Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive439

User:74.73.198.254‎ and User talk: Citizen Dick

I don't know how serious this is, but User:74.73.198.254‎ made some threatening posts to me on my talk page after I reverted some vandalism on User talk:Citizen Dick. I believe he may be connected to 74.73.195.174, who was just unblocked today and was also vandalizing the page and had a similar history of vandalism and personal attacks. What concerns me is he posted my real name and town on my talk page, and when he was temporarily blocked for 31 hours, decided to post it on his talk page which was later protected temporarily. If someone could look into this, see if its dynamic IPs or whatever, I'd appreciated it.--CyberGhostface (talk) 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

They're gone now because I asked oversight to remove them, but they should still be visible in deleted contribs.--CyberGhostface (talk) 19:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The IPs are on the same range, at least. Since it appears to be dynamic, any action taken with 74.73.198.254 (talk · contribs) specifically may be moot at this point. I've semi-protected User talk:Citizen Dick for three months, since this doesn't seem to be the first such incident and seems unlikely to be the last. Keep me/us posted if there are further developments. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:35, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with User:63.215.29.135

Resolved

 – Blocked IP for 3RR.

He's adding unnecessary images and trying to recreate a non-standard section called "Banner routes" that I deleted in the U.S. Route 27 in Georgia. I notice that he has been warned multiple times about vandalism, but I don't know if this really qualifies as that. It's disruptive, but is it vandalism that can simply be reverted on sight? If not, what recourse do I have here? Is this blockable disruption? S. Dean Jameson 19:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think these edits are unencyclopedic, but if you want to debate this, please see WT:USRD/STDS. On the fact of the undo edits, you have both violated the 3R rule... Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Really? My first edits were simply removing a couple of odd images he entered. My last two were removing the "Banner routes" section. How is that a violation of 3RR? Am I misunderstanding something here? S. Dean Jameson 20:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, the "banner routes" section was simply a bulleted list, with some text about a certain route going "by a Super Walmart" and things like that. How is that encyclopedic according to the link you provided? S. Dean Jameson 20:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didnt look at the very first undo. It could stand to be cleaned up and referenced, but the way it was presented was not very encyclopedic. Possibly see if you can find a ref and then create the section with a more clean layout. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't want to risk 3RR by making any more edits, and he's still at it, reverting my cleanup. As he's just come off a vandalism block, I guess I just assumed that what he was doing would be classed that way. S. Dean Jameson 20:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP for continued edit waring and a 3RR vio, 72 hr timer. --Admrb♉ltz (t • c • log) 20:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it would be acceptable for me to remove the now empy "banner routes" section he recreated? Or would that put me on the edge of 3RR? I'm not a highway expert, so I'll leave it to them to recreate it in an encyclopedic manner, if that's what they think is best. Never mind, you already did it. Thanks.S. Dean Jameson 20:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Consist and the Cladistics article

Consist (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) presents himself as Mats Envall, who has done research disproving cladistics (though I have not been able to see the referenced work). He has re-added on multiple occasions a disclaimer to the Cladistics page stating that cladistics is false. I have tried to discuss it on his talk page, but instead of trying to work on the article, he continues to profess that the Cladistics article is wrong, biased, and must be corrected. I've tried discussion on the talk page and even proposed a Criticisms section with the salient points of his disclaimer but in the body of the article.

He has just re-added the disclaimer diff and has yet to participate in talk page discussion. I feel too heavily involved to block or protect the page, so I bring it up here for discussion.

1. Assuming he is Envall, is he violating no original research?
2. Do his edits constitute edit warring and or disruptive editing?
3. Are the edits of a similar nature by an IP ([1] [2]) related to the same user?

