disagree with him on edits, policies, or his own conduct. I considered initiating an WP:RFC about his behavior; however, given the amount of feedback that he has already received and ignored, I concluded that an RfC would be futile. I hope something can be done to change SanchiTachi's behavior on Wikipedia so that he can become a productive member of this community. Frankly, I cannot imagine how his participation on Wikipedia up to now, with so many others criticizing and blocking his actions, can be bringing him satisfaction. Finell (Talk) 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The above user, Finell, edited my user page. I removed it. He complained. I asked him to cease editing my user page. He complained to an admin that I removed his text from my user and user talk pages. He claimed I broke rules. As you can see above, I have the right to delete items at will on my talk page. It is obvious that Finell is attacking me. SanchiTachi 05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Someone file an RfC - let's see what the community, as a whole, has to say about the behavior by the involved users here. Maybe a resounding affirmation of one side or another will finally be a wake up call to settle this. --Haemo 05:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• No, unfortunately, it won't. SanchiTachi has not been persuaded by the comments that many editors, including admins, posted on his own Talk page, on project and article Talk pages, the responses to his posts on other editors' and admins' talk pages, and the overwhelming expression of opinion here. Perhaps if enough admins reason with him here, it will get through. More likely, that will not persuade him either. I sincerely hope that he proves me wrong about this. Will you, SanchiTachi, for your own good as well as for the good of the community? Finell (Talk) 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

  Swatjester has offered to straighten Sanchi out. As Swat's voice is perhaps the only one capable of reaching Sanchi, let's hope he can do what all of us have failed miserably at. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Enough of this personal attack absurdity. SanchiTachi, please calm down. No one is attacking you. Please stop treating us as if the world has a vendetta against you. —Kurykh 06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wait wait

Is this seriously about whether the page List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels should be called List of Warhammer 40,000 Graphic Novels instead? Because that's what I'm getting from the talk page there. --Haemo 05:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes and no. It was prompted by that, but I've dealt with this user several times before and encountered the same. From one simple move, several pages of complete refusal to cooperate in the least with other editors, threatening to isolate his page from any project that would dare question his will, and finally an ignorant obsession with having facts yet stonewalling anyone who asks for them, we come here. The length to which behavior is tolerable has to end somewhere, and after a 3RR and an ANI report on me by this user which achieved nothing, I filed a report I was hping would make this user realize just how little his behavior is accepted. Sadly, that hasn't happened. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like what you have to do is clear; file a Request for Comment, outlining where and what happened, and allowing him to reply. I also think that everyone just chilling out and working to try and solve the underlying content disputes might allay the extraneous conflicts which arose around them. --Haemo 05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea, though I've never filed one before. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The move was part of how Someguy0830 was exacting a campaign to follow me to pages that I edit and further harass me. The impropriety of Alison's protection without seeking a consensus on the name and unwillingness to prevent a problematic situation, even though it was clearly mentioned on her talk page, is what created the situation that you currently see. Please see the above complaint about Someguy0830 for more details. There is no way to "chill out". The page was created by myself to "chill out." I didn't expect it to be moved and edited by the guy who was previously causing me complaints just mere hours after being put up. SanchiTachi 06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, here is a way to chill out -

• Alison doesn't need a consensus to protect a page; she's a admin, that's her job. Protecting a page does not endorse the current version - all it does is stop a move war. That's all.
• No one, not even Someguy0830 is trying to cause problems for you. All that has happened is that he edits in a similar part of the encyclopedia, and appears to have slightly different views.

Does this make sense? Does it engender a sense of calm? Hopefully it should! --Haemo 06:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF? — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd echo Haemo's comments, but wanted to add something else. In the paragraph I'm responding to, you blame the current situation on everybody but yourself. First, seeking blame is rarely particularly productive. Second, focusing on others' faults exclusively puts them on the defensive. And third, it takes two to tango. So after you have found some actual calm (hint: you won't do that while continually reloading and editing this thread) consider starting out by a) acknowledging the ways you have contributed to this foofaraw and b) suggesting some ways forward that you think might work for all involved. Good luck, William Pietri 06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This is not about that article or its title. It is about the behavior of User:SanchiTachi wherever he touches Wikipedia. His behavior on List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels and its Talk page just happened to be what finally pushed some people over the top. Finell (Talk) 06:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've got a very easy solution for this.

Let me preface this by saying that I've had a fair amount of experience with SanchiTachi. He's an enthusiastic editor who has a genuine desire to edit and improve Wikipedia. In his enthusiasm he makes mistakes, but I've never yet seen one that I could say was not in good faith. Sanchi Tachi has often come to my talk page to get help with editing disputes: he's also taken my advice when I don't feel that a dispute would likely go in his favor. For instance, he had an editing dispute on a topic that shortly after, received an OTRS complaint. SanchiTachi was not likely familiar with OTRS, so I told him that it would be a good idea to leave the article alone for a month, and he did so. Sanchi Tachi is hot headed, and can take things personally. Show me an editor who has not done so. Hell, I could show you a dozen administrators who do so. So let me mentor Sanchi Tachi. I'm already helping him out already, and I will fairly and impartially help him become a better editor. If you get into an editing dispute with him, instead of needing to go through the trouble and stress of an RFC, or an AN/I complaint, just let me know on the talk page. If SanchiTachi is in the wrong, I'll help him realize what he did wrong and how to fix it, or if extreme case, I"ll take the appropriate admin actions.

Sanchi Tachi is a good editor. There's nothing gained by stressing him out until the point that he gives up and leaves the project. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea, but he's got to accept this too. --Haemo 06:12, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you are serious about the offer to mentor, I think it should be seriously considered. Swatjester does a lot of good work and has a good rep; he might be able to help. Doc Tropics 06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Saves me from figuring out the RfC. I do expect something to come of it, though, as this whole charade would make any other editor say to themselves, "Wow, maybe I really did screw up." You don't get this many complaints and think nothing's amiss. Specifically, I expect him to actually address the questions he's asked, and not to fall back on quoting policy all the time. If anything, he shouldn't be allowed to quote it at all. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already moved a bit towards helping SanchiTachi understand the policies better; you can see my last contribution here. While I've been congratulated on this writing, it seems that it rubbed SanchiTachi the wrong way, and he has proceeded to ignore me. This might be helpful in making comments that help move the process along (which is why I'm posting this, not because I feel neglected). --Edwin Herdman 06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, Someguy0830, when you say "shouldn't be allowed" you are coming dangerously close to proposing that there is a "correct interpretation" of events. It just ain't so. I think comments like that and a few other arguable snipes have helped this situation reach critical mass and forced SanchiTachi to grope for some policy to back him up. While all of us may agree that there were some issues, I certainly don't agree with some of the comments that have been directed at SanchiTachi. In fact, if I had been more thoughtful I would have mentioned straight off my final comment on the logical process that I link in my above paragraph, as without it the reader is left wondering how I could reach the conclusion I did. --Edwin Herdman 06:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

You're right, that is going a bit too far. However, he likes to fall back on it when his assertions fail, which is why I want him trying to actually discuss things. As others have pointed out, he has a "my way or the highway" mentality in a lot of cases and that needs to be discouraged. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect assertions are not going to illustrate to SanchiTachi what is appropriate. A classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right," if I ever saw one. Some law needs to be laid down - don't make redundant badgering comments on other editors' discussion pages when you repeat those claims on the overall discussion page - but they need to be dealt with individually. --Edwin Herdman 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Last comment for the night here (I hope). I've a lot of respect for SwatJester and appreciate his mediation here. I was about halfway through filing an RfC here but will hold off if you think this will work. My position on this is that I want the guy to have resolved whatever is going on here, to de-escalate this situation and to be a happy and productive editor. That's all. I've no doubt that he's a good editor. If you think mentoring/mediation will work, then let's give it a go - Alison ☺ 06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we're done for the night then. If there's no objection, I think we can consider this closed. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 06:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I may be new but with Shane Ruttle article, I think there should be some boundaries or given to him. He is completely bent having his way with the article no matter what discussion happens.--CmrdMariategui 15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The anonymous IP 207.81.56.49 who may or may not be Mayor Quimby

207.81.56.49 (talk · contribs) from earlier (see thread above) is calling loudly for yet another unblock review. I've already declined one but he's still at it. Can someone new pop over there and re-review his block again, please? - Alison ☺ 05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• His talk page is a mess of unblock reviews so this may just be his second - Alison ☺ 05:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Reviewed. Appears to be a sock/meatpuppet, judging from a few factors I'd rather keep private, in case they show up again (email me, if you really must know). Nothing too exotic, but it smells of beans. – Luna Santin (talk) 10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat blocked