Again, I feel I'm too involved to take admin action in this case, so I'm bringing it here. —C.Fred (talk) 23:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have blocked for 12 hours, and left an extended comment on the account talkpage. I blocked under the "disruptive editing" criteria, since it appears likely good faith ignorance of how WP (is supposed to) works. I haven't checked the sources, but would comment that own publications as source is OR but any third party review of same means only COI - which is allowable but is heavily regulated. The ip's are almost certainly the named account, but per AGF it is likely they are editing sometimes logged in and sometimes not - the isp provider may issue a new ip addy every time they log on, but I am not concerned about checking this. I hope that the short block will concentrate the mind of the editor, although my experience of "experts" who portray "the truth" indicates this is not certain. I hope the editor is more responsive when the block expires. LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:06, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

And he's back as Consists (talk · contribs), evading his block and restoring the "disclaimer" again. — the Sidhekin (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Sock blocked indef and the main account has had its block extended. Nakon 00:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I will shortly be signing off for the night, but if there are further socks I suggest sprotecting the article.LessHeard vanU (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:RSunn removing speedy delete tag from a completely non-notable article he wrote.

Resolved

 – Accounting4Taste has deleted the article

Sorry for the trouble. S. Dean Jameson 01:14, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

He wrote a vanity article about a non-notable "DJ", and has now removed the speedy tag placed by a different editor without comment. I replaced the tag. If he removes it, is that a blockable disruption. S. Dean Jameson 01:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Child with rainbow flag photo - BLP issue?

Perhaps I'm missing something here but aren't both article uses of a child holding a rainbow flag violating BLP policy? (120px|right)The two articles are Rainbow flag (LGBT movement) which, to me, is problematic to imply that this young child may be LGBT which is likely controversial and arguably unverifiable. The other article is Homosexual recruitment which infers that someone recruited this child which seems pretty problematic on a few levels. Banjeboi 20:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I was on my way to remove it from Homosexual recruitment but Allemandtando beat me to it :) There is zero justification for including it in that article.

It is a little less cut-and-dry in Rainbow flag (LGBT movement), since that doesn't actually imply anything other than showing the flag, but I would lean strongly against inclusion there either. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:47, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed and let me explain further my removal - It's very problematic on Homosexual recruitment because that article says that it about the practice of convincing someone to identify as LGBT. Anyone got any evidence to say that minor (and living figure) *identifies* himself as such? because I haven't (and hell I was *at* that gay pride march). --Allemandtando (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't show the flag clearly, so it's not a good candidate for the flag article. Using it in the other article would be OR, as it implies a conclusion that cannot be made. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Could we crop out the child? The image wouldn't be good quality but...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 20:52, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

There are already much better flag images on that page. I think it is probably best to just remove it.

And really, if we need more non-free pictures of rainbow flags... I mean, that seriously can't be a problem, can it? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed it. Generally, I think images of non-notable children should be avoided if possible. --Jaysweet (talk) 20:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Should we IfD this for WP:BLP?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 21:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Good point. I'll do so now. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

(e/c)I'm thinking more a speedy delete. Not being used on any articles, can't for the life of me think of one it would be useful for. Get rid of it? Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 21:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Argh, it's on Commons, and I do not have an account there, and there is no way I'm setting up an IfD without Twinkle helping me ;D IAR-delete is not out of the question, but I think a couple other folks (preferably admins) should chime in with agreement before we pull the trigger... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 27 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

Articles regarding children in parades or LGBT gatherings would be fine but I find it hard to believe there wouldn't be better images available. I just didn't feel the current uses were acceptable. Banjeboi 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

All the puffs on wiki and we don't have a rainbow flag between us? for shame for shame... --Allemandtando (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

See gay shame. Banjeboi 21:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this slightly of topic?...... Dendodge .. Talk^Contribs 21:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Outdent. Just a bit. I do thank the quick response of everyone and consider the matter resolved. I'm not sure deleting off commons is needed but won't oppose it either as photos with minors, I believe, are held to a higher standard. Banjeboi 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This issue certainly raises a red flag. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:04, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well i think WP:BLP needs to be updated with specific information about images and this is another good case where seemingly well-intending editors erred and could use some clearer guidance. I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#BLP needs clear images statements. Banjeboi 04:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Personality rights should (and probably does) cover situations like this. Even though this picture was taken in public (which normally means the people in it don't need to give their consent) there may an issue that the image's use is unfair to the child in it. Saying that I'm not sure that would be accepted as a delte argument at commons - but it should be another basis (after WP:NOR) for it not being used in Homosexual recruitment--Cailil ^talk 13:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the personality rights issue, as well as law protecting children's privacy on the internet (potentially) should preclude us using this picture for either purpose. Thatcher 13:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