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

I have blocked CyclePat (talk · contribs) for 72 hours due to his obsessive and disruptive edits regarding the shutdown of Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates which has included using Wikipedia:Community sanction noticeboard to try and ban an editor against him in the dispute ([35], [36], [37]), and using Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism to block the same user under false pretenses ([38]).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The user also tried to get a whole class of editors banned from dealing with AMA, so that is the reason why I have removed it from the CN board twice. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 08:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

And me once. I endorse his block for edit warring, disruption and failure to assume good faith, per my initial warning (which was not heeded) and endorsement at User talk:CyclePat. Given he continues to spam his ban request on his talk page, I'm thinking protection would be nice, as he shows no inclination to appeal (but rather continue to disrupt to prove a point). Daniel 08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

CyclePat does little aside from being disruptive. His efforts to support Cplot via AMA even long after it was made obvious Cplot was a troll, shouldn't be overlooked either.--MONGO 08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

While that instance took place, this has no bearing on his current block (persé).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not, Ryulong, however, there is a pattern here and it deserves mention. Otherwise, your 72 hour block would have been a bit excessive, I believe.--MONGO 08:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

He had been blocked for similar reasons before; 24 hours to 72 hours is not a major step.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 08:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am well aware of the prior blocks.--MONGO 09:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I seem to be running out of excuses for Pat. I think he is not evil but suffers form an excess of enthusiasm, however it's hard to escape the fact that his contributions in recent months have been a net drain on resources. Guy (Help!) 08:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Since WP:AMA was supposed to help people in dispute, from Pat's attempted enforced merge of WP:EA into WP:AMA, to this current episode, it appears to actually be far better at escalating dispute and disruption. Perhaps the block will help things cool off. --pgk 08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh, btw, page protection in place for his talk page due to spamming of same materials he got blocked over and the blanking of the entire page after the block. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
• Endorse block, damnit. We could all see this coming and did he listen? Nope. This disruption is ridiculous. Moreschi ^Talk 09:26, 26 May 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.

Concern about certian user

DarkMasterIII (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) - Keep your eyes on this user, although he is not a "pro vandal", he has been swapping images with some near explicit versions (I am aware of the "Wikipeida is not censored" rule, but someone is using and abusing that) --Dynamo_ace 11:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I'm reverting his edits, as he's uploading copyrighted material without a source, and orphaning fair use images we already have. Big no no's. -N 11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we call this resolved or what? He's not active anymore. --əˈnongahy 14:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

PDTantisocial (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

In addition to have certain problems with images - see his talk page (and my logs, damnit), this user also seems to have problem with refraining from personal attacks - see this, which was pretty bad. Extra eyes needed on this one, I think, and the way he's going he'll get blocked. Moreschi ^Talk 14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, for that edit a block is needed, which I have now provided. User's second block for personal attacks, so it's 72 hours. Sandstein 16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Antuenna

Resolved

Antuenna (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is a probable User:Danny Daniel sockpuppet. The user created the hoax Detective Stroker (TV Series) (User:RobertsonRooby, an indefinitely blocked sockpuppet of Danny Daniel, also created this hoax, only it was Detective Stroker and it was nominated for AFD.). Pants^(T) 16:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

For more information on this vandal, see User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. Pants^(T) 16:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I blocked him and deleted his hoaxes. MaxSem 17:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Screech123

Screech123 (talk · contribs) uploaded Image:Ravenp20070508155551.jpg and placed a PD-SELF tag on it, although he/she also clearly added that it was taken from here. I tagged it as a copyvio and removed it from Andrew Turner (director). I also warned Screech123 about putting false copyright claims on images he/she uploads. He/she then removed my copyvio tag, removed the PD-SELF tag (thus leaving it with no copyright tag at all), and re-added the image to the article. Corvus cornix 17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Another User:Brya sock

Resolved

 – Blocked by Trebor

These sock puppets have not been blocked. I went to the sock puppet board and followed directions and policies noted there for having sock puppets of banned users blocked. One user, not an administrator, responded with an extraneous issue showing he/she had not bothered to read what was going on and did not know Wikipedia sock puppetry policy. If this is the wrong place to post, please tell me where to post and I will change the WP:sock puppet board to alert other users. Brya's sock puppets waste the time of the few botanical editors en.Wiki has by forced us to devote resources and time to reverting his/her edits. Please simply block the Brya sock puppets. If Wikipedia policy has changed and Brya is allowed to use sock puppets to circumvent his/her block, then please let me and all other banned and blocked users know this, so this too can be changed on the sock board. Thanks. KP Botany 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OLD

User:Brya is so busy on Wikipedia Commons reformatting everything to his/her desire, I would think that en.wiki could simply be left alone. Still, the same italicizing of taxa higher than orders and hidden by edit histories that claim the edit is something else.[39] Exactly what caused the discussion about a community ban in the first place. Please block this sock puppet. Block history, there is also a lengthy RFA somewhere and reems of commentary on this editor.[40] Thank you. KP Botany 22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot to post the sock's user name User:Groosy. KP Botany 05:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Also please block the User:Clyb Brya sock which we let slide last year on AGF, but has begun, with the other two, to revert to Brya styles, which the community has jointly and repeatedly decided against.[41] KP Botany 22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything in the WP:MOS against his format? I dont know to much about the area, but this looks like an editing dispute, not blockable offenses. -M^ask? 05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Banned users[42] are not allowed to edit Wikipedia, so there is no editing dispute with this user.[43] KP Botany 05:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Blocked both. Trebor 18:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Disruptive user User:BalanceRestored

User:BalanceRestored has been warned by multiple editors to not use Indian caste system as a soapbox.

• WP:NPOV and WP:RS by User:Utcursch: [44]

• WP:SOAP and WP:RS by User:Abecedare: [45].

• WP:RS and WP:NPOV by User:Lucasbfr : [46] and WP:SOAP: [47]

• Even a Helper (User:Commander Keane) she tried to involve could not figure out what point she was trying to make: [48].

• I issued a Level 4 unsourced warning: [49] and then my final warning as vandalism: [50]

Despite all of these warnings, User:BalanceRestored just made the same edit again to the article: [51] I think the user should be blocked. Buddhipriya 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the Edit was proper, You can block me if it is appropriate. But, I know what I am writing. I am ready to be killed. I know you all are wise. I am re-editing BalanceRestored 07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

And indeed, the user has just made the same edit: [52] Buddhipriya 07:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing that's a POV not with that edit.BalanceRestored 07:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Then where is the source to back it up? --Haemo 07:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

What source is needed? Everything is sourced. Please point objectionable editingBalanceRestored 07:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

My simple objection is that you use <br> tags instead of <ref> ones. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You say, in that edit, that this is a criticism - well, where is a source backing up the fact that people criticize it on that basis? --Haemo 07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

It is clear to me that the user has been warned sufficiently and had no interest in abiding by WP:CONSENSUS. As such he has been blocked for 31 hours for continued edit warring after several warnings.--Jersey Devil 07:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think he's just a little confused, and doesn't speak English very well. --Haemo 07:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the block. I think it is more than just an English issue. I am accustomed to working with quite a few Indian editors for whom English is a second language, and this is more than stumbling for words. :) Buddhipriya 07:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Just to correct a bit, I did not issue any formal warning, but I answered a {{helpme}} request on his talk page. I tried to explain our WP:NPOV and WP:V policies to him, but it seems he did not understand it in the end... Maybe the block will set things straight. -- lucasbfr ^talk 08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• Why is it that all these users with names that imply they are here to Right Great Wrongs turn out to be problematic? No, wait, I think I know the answer to that. Guy (Help!) 08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Do you mean the answer is that those usernames are POV? → Let the facts/usernames speak for themselves.-- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

BalanceRestored (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has apparently created a sock Roughandtough (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) as he had threatened earlier [53]. He is continuing to insert his unsourced POV and commentary in the Indian Caste System article [54], [55], deleting material and expressing sympathy with himself [56] :-) Abecedare 15:59, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

For those who may not be familiar with the edit wars that take place on Indian articles, please note that a major effort to recruit sock and meat puppets has been underway for some time, and these clone warriors are now the subject of Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2. This article is one of the battlegrounds where the socks and puppets operate. It is part of a much larger problem. Buddhipriya 00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Roughandtough has been filling the Indian caste system page with religious nonsense and commentary.Bakaman 18:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Pankkake, continued personal attacks

This user continued to personally attack me past his fourth warning. See Pankkake's personal attacks and corresponding warnings. His behavior is annoying at worst, but since he has not heeded any warnings, administrator intervention may be more effective against his behavior. --Leon Sword 02:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

uncalled for, but a lot of this was provocation. He was clearly nonplussed by using impersonal templates (as most wikipedians are) and instead of putting a personal message telling him to cut out the personal attacks, you slapped more generic templates on his page. Thats goading and baiting a clearly upset user who got more upset each time you ignored his requests to cut it out with the templates. Shame. -M^ask? 06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I just pulled that entire section off of his talk page. Both of you can cut it out and give it a rest for a while. To paraphrase a well used Wikipedia philosophy, if a user makes you annoyed or depressed, ignore them. -M^ask? 16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, you've left me confused. I was using the correct templates which were specifically designed to warn other users of such behavior. If I am the one who is going to get blamed for that users bad behavior for using these templates correctly, then what is the purpose of those templates, they might as well be deleted. --Leon Sword 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The templates are optional. Most editors will tell you that a handwritten message is much more effective. In this case, the user told you he rather disliked these, they made you seem like a bot, etc, and you put more on his page. He became even more dismayed, so you put more templates on his page. At no time did you try to solve the dispute but seemed to bait him on. This doesn't mean the personal attacks were appropriate, they clearly weren't, but you had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation, yet clearly made it worse. Think when using templates. If they work, they work. They dont always work. In this case they even made things worse. Dont adhere to something just because, make sure it's doing what it's supposed to, and if its not, try something else. -M^ask? 21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Irish neutrality during World War II

Can an objective administrator please review the above-referenced page. It is massively POV, written in the first person and an advocacy piece originally created by a student from his/her own thesis. I fixed as much as I could but it remains subject to revert warring. Thanks!!216.194.0.76 12:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Please block this IP as a clear sockpuppet of Rms125a@hotmail.com (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), the suspected sockpuppet category will show this anti-Irish POV pushing editor frequently edits from 216.194 prefixed IPs. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 12:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppet or not, that article does need a neutrality check -- just not necessarily from an administrator. I read the article before I looked at the diffs and the user's contribs, and the exact same sentence that I am now very tempted to excise was the one that the IP took out: "Rather than isolation, the Irish Emergency represents a bold celebration of coming-out of Plato’s cave and of walking independently among the men and women that cast their shadows against the wall, casting Ireland own shadow against the wall of history alongside them." That is pretty darn POV, and putting a neutrality-check tag on it is less anti-Irish and more pro-WP:NPOV. I find one silly edit on April 7th, but the rest of the IP's contribs seem to be good.

I'm not sure about the sockpuppet patterns of that particular puppetmaster, but the message, if not the messenger, seems to be legit here. I would assume good faith until I see true signs of maliciousness ... though the immediate resort to ANI after a grand total of seven edits, six of them today and one of them here, would make me watch this editor carefully. --Dynaflow babble 16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the edit. Regardless of who he is, his concerns about the article are quite correct. The way, the truth, and the light 16:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no opinion on the merits of the edit, the editor in question is community banned and I reverted per WP:BAN. There is no obligation to assume good faith with banned editors, especially if you see this requests for comment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

How do we know for sure s/he's a banned editor? I see no evidence of sockpuppet warfare on either the article the anon legitimately tagged for an NPOV check or the NN housing project s/he prodded for deletion, so it can't be a return to familiar articles that's tipping the hand of a puppetmaster. Familiarity with process and an IP in the same rather huge range that saw past manifestations of puppetry aren't surefire enough proof of sockpuppetry to revert every one of an anon contributor's contribs, as seems to have been done. How does this fit a pattern, is what I'm asking. --Dynaflow babble 16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

[from User talk:Dynaflow:] See the IPs listed in Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Rms125a@hotmail.com. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

According ARIN, 216.194.0.0 - 216.194.63.255 belong to MetTel in New York City. An IP editor in that range taking an interest in Irish articles shouldn't strike anyone as suspicious -- do you know how many Irish people live in New York? --Dynaflow babble 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

If you had experience of dealing with this editor, you would know that a 216.194 prefixed IP, making edits such as that to Irish related articles, and immediately making ANI posts about articles are three red flags. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 17:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I've had that article bookmarked for a while and have considered nominating it for deletion. The primary article author says on the talk page that it originated as a college essay, and it doesn't even come close to meeting the requirements of WP:NPOV. *** Crotalus *** 17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
  • It either needs stubbing down or outright deletion and starting from scratch. —Kurykh 17:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• • • I just redirected it to Irish neutrality, which seems to cover the same topic in a more neutral manner. If this is controversial we can go to AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 17:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw this discussion. I have always agreed that the tone was POV. However, the content is strict NPOV. As it stands, I believe that all it lacks is "retoning" to remove the argumenative style as per How To, specifically the section on undergraduate essays: "Articles that are not written in an encyclopedic style should be rewritten that way, or at least tagged {{cleanup-tone}}." While I only tagged it with clean-up today, I posted to the talk page agreeing that tone was a problem.

In response to Kurykh, I never said that the article doesn't even come "close" to meeting the requirements of NPOV. What I said was that the tone does not. These are very different concepts. --sony-youth^pléigh 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't have done it (redirected) if it hadn't been for the comments by Crotalus and Kurykh above. Why don't you read Irish neutrality#World War II and see if there's anything enycyclopedic in your essay that's not already there? The way, the truth, and the light 20:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I've read those article - you hardly believe that I would comment on the merits of content that I know nothing about? Who would do that? In any case, I believe this to be a matter for relevant editors to resolve rather than an administrator issue. I'm sure you agree. If you are proposing a merger or a deletion of the article, it should go through proper process.

Which do you prefer? Merge? Or delete? Though of course I would prefer to follow policy. --sony-youth^pléigh 20:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

See my previous reply. If you insist on restoring the article anyway, we'll have to discuss it on AfD. The way, the truth, and the light 21:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, "delete" it is. I'll restore it, place the appropriate tags, add it to AfD and notify the relevant communities of editors (contributors, History of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, The Emergency, Irish Neutrality, WP:IE etc.) --sony-youth^pléigh 21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

JB196

Resolved

 – Blocked by Jpgordon

Jampop (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Can someone block his latest account please, confirmed as open proxy by checkuser. Thanks. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Already done. Moreschi ^Talk 14:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

24.190.179.181 / Cmm 394

24.190.179.181 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (also Cmm 394 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) -- could someone talk a good look at the edits here? Wildly imaginative page moves, insidious changes in information in articles, but mixed in with other stuff that's (presumably) correct. Expert eyes needed. Bolivian Unicyclist 15:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is at it again [57]. I have undone their last move and warned them again, but I think administrative intervention will be necessary here. --VirtualDelight 21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Islas De La Bahia (Deparment) (!) is another one of his, but I can't fix it. Bolivian Unicyclist 22:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

More Linda Christas FoonenGammen

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Student-First Accreditation Is it possible to get this AFD closed sooner rather than later? It's starting to show signs of turning into another filibustering sockpuppet fest like this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Linda Christas International School - Richfife 16:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There's only one user doing all the trolling and filibustering; I've blocked him since he's a clear SPA and more than likely a sockpuppet of the user responsible for the SPA flood on the Linda Christas AFDs. --Coredesat 21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Little vandalism "gang"?

this odd little unblock message led to to User talk:Kfusion, which seems to be a chat page for vandals and socks accounts. I'm not sure how many of them there are, I'm tempted to block pretty much everyone who has chatted there (not, obviously, placers of legit warnings.) Thoughts? Dina 17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Without looking carefully through the contribs yet, on the talk page there are certainly at least a couple of clear-cut blocks that could be laid down for sock-puppetry. Pastordavid 17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

One them them User:RockRNC appears to have fine contribs, but clearly knows the vandals. Or is one as a sock. *sigh* Dina 17:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I indef blocked User:Polevault101 as a vandal and admitted sock of User:Griddle123. Can't quite bring myself to indef User:RockRNC or User:Kfusion as their contribs don't merit it. Dina 18:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I've indef blocked User:Kfusion (about to look at User:RockRNC), given he has made various junk articles, had warnings for that and other vandalism, was blocked on 10 May and since return has continued to make absolute nonsense edits (at best garbage at worst libelous) and then proceeded to add some of them to BJAODN, I think it's pretty clear that building the encyclopedia is the last thing he's doing. --pgk 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Roxas and personal attacks

User:Roxas has left several messages on my talk page consisting of the following: threatening me with death, telling me I have a mental condition, and being an annoyance. I'm not in any particular mood to deal with this, so any assistance would be welcome. ' 23:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Death threats? He's asking for a block... --DarkFalls ^talk 00:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I gave him a warning. Hit my talkpage if it continues. I don't see that as a legitimate death threat so much as just a kid talking smack. Regardless it is not acceptable.--Isotope23 00:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. ' 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Hipocrite wants to out other users. Acceptable?

Resolved

User:Hipocrite is demanding personal info from other users in order to edit his talk page in a way that strikes me as trying to out the identity of other users. This is not acceptable as wikipedia standards do not demand that we reveal our identities in order to post at the pages of other (as it happens anonymous) wikipedia users, indeed it allows us to protect anonymity, SqueakBox 00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

(Not an admin, but a user who tries to understand Hipocrite's sometimes coded language) Is this the diff you're talking about? I see it as typical Hipocritabolic sarcasm and nothing else. I don't think he's demanding anything really, except perhaps not to defend a particular website on his talk page. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

He's just being sarcastic, he is not trying to invade anybody's privacy. No admin action required. Picaroon (Talk) 01:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster

Kittybrewster (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) seems to be a bit of a problem. I have no issue with his contributions overall, other than his apparent desire to use Wikipedia as a personal family genealogy site, but he dismissed as "assinine" a note not to strike other editors' comments on an AfD for an article he himself wrote, and it seems to me long past time to correct his behaviour. I have given him a short block, as a pause for thought. So: modifyng others' comments, apparently having been asked before not to do so, and rudely dismissing requests not to repeat this (the actual problem - this seems in fact to be part of a continuing pattern of rudely dismissing any kind of criticism. It really is time he understood that he is not immune to criticism. Guy (Help!) 10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There are also strong concerns brought by Doc glasgow and Giano, among others, that the family history which Kittybrewster has used to source his articles is thoroughly unreliable. Mackensen (talk) 10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, if the family history in question is written by one of the family (is it?) that wouldn't pass the "independant" bit required by WP:N. This Arbuthnot saga is one miserable mess. Moreschi ^Talk 10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Checking some Arbuthnot pages, if Mackensen is referring to Memories of the Arbuthnots, that is written by one of the family, so hardly relevant to notability. Moreschi ^Talk 11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There remains a problem of WP:COI and the fact that we seem to have more articles on the Arbuthnots than on the Kennedys or the Saxe-Coburg Gothas Windsors. Guy (Help!) 11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There are three seperate but interconnected issues 1) the notability of the Arbuthnots - that is a matter for the use of AFDs and the like and letting those processes take their course - I don't see anything in particular there that requires admin intervention. 2) The COI - that should be strongly discouraged. 3) Incivility and altering other comments - that is an admin matter and the "get a clue"/block button has been used correctly in this case to try and bring this editor in line. --Fredrick day 11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I think one of the problems here is that a small number of editors (including me) have been reviewing the Arbuthnott mess and nominating various articles for deletion. Since Kittybrewster is so personally attached to those articles (and has an obvious WP:COI) the dispute has tended to look personal - and he's been less that cooperative. Don't get me wrong, some of the subjects do merit inclusion - its just that he indiscriminately writes stubs without proper sourcing, and they often tend to be more interested in genealogical considerations that anything encyclopedic - and some of the 'claims to notability' really don't stack up under investigation. What would be useful is if those of us who have been fairly involved with this back off a little, and let others review the remaining Arbuthnott empire a little more dispassionately. But beware, everything may not be as it seems on a quick read. You'll find them all in the ridiculous Category:Arbuthnot family (which is ridiculous because it is really a category for people with the same surname - related or not). Any volunteers to take this up?--Doc^g 11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

*checks cat* - Blimey - I don't have the time to take on that challenge - we need a task force to take a look at that (not so) little lot and see what needs to be nuked from space. --Fredrick day 11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Apart from Arbuthnott-related edits, does KittyBrewster do anything else? I wonder if this problem could be ameliorated by encouraging his work in other areas, or asking him to consider doing so if he hasn't already. Another solution might be to ask him to prepare his Arbuthnott articles in his user space and invite others to review them prior to publication. The conflict of interest problem, and the related elevation of trivia to article status, are a problem for the encyclopedia, but it seems to me that they arise from what Kittybrewster had been working on the encyclopedia, and if he starts working on something else the problem will go away. --Tony Sidaway 11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that approach ever works - SPAs generally only see wikipedia as a useful venue for talking about *their* interests. I don't think I've ever seen a SPA develop into a successful general editor. --Fredrick day 11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster has also been a meat-puppet of User:Astrotrain in a bunch of IRA AfDs a while ago, and a rather obnoxious one, at that. In particular, see the AfDs for Martin McCaughey and Raymond Gilmour. Αργυριου (talk) 22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you hardly come out of these discussions yourself with clean hands: [58]. --Major Bonkers (talk) 11:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• As the one who originally made the AfD nomination that started the latest round of this sorry mess can I jump in here. Looking over my history, I've actually !voted keep more often than delete on Arbuthnot, but I'm starting to come to the Vintagekits position that this has got out of hand. I've no problem necessarily with our having so many Arbuthnots - however they get here, if they're valid articles, they should be kept. (We have more articles on British than Chinese schools even though China has a hundred times as many - that doesn't mean British schools are more important, just that we have more people who've bothered to add them.) However, Kittybrewster's repeated blanking of any faintly critical comments from his talk page, apparent unwillingness to take advice from anyone regarding even the most non-notable Arbuthnots, apparent unwillingness to find reliable sources for any articles (his pages generally cite a book by a family member, plus two websites containing information cut-and-pasted from that book, as the "multiple sources") as well as the the history of personal attacks (it's not long since he added "This user is a member of the Irish Republican Cabal" to the userpage of everyone who disagreed with him) make me think something needs to be done about this whole saga as it will continue indefinitely. Maybe a final arbcom ruling on whether "Memories of the Arbuthnots" is or isn't a reliable source? — iridescenti (talk to me!) 11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• There's also a COI report here. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 11:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
• I've been watching this situation from the sidelines for a bit and I generally agree with what User:Iridescenti said. The problem isn't having articles on Arbuthnots... the problem is Kittybrewster's insistence on creating poorly sourced articles and then arguing with everyone who points this out rather than trying to source the articles.--Isotope23 13:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

• It may be that MrDarcy has something to contribute here, given User_talk:MrDarcy. - CarbonLifeForm 14:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose this will all end in a messy Arb case - it would be nice if it could be avoided but I don't see how. Half of the problem is not just Kittybrewster churning out these non-notable and flawed pages but also his friends who will argue that black is white rather then see even the most obvious error. They will do nothing to improve a page once they have created it, even for the more notable pages where the internet is crawling with information. They prefer to sit and scream at those who disagree with them. Here is a good example [59] the page concerned is a stub on AFD - it is probably notable and easily saveable but rather than improve it and save it, the authors sit about calling those who vote to delete "suspects" I have also seen them called far worse, including - members of terrorist organizations - it is ridiculous and it needs to be stopped, and stopped hard and fast. Personally I think all Kittybrewster pages should be deleted without exception unless they have been taken way beyond the stub stage by other editors - then I would trust them - at the moment I suspect they may have quite a bit of erroneous or exaggerated information in them. Initially, I tried to help Kittybrewster - improve pages, recommending he take some into user space and generally giving the advice of a largely main-space editor of three years experience. He does not take advice. I also began to find a worryingly large number of errors and inconsistencies within his pages. I privately informed a couple of highly reputable admins of my concerns, and, after some initial understandable doubts, their own sifting through his edits largely confirmed my thoughts.

I realise though deleting all his pages, however desirable, in such a way is not going to happen - so we need to find a solution. I think, we need a panel to be set up consisting of some highly reputable admins with a knowledge of the peerage and history. If they are masochists they may find their work easier, to go through with delegated and final powers to delete as required. Beyond that I don't see how we can trust these pages - there have been too many exaggerations and mistakes in the many which have already been deleted. I do not say Kittybrewster has done this deliberately but his sources and/or research is badly flawed. The other problem is that we know who Kittybrewster is in real life, we know he has a brother who is conservative member of Parliament currently serving. There is already a warning on Jimbo's page about Private Eye and another matter, we don't want the "Curse of Gnome" descending here too or worse still on the unsuspecting and undeserving brother. So let's weigh all these factors and find a solution. Giano 15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I got involved with this during the COI on his autobiography. While there was a lot of agreement among respondents Kittybrewster refused to explicitly agree to stop the behavior that had caused concern. (I believe he may have tacitly agreed, but since he won't say one way or another it's hard to tell.) He consistenly fails to give notice of his involvement or interest in topics that come up, whether AfD on his articles or guideline proposals. For example, he proposed an MOS change that would've directly affected his brother's biography but he never disclosed that relationship.[60] I think this editor has followed the principles of COI, both in terms of adding links to his own website and in terms of editing article where he has a conflict of interest. Worse, he won't engage in useful conversations about that problem. See also Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arbuthnots and circular referencing. I hope that when Kittybrewster returns he'll be more willing to listen to the community on these issues. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a background to this issue which almost all contributors to this discussion seem to be unaware of, and has been previously summarised by me here. In summary, in response to various AfDs nominating members of the IRA, certain editors have been taking a close retaliatory interest in WikiProject Baronetcies, a situation which I have previously drawn attention to here. Once Kittybrewster's identity became obvious from a (probably) malicious AfD, a trawl has uncovered his interest in his own family ancestry. It seems to me:

• There is obviously nothing wrong, per se, with editing articles about which one is familiar or in which one has an interest; and,
• The issue as to whether the articles are properly sourced or 'light' is separate to the issue of authorship.

The argument about having some 'conflict of interest' seems spurious to me, because it could be extended to anyone of us who has an interest in a particular subject. The whole basis of Wikipedia is that those with specific interests share that knowledge.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• We all have real life names and personalities we can either guard them, be careless with them or openly reveal them. Kittybrewster has made no secret of his identity - so let us not have any of this reticence and pretence now. If he wishes to retreat back into anonymity he can easily create a new account and do so - perhaps he already has. That he has "an interest in his own family ancestry" is fine no problem - good for him. That he chooses to write articles for wikipedia about non-notable members of that family is a problem. A further problem is his reaction and and that of his friends when those non-notable members are nominated for deletion. That in a nutshell is the basis of the problem we are discussing here. In short he can conform to wikipedia standards or he can not. The choice is his but it no use complaining when others object to his choice if it is against the established practices of the encyclopedia. Giano 20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid that your comment that Kittybrewster was somehow 'careless' of his identity is quite wrong; it became apparent during the AfD. I'd urge you to have a look at that page, because it is apparent that certain editors are targeting him. I am concerned that you might be inadvertently exacerbating the situation. I'd also point out that pages such as this and this, which you appear to be relying on, are hardly objective: check the 'history' pages! --Major Bonkers (talk) 08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

No you are mistaken, I have used neither of thosw two pages as references. I am totally unconnected with the Irish problems, and indeed have little interest in them. If an editor wants anonymity that is fine. Identities can only be revealed if someone is either careless with them or reveals them on purpose. Writing copious pages on non-notable members of one family is always a bit if a clue and could be described as careless. Kitybrewster as a name is a further clue. The fact that he has not created a new account intimates he is not that bothered by it either. Giano 10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, Giano, but I think you are becoming part of the problem. The individual concerned, who I know, is mature, a well-regarded editor, and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Fairly obviously he's on Wikibreak (it's a Bank Holiday weekend, after all). You have been posting across various forums on this subject (on one occasion despite being asked not [61]). Whether you realise it or not, you are advancing someone-else's agenda. Harrying other editors in this way is neither necessary or desirable. Please calm down a bit.--Major Bonkers (talk) 11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think we're all aware of the dispute between Kittybrewster and the IRA-related editors. It may have helped trigger the investigation into Kittybrewster's other activities, but otherwise they're not related. While Kitttybrewster has appeared reluctant to clearly state his relationship to the Arbuthnots at appropriate times, his identity was known long before the AfD mentioned AfD. The creation of that article, an autobiography, is central to the COI problems we're addressing. Kittybrewster was told in January 2006[62] that it's inappropriate to add links to one's own website, but he's ignored that guideline dozens of times. There's nothing spurious about having a conflict of interest regarding oneself or one's immediate family. The problem of adding links to one's own website as a source (without even mentioning the connection) isn't spurious either. There are other Wikipedia guidelines that this user has ignored, in particular WP:NOT. None of that has anything to do with the IRA-related disputes. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Doc Glasgow is now trying to redirect the Sir William Arbuthnot article without even trying to gain consensus, SqueakBox 22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is being sought here [63]. The redirect would give the subject the anonymity he requires, especially as there is nothing of note beyond holding a fairly recent baronetcy to report.

It is though now almost impossible to pass comment without becoming the victim of a personal attack

1. [64].
2. [65].
3. [66]

by one of Kittybrewsters friends. All civilized debate on the sunject is impossible. Giano 11:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I urge any arbitrators to view fully the comments made by User:Giano II and others on numerous Talk Pages before commenting on things posted here out of context. It seems a small group of editors feel they can slag off others, in the most uncivil manner, indeed in the most provocative manner, and when other editors, such as myself, respond accordingly it is we who are being uncivil and told we are making "personal attacks" when the essence of what we are saying is commenting upon comment. There is a very obvious and clear vendetta against User:Kittybrewster which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Naturally those of us who see injustice are going to remark upon it. We should not be banned for doing so, especially by those making the provocative remarks to which we responded. David Lauder 14:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Another editor is now removing comments of other editors from Kittybrewster's talk page, this is totally unacceptable. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 13:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kittybrewster is reoffending [67]. Aatomic1 13:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Giano - Sympathy is limited. The contentious nature of the page in question was twice pointed out to you by me and I also requested that you calm down; there's no need to post the same thoughts across 3 different forums. Nobody appointed you Arbuthnot-finder General and, like it or not, Wikipedia works by consensus not on the basis of who shouts the loudest. You should also, perhaps, review how you have described members of Kittybrewster's family before complaining about personal attacks made against you.
ONiH - As you know, both you and Vintagekits, have been asked not to post on Kittybrewster's talk page. It is perfectly acceptable under those circumstances to remove comments: see [68]
Aatomic1 - Am I missing something? What is your link supposed to demonstrate? --Major Bonkers (talk) 14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

If I am falsely accused and attacked on that talk page, I am well within my rights to post on that talk page to insist on a withdrawal. My comments were not uncivil, and I suggest you withdraw your accusation. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 14:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, according to your own posts yesterday, you are not entitled to post anything on someone else's 'Talk Page' having been warned off it: see here and [69].--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You weren't posting on a talk page. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:37, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

See: WP:USERPAGE#Removal of warnings:Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Key words - their own talk pages - perhaps if you stopped pointing at policies and looked at who made what edits you would realise the futility of your last comment. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Major Bonkers I believe he has modified a comment I have made by reinstaing the valid striking out of proven sockpuppet. Aatomic1 15:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit obscure but my apologies for not grasping it and thank you for filling me in. The diff in question relates to his User page and an editor has a greater degree of ownership on such pages than in the main encyclopedia. As I see it, he is within his rights to alter it. See the discussion here.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey folks, if we can drop the accusations and counter-accusations for a brief second, I've started an actual merge discussion (shiny templates and all!) at Talk:Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet. Best, Mackensen (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh goody.--Major Bonkers (talk) 16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details

I have renamed this section from "Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details" for obvious reasons. Picaroon (Talk) 02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is currently facing ArbCom. Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war here to blank out details.

Ironically, he is armed with vandal-fighting tools. What do I do? Anwar 19:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Meanwhile, the user has begun another revert war here inserting links from fundamentalist portals and here with his POV. Phew! Anwar 19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. This user strongly believes idolatry is a negtaive word and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the Russian Orthodox customs, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate before living creatures (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, snakes,...) and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope of iconography. There is no question of malice in the choice of words. I have restored the title so as not to reinforce stereotypes about the negative connotations of idolatryAnwar 13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave him a note asking him to discuss. Meanwhile, you should not engage in edit warring either, and try dispute resolution. Dmcdevit·t 19:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have no need to discuss. There was already a consensus to use iconoclasm rather than idolatry on Talk:Hinduism. Idolatry is not even used in the context of Hinduism, see Hindu_iconography. In fact Idolatry begins with "Idolatry is considered a sin". The implication anwar wants to give is that Hindus are sinners. I'm merely taking the same line of action with this user that Blnguyen (talk · contribs) and Nobleeagle (talk · contribs) did in the recent past.Bakaman 19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Frankly, in a brief search, I couldn’t a discussion of “iconoclasm” on the Talk:Hinduism page, much less a consensus determination on its use in favor of “idolatry”. In fact, I would be surprised to find such a consensus, since the term “iconoclasm” is nothing like a synonym for “idolatry.” I believe the word you’re seeking is “iconolatry”. Perhaps both of you should consider taking this term back to Talk:Hinduism as a candidate neutral (and more correct) term than “idolatry”, which is a pejorative term assigned from an “outside perspective,” as the first stage of the dispute resolution Dmcdevit has wisely suggested. Askari Mark (Talk) 01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

There's a page for Hindu iconography. As for reinventing the wheel I have done that at Talk:Hinduism#idolatry.3F. I will put it forward that I regard anwar as a troll, as do respected wikipedians like Blnguyen (talk · contribs) [70] & Ragib (talk · contribs) and respected former wikipedian nobleeagle (talk · contribs) [71]. Askari, I found a discussion here (Archive 16), here (archive 14), archive 14 again and probably it will be found on the Hinduism notice board. I question anwar's behavior and not so subtle predilections of a religious nature.Bakaman 01:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the links, Bakasuprman; I was searching on the word "iconoclasm", as you suggested, and could find no usage of the word on the talk page or in the archives. In any case, as I and Proabivouac (below) have noted, neither "iconoclasm" nor "idolatry" are appropriately used. And again, this is a content issue, not something that the admins here can resolve – at least not until the issue has duly made the rounds of Wikipedia's conflict resolution processes. If a consensus for "iconolatry" could be achieved on Talk:Hinduism, this would have the desired effect without going through more formal layers of mediation and arbitration. If you would prefer for me to propose it as an uninvolved and neutral editor, I will be happy to do so. Askari Mark (Talk) 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For starters, Iconoclasm is the destruction of icons, not the use thereof. An icon isn't an idol, but a picture. Whether that term is appropriate to Hindu art and religious objects, I don't know. However, the use of idolatry is pure POV - in this case, Islamic POV which here equates Hinduism with the (purportedly) idol-worshipping Meccan pagans. When User:Anwar saadat writes, "Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war to blank out details," I gather that he wants to tell the world the awful truth' about Hinduism: exactly the kind of edit we don't need.Proabivouac 02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a pure POV term. Ironically in this case (and not iconically), it's an idea most common to the the more fundamentalist end of the spectrum: see Buddhas of Bamyan. ॐ Priyanath talk 05:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:WOPR

Could somebody please block this unauthorized bot? Corvus cornix 19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like it was approved for a trial, updating the links to the users new username Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WOPR (01). --pgk 19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't see where there was an approval on that page. Corvus cornix 19:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/WOPR (01). See the bots userpage. It is also linked there. -- Cat ^chi? 19:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a request, not an approval. Corvus cornix 19:48, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see where it was approved for trial. Would you please throttle it down? Corvus cornix 19:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Throttle it down? Sure, what speed should it run at? It currently has a 4 edits/min. In order to complete 1500 edits the bot would spend 6.25 hours as of its current speed. -- Cat ^chi? 19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page. Or you could just not run it at all, since it really serves no useful prupose. Corvus cornix 20:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Unable to comply, "anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page" is not a valid speed/rate parameter. -- Cat ^chi? 20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Cat, forgive my ignorance on this matter. I don't know much about bots. But, is it possible to both increase and decrease the rate? That is, it's currently doing 4 in a minute, every minute, right? Is it possible to do, say, 16 edits within very quick succession, but then no other edits for the next four minutes? So that the bot's edits would appear as easily-ignored blocks? Bladestorm 20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, due to the mounting complaints here I decided to turn the bot off for now. As for your comment. I have not seen such an option on the bots configuration. It only tells me how many seconds should it wait between edits. -- Cat ^chi? 20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the bot is approved, it'll get a bot flag, meaning that it won't flood RC (if you ignore the bot edits). This is effectively a non-issue, as it is only a problem in the interim between now and its approval. EVula // talk // ☯ // 20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Should I keep running it? I do not really want to bother people. -- Cat ^chi? 20:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see the point in this. It serves no useful purpose. I suggest you stop running it immediately. -Pilotguy hold short 22:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot, WP:BAG or both ? Nick 22:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

People have done this before after a username change, though usually if there was a real name involved. Is there any particular reason, Cat, that you wanted to change all of these links? If not, since your old name redirects anyway, it hardly seems worth the trouble. But perhaps there's an issue we're all missing? Chick Bowen 23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

There are many reasons.

• I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
• In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time.
• Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.

The bots edit rate upset a number of people watching the RC feed. I have since adjusted the edit rate to compensate.

-- Cat ^chi? 11:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A somewhat unrelated question: do the IRC watchers ignore admin edits by default? CMummert · talk 02:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe PGKbot posts admin edits though with lesser detail since admins are expected not to vandalize. At least that was the logic I followed when I came up with the algorithm which PGK adapted to his bot. I am unsure if it was changed since. I have not been involved with IRC bots over a year. -- Cat ^chi? 11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Anyone reading, it should be noted that this bot is NOT approved, it was given a trial, to ensure that it was working well. The trial is long over, the bot has been denied due to policy concerns and concerns expressed by the community, and any further edits towards this task are being made by an unapproved bot. --ST47Talk 17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reference Desk Archival bot is eating data and not archiving it

Resolved

 – The bot operators said they intend to fix this, and I agree this is not a matter for urgent admin attention. nadav (talk) 10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Please take a look at the current status of the Reference Desk pages and also note Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Humanites_May_24 and Wikipedia_talk:Reference_desk#Bot did it again, or actually did it NOT!. Thank you. Root⁴(one) 02:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean/what the problem is. Does it need to be blocked? -- John Reaves (talk) 05:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

The bot is just removing the data instead of storing in an archive like it has always done. The links to the supposedly archived ref desk questions are red. nadav (talk) 06:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Contact the bots owner, this isn't a high-speed bot or anything, so I don't think it needs to be blocked. -- John Reaves (talk) 07:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

For now, you can place the data in the archive by using the history of the page. Od Mishehu 08:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User covering up bad behavior by deleting warning messages

User:HanzoHattori has a tendency to upload images of questionable copyright status and as a result has a lot of warnings posted to his talk page. He recently deleted all those warnings in this edit. Then when he was asked why he did this his response was to simply delete the question. It seems very much like he's trying to cover up the fact that he's been warned about copyright issues repeatedly. Is this considered kosher? 81.20.21.67 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

By removing them, he has demonstrated he has seen them, if he continues he can't plead ignorance of the copyright problems. --pgk 09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Software piracy links

Not sure if this is the best place to post it, but User:203.113.159.24 in this edit added links to a file sharing site to Adobe Photoshop to pirate the software. I reverted, but I'm not sure if totally wiping them out of the history is good, and what sort of clever ways admins have of preventing this in the future. DreamGuy 10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Reporting the files as illegal to rapidshare might be a good option, as they will then be able to remove them from their servers. (See directions here.) --tjstrf talk 10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Persistent vandalism at Friedrich Nietzsche

Over the last few days, an anonymous editor using six different IP addresses has persistently added an unsourced quotation in an inappropriate way to the entry on Friedrich Nietzsche. The edit seems to be an attempt to push some kind of pro-Polish anti-German barrow. The edit is identical each time, and the IP addresses have not been used for any other editing. Warnings have been posted on the talk pages, see User talk:83.22.79.54, User talk:83.30.49.70, User talk:83.30.30.35, User talk:83.22.69.61, User talk:83.30.44.30, and User talk:83.22.82.2. However, the anonymous editor has ignored these warnings, most recently here. This editor has now made clear their intention to continue vandalising this entry, and I believe a block of these six IP addresses is now warranted. Any assistance would be appreciated. FNMF 10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you requested protection? WP:RPP. Marskell 12:08, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I protected it. A situation like this should be dealt with at RPP, rather than here. Marskell 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Sumple wants a fight

... specifically a fight with me, but I'm not really in the mood. I asked Sumple (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to remove a personal attack from his userpage, after the target of the attack had complained to me.[72] In place of replying, Sumple blanked my request [73] and added this gracious note to his talkpage, about me being "persona non grata" on it. (I believe the roots of this personal resentment must be in our respective input of evidence in the Certified.Gangsta/Ideogram RFAR). I removed the attack on the userpage myself, warning him that I'd protect if he revert warred [74]; he restored it [75]; I removed it again and protected the page.

The situation is resolved, I suppose, and I'm by no means going to insist on him removing any of the silliness about me on his talkpage. (I see a bit about my number of braincells has been added now[76]—I don't care—surely fishcakes [sic] have at least five of them?) But it's not a very satisfactory resolution. I guess he needed to vent, and I'm not crazy about "winning" over an established user purely by using power answers and admin tools. But neither am I up for trying to talk with someone who blanks what I say withour reply. Anybody tactful out there, who would like to go have a chat? Feel free to unprotect the userpage if it seems the right thing to do. He seems to be trying to get blocked as a martyr for the cause of Telling the Truth about Bishonen, but please don't oblige him, I don't think it's necessary. Bishonen | talk 11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC).

• User:Sumple just posted an annoyed request to WP:RPP to have the userpage protection lifted. Declined - Alison ☺ 11:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I have nothing to say in this matter, save that User:Bishonen's comment: "fishcakes [sic]" typifies that user's arrogant mindset and refusal to let ignorance get in the way of power and control. Please read Fishcake for your own benefit. --Sumple (Talk) 11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where you're going with the fishcake thing but I notice that your talk page now says that User:Bishonen is persona non grata on your talkpage now, and that you'll revert her where allowed. It's obvious that you have it in for both of these editors. - Alison ☺ 11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I do have it in for both of these users. User:Certified.Gangsta because of his frequent vandalism on articles that I also edited, and User:Bishonen for two things: 1) unprincipled support for User:Certified.Gangsta, especially during User:Certified.Gangsta's RFAr, and 2) her subsequent active campaign to impede my editing, especially during my last involvement here on WP:ANI.

However, what I personally think about either of these users per se is irrelevant to the present topic.

User:Bishonen protected my user page. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who edits it, that amounts to specifically banning me from my own user page.

The apparent justification was that this link "crazy people" is a "personal attack".

I've read WP:USER. Show me where those policies justify removal of this link and protection of the user page.

I point especially to the "Removal of inappropriate content" section, where it talks about removal of content on community concensus, and latitude to established editors.

User:Certified.Gangsta has been allowed to get away with a UI spoofing banner on his user page despite numerous requests to remove it.

User:Bishonen seems to think, however, that I should not be allowed to "get away" with my link ("crazy people") when only she has complained about it.

Is my editing record somehow worse than User:Certified.Gangsta's? Please be honest. If that's what the "community" thinks, and it damn well looks like that's what it thinks, then I won't be staying around, thank you very much. --Sumple (Talk) 12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

You were asked to stop piping CG's userpage into "crazy people" via wikilink, and you wouldn't...now you come here and do it again? It's simply best to not link editors like that. This should be obvious.--MONGO 12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I'd say the bit of WP:USER which applies is; "using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is a bad idea [...] Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember: don't be a dick about it.". The header of this thread, "User:Sumple wants a fight", would appear to be correct, largely from your own admission and it's obvious that the three of you have a history. I'm not passing any judgements on your edit record or anyone else's, I'm just focussing on this one incident, as I responded to the WP:RPP request, is all ... - Alison ☺ 12:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT#Wikipedia_is_not_a_battleground --pgk 12:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I have no problem with that. I accept that it's best not to pipe other users like this. But many users have expressions of personal opinion on their user pages which border on WP:SOAP and WP:CIVIL violations, and I thought the practice in these cases is that if many people complain, they get removed.

Here's User:Bishonen, deeply involved in User:Certified.Gangsta's numerous disputes with other, contributing editors, acting on her own judgment as if that was community concensus. If the community develops a concensus that what I have there is not only "best not done" or "should not be done", but "must not be done", I will gladly remove it.

I don't see such a concensus though, and there certainly wasn't one when User:Bishonen just went ahead and "protected" my page after one revert.

Funny how my one revert is "edit-warring" to User:Bishonen, but User:Certified.Gangsta's thousands and thousands of reverts aren't a problem to her?

Do I want a fight? Now I do. I didn't when I deleted User:Bishonen's note.

Does User:Bishonen want a fight? She knows what I think of her, especially in relation to User:Certified.Gangsta. For her to not only edit my user talk but my user page itself is highly provocative. So who wanted a fight first? --Sumple (Talk) 12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Other people behaviour is never an excuse for your own. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. Surely everyone got told that as children? Community consensus is embodied in the policy and guidelines on userpages. --pgk 12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Given the time stamps involved, it seems that Sumple has been warned repeatedly, has decided that he really wants to fight a couple of users, and that he need not behave politely unless someone can present a specific link to a specific prohibition, and he's convinced that he is right and should go ahead with his quarrels. It isn't significant disruption, but it surely does seem (barring any calming/cooling...which I'm not seeing) that a short block to prevent further warring would be called for. Geogre 12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

What the hell are you talking about? What "warned repeatedly?" You can't just make this stuff up... --Sumple (Talk) 12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Whats all this discussion about? The pipe linked is removed, you replace it, then after it is removed again, and your userpage is protected, you ask to have the page reedited to include the attack...sure, that's likely to happen.--MONGO 12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking anyone's name into an unflattering reference, such as idiot or retarded is obviously a personal attack on that user, and is clearly prohibited under the guidelines for user pages. --12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Umm, discussion can cease now. Sumple has indicated to me via private communications that he has left the project for good, by changing the password to something random and removing his email. A pity it had to come to this. Regards, enochlau (talk) 13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Resolved

Sonicrules2 vandalised my user page by replacing it with [a threat]. Since it was a threat, I'm listing it at Incidents rather than Vandalism. I hope this is the right place. Lurker 14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Nope, this is the right place. Consider this user has a history of vandalism. He'll be indef'd, I reckon. --Haemo 14:53, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Indef'd, indeed. Done. -- Merope 14:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Lurker 15:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Scorpion0422 continuing to egg on

User:Scorpion0422 had been warned earlier against the use of deceptive edit summaries at Template:Survivor contestants. Since then his edit summaries at the template have been as follows: I'm not allowed to use edit summaries anymore due to some people having no sense of humour, Doing evil things, More evil things, even more evil things, Not going to bother with an edit summary because I know that 3 or 4 people are going to check what I did anyway (this edit removing an article he nominated for deletion that ended up not being deleted), Q, and, today, Removed about 12 different people (he in fact removed only one). As was indicated at the previous discussion, User:Scorpion0422 has in the past admitted to using edit summaries to bait User:Otto4771 (this one with the edit summary "HA HA HA HA HA") and make him mad [77]. User:Scorpion0422 was warned previously here to "stop editing in ways designed to make other editors annoyed" and that "deliberate attempts at infuriation will only make things worse." --Maxamegalon2000 15:43, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Evercloser

User:Evercloser has been adding information to the Brock University Students' Union article that is defamatory towards former members of the executive of the students' union. [78] [79] [80] and [81]. Since the final warning has been posted to his talk page, I have received an email from the user that I feel harassed and threatened by.

Mr. Saunders,

I have no choice but to include your name amongst the other names of those who conspire to keep the fraudulent activities of BUSU from being known. Wikipedia is not a credible source for information, this is knowledge you should know. I will begin the process of mediation as well as ensuring that when the fraudulent information is publish publically, I have no choice but to name you as a participant in protecting BUSU from litigation.

Allow yourself to become well acquainted with the St. Catharines Standard, I hope your are a subscriber.

I am not quite sure how to react to this email that I have received; I have therefore posted this case to the Administrators' Noticeboard for hopeful resolution.

Thank you.

Andy Saunders 17:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Potentially serious BLP concerns. User blocked, page fully protected. A delete and restore less his/her edits may be in order. Marskell 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Moved to semi-protection to allow you and others to edit, Andy. On the e-mail, it strikes me as a person on some sort of crusade but not of the truly unhinged sort. Keep any comments impersonal and process oriented as you've done on their talk already. Hopefully, it will blow over. Marskell 18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Image name as a personal attack

I think it would be a conflict of interest for me personally to take action regarding the title of this image, but I would appreciate it if someone else did. I would also point out that this is the fifth time that Bhowden (talk · contribs) has uploaded this exact same nonfree image of a living person (twice as Image:Stables.jpg, once as Image:Ianstables.jpg, once as Image:Iainstables.jpg. Thanks. —Angr 17:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Gone and user warned. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Still an unresolved problem

Administrator David Gerard recommended to leave the material here (see [82]). Here it is:

User:Northmeister seems to be identical with User:Ted Wilkes alias multiple hardbanned User:DW. I cannot assume good faith any more. These are the facts:

• A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page) such as Wilkes, Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material from Elvis Presley (see [83], [84], [85]), Graceland (see [86], [87], [88]) and Memphis Mafia (see [89]) that was not in line with his personal view of the megastar Elvis Presley. Similar material was frequently removed by Wilkes in former edit wars.
• Northmeister has copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass user Onefortyone alias IP 80.141.etc. See [90]. This is exactly the same material that multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes alias User:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See [91], [92]. Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit wars at that time?
• Northmeister falsely claims that user Onefortyone is identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of edit wars with Wilkes. See [93].
• The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeister here, was only used once by me in this edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See [94]. This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes alias User:DW and his IPs and other sockpuppets.
• Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with user Onefortyone on the same topics. See [95].
• More significantly, Northmeister addressed Onefortyone in this heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg. The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet, User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see [96], [97], [98], [99], [100], [101], [102]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
• In the past, Northmeister was repeatedly blocked by different administrators for WP:3RR, incivility and disruption, etc. See [103], [104], [105], [106], [107], [108], [109]. See also these comments: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116].

To conclude: Northmeister's recent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude alias User:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.

• Some excerpts from comments by others:

... is it possible that this could be more efficiently resolved at WP:SSP? ... -- Seed 2.0 23:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. — MichaelLinnear 04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

... I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

It should be further added that Onefortyone alias IP 80.141 was on heavy fire by Ted Wilkes and his sockpuppets from 2005 on, and it was Wilkes who requested this arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter (see this case of December 2005 and this newer arbcom decision) which proved that Onefortyone's edits are O.K. Consequently, Wilkes was banned from the topics in question. For instance, in the case of 2006 the arbcom said that Ted Wilkes has "repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Wilkes was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and he was placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Wikipedia for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recent arbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley."

• IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes. Wilkes repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. IP 209.247.5.139 is also talking about "outright hateful fiction" and "lies" about Elvis. See [117]. Like Wilkes, IP 209.247.5.139 denigrates sources he doesn't like (see [118], [119]) and applauds Northmeister's deleting tactics. See [120]. Like Wilkes, he attacks user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's" [121]
• Interestingly, User:Steve Pastor also repeatedly removes sourced content he doesn't like from the Elvis page. See [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135]. And he repeatedly placed hyperlinks to fan sites in the text of the Wikipedia article. See [136], [137], [138], [139].
• Part of the Elvis fan group endeavoring to whitewash the Elvis article may also be one-topic editor User:Nigel77 who frequently includes hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles. See [140], [141], [142], [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152].
• Northmeister now continues to whitewash Elvis-related topics removing well-sourced material from the Memphis Mafia article. See [153]. Similar material was frequently removed from older versions of the article by Ted Wilkes. See, for instance, [154], [155], [156], [157]. Northmeister even removed the same external links that Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted in the past in favor of two websites of Joe Esposito and Jerry Scheff. See [158], [159], [160]. Significantly, Northmeister now put exactly the same two external links in first place that Ted Wilkes preferred. See [161] and [162].
• Northmeister put material about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place on Graceland which was formerly included by banned user Lochdale (alias IPs 192.136.45.2 and 200.30.130.19), who also frequently removed contributions by Onefortyone from Elvis-related topics. See [163] and [164], [165], [166], [167], [168].
• Other users criticize that important and well-sourced paragraphs I have written have now been deleted from the Elvis article. See [169].
• This edit shows more than a thousand words which kind of trivial information Northmeister wishes to have included in the Elvis article.

All this is certainly not a coincidence. To my mind, there can be no doubt that Northmeister and presumably some other IPs and sockpuppets are identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbanned User:DW. Northmeister, as a sockpuppet of Wilkes, clearly placed material related to Elvis Presley'a alleged homo- or bisexuality in Talk:Elvis Presley (see [170] and removed a well-sourced quote dealing with Natalie Wood's remark that Presley and the Memphis Mafia members might be homosexual (see [171]). This means that he has clearly violated Ted Wilkes's probation. The arbcom says that Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See [172]. May I ask some administrators to put a stop to the disruptive behavior of this user. 80.141.228.157 17:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Note that while Wilkes used to edit from Memphis, checkuser shows that Northmeister is editing from somewhere else in the US (per IRC chat with Dmcdevit). Obviously Wilkes could have moved, or found another way to access Wikipedia, so the determination should be made by behavior, not technical evidence. Unfortunately I will be largely inactive until Monday so I can't do much to investigate this myself at this time. Thatcher131 18:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ted Wilkes alias DW has used many different IPs in the past. Therefore, it is quite clear that he must have found several ways to access Wikipedia. To my mind, he has also created many more sockpuppets he can easily use when some others are blocked. This would also explain why my edits are frequently deleted by new sockpuppets. 80.141.211.45 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppetry by the person filing this complaint

The anonymous IPs seem to be sock puppets of Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). An indication bad faith by this complainant, I am quoted out of context above: my concern is that the person filing this report is the one doing the trolling. This complaint seems to have been filed by Onefortyone (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) a/k/a Anon 80.141.et al. See also Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, and User:Duisburg Dude. Oddly, the above IP resolves to Germany, the same general location as Duisburg. Onefortyone was topic banned from Elvis Presley on April 27, 2007 for two months, but the ban was lifted because of sockpuppetry by one of the users requesting the ban. I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed to WP:SSP for thorough investigation. To me, it seems that the puppet master may be setting up multiple identities to argue and dispute each other, to create havoc and waste our time. This same disruptive complaint has been cross posted to other boards. [173] Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you trying to assert that User:DW and User:Onefortyone are the same person? Corvus cornix 18:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Anything is possible. This could be one person operating multiple socks, or several people in collusion, or maybe several independent puppetmasters. I think this needs to be investigated, and if Onefortyone is indeed venue shopping, filing bogus reports, and operating multiple socks to disrupt Wikipedia, then that user needs to be banned. Jehochman ^Talk 22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You must be joking, Jehochman. It is well known that 80.141 is the dynamic IP of Onefortyone. I have used this dynamic IP in order to avoid that my opponents harass me, as they frequently do when I am using my user's name. Would you please stick close to the facts given above. There are several big questions to be answered, like: are other users allowed to remove large blocks of well sourced material from article pages simply becaue this material is not in line with their personal opinion? Are users allowed to include hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles? Are other users allowed to use different sockpuppets in order to harass others and to avoid the 3RR and remove well-sourced material they do not like? I don't think so, but this is what my opponent(s) frequently do(es).

Just one example. Northmeister first removed this passage from Graceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitute this one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See [174], [175]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see [176]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removing these passages from the article. This is not O.K., and it is certainly no coincidence that the same deleting tactics were used over and over again by Ted Wilkes in former edit wars. 80.141.211.45 11:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Could it even be that User:Rikstar is identical with Northmeister? I hope not, but what looks very suspicious to me are some edits of 22 May 2007 concerning the Elvis Presley article. This edit by Rikstar included double content. Therefore, it was immediately removed by Northmeister in the very next edit three minutes later, as if Rikstar corrected himself by unintentionally using another user account. Significantly, all subsequent edits were again by Rikstar a few minutes later, except for an edit by User:Steve Pastor, who also seems to be somehow related to Northmeister (see above). Northmeister did only one or two other edits that day, one of them removing, as usual, sourced content from the Elvis page. See [177]. Interestingly, some hours after Northmeister had posted his negative statement about Onefortyone on 19 May, Rikstar also took the opportunity to formally register his "own dissatisfaction with Onefortyone" on the Elvis talk page, thereby (?unintentionally) removing the name Onefortyone from an edit by IP 209.247.5.139 against Onefortyone, as if he wanted to add some further details to this edit of IP 209.247.5.139, but changed his mind in order to put a comment by Rikstar in its stead. See [178] and [179]. All this looks very suspicious, because all these users are now very active rearranging content and removing critical material from the Elvis page and attacking Onefortyone, simply because the latter would like to include some well-sourced material in the Elvis article that is not in line with the opinion of the fans. 80.141.252.204 17:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

The following commentary by Rikstar only seems to confirm the suspicion that they endeavor to prevent me from doing further edits that are supported by reliable sources: "As for 141... I'm amazed he's been allowed to wreak such havoc. I foresee only problems resulting from any involvement on his part. ... if he ever tries to justify the inclusion of any patently inappropriate material by protesting 'But it comes from reliable source so it should be included!!!', or accuses the rest of the world of denying unsavoury truths, I'll probably scream and will see about taking the matter further." See [180]. 80.141.244.70 22:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Onefortyone, if your "enemies" wikistalk you, there are plenty of "neutrals" who will stop them if we believe you are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, I think you have lost the assumption of good faith by:

1. Filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues.
2. Making excessively long, incomprehensible arguments, instead of following that directions that require succinct posts. I suggest you start with your very best evidence and see if anyone sees the logic in what you are saying, then follow up.
3. Using a blizzard of IP addresses instead of your main identity. I wish you would always post under your user name. In my view your use of multiple IPs, makes it difficult for us to track all your cross postings and complaints.

Please see Wikipedia:Tar pit and know that I am trying to help you, and hope you will prove my suspicions unfounded. Jehochman ^Talk 17:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As you can see, I have not contributed to tbe articles in question for more than a week, although my opponents continue to delete well-sourced material I have written. I am now only collecting material in order to prove that I am still the target of my old opponent Wilkes and his new sockpuppets. See also this older statement by administrator Redwolf24 who said that Wilkes and Wyss were harassing me, "and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." The arbcom was of the same opinion. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the same deleting tactics concerning the same topics now continue. The arbcom clearly says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See [181]. So why are my edits frequently removed by one or two other users? The problem is that there seems to be no administrator who is willing to take the trouble to carefully investigate all the diffs I have given above and all the sources I have used, as this certainly will take a lot of time. The other message I put on the administrators' noticeboard some days ago has been removed. Nothing happened. This means that there are not plenty of 'neutrals' who will stop my opponents. That's the reason for "filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues." I am using several independent sources for my contributions, among them standard biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era, publications by eyewitnesses, modern university studies, journal articles etc. etc. (see [182]), but my contributions are frequently deleted. Instead, the other editors are including hyperlinks to fan sites in the article. Do you think that this is O.K.? I am at a loss what to do. 80.141.248.223 18:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Apparently user:Northmeister wasn't informed of this matter so I've posted a note on his talk page. I've known of Northmeister since he first started editing. I also had some familiarity with Wilkes. While I haven't reviewed this Elvis Presley material, I don't see any other behavior in common. ·:·Will Beback ·:· 05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)