We should probably add something regarding these concerns to WP:IMAGE--Cailil ^talk 14:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I think WP:BLP is more appropriate as the WP:IMAGE content is more about style and licensing issues. Banjeboi 16:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Did anyone stop to think that maybe, just maybe this was a kid who was out to help support his daddies or mommies? It reminds me of the whole hullabaloo over PBS daring to broadcast an episode of Postcards from Buster where the cartoon rabbit goes to a tree farm in Vermont (which happened to be run by a lesbian couple with a very charming little girl) to learn about maple syrup. Can we please resist the urge to delete because we ZOMG think of the children. Really, the paranoia is misplaced here. Please see WP:PANIC before doing anything rash on commons. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:09, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If it is a child marching in support of his parent(s) then it is certainly not appropriate in an article on "recruitment." For an article on the flag as a flag the problem with the photo is that the person's age is unknown, and that it may be inappropriate to use it without his parent(s) permission. (Even if it is not illegal.) I have no other issue or agenda here. Thatcher 04:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It's been tagged with {{Personality rights}} on commons so it looks like it's fine for now. It wasn't that the photo itself was problematic as much as the way it was being used. Banjeboi 21:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Fasach Nua

This user has already been discussed at AN here, but no real solutions were found. After continuing the disruptive behaviour, I issued a block (for full details, see this version of user's talk page). The user has since declared in multiple places that this block was based on lies and bad faith. Out of curiosity, I asked the user where exactly I had "lied", and in return I got a fairly civil, if not cryptic response. I replied, and then again got called a troll. This user has unfortunatly learnt nothing from their block, but I have: it appears that critisism towards this editor is often met with acusations of trolling, lying, and buckets of bad faith. This is in addition to the root problems this editor has, namely the constant removal without discussion of images they feel fail NFCC - a perfectly valid cause at first glance, but destructive when you consider that it is often done without discussion, repeatedly (thus violating 3RR), and abusivley (in my case at least). There are two issues here: this editor's behaviour and interpretation of the NFCC rules; and this editor's abbusive response to any challenges. Any help or input from other sysops would be appreciated. _TalkIslander 15:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

User notified of this thread here, notice very, very promptly removed here. Without an accusation of trolling, suprisingly enough. _TalkIslander 15:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I would add that the user has tended to taken an extremely narrow interpretation of fair use and run with it, IfD'ing a lot of images for removal. He has specifically noted his opinion that essentially, certain types of articles don't deserve images. Were this hyper-deletionist editing behavior to occur in article space, the user's pov edits would likely draw the attention of numerous RfCs, AN/I complaints and resulting blocks. The sheer number of IfDs across a lot of articles allows the user to escape cursory notice, though the user was in fact blocked for this sort of behavior before. Fasach Nua has not learned from it, and continues to edit as before. I affirm Islander's comments that the user seems intent on a razor-thin interpretation of NFCC that consensus has not intended. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I also have to say that FN has repeatedly shown himself to be disruptive despite broadly based condemnation of his approach. His interpretation of the use of non-free images is excessively narrow. He refuses to engage in meaningful dialogue with other editors and will not consistently afford them a fair opportunity to challenge his views in open forum or through established process. There is a clear disdain for other contributors and frequent references to the process of developing concensus as being little more than "mob rule", which is incredibly anti-community. He plays the rules that suit him and ignores the rest. Its appalling to have to watch one petty duel after another and the ongoing assault on other editors views and contributions. Anyone who has to consistenly accuse such a large number of others of trolling, wikistalking, lying, etc. should really be taking a hard look at what it is they are doing. I'm not sure what can be done, but its something that I suspect will be an on-going nuisance, because although its papered over by a veneer of correctness, at its core there is an unhealthy and distasteful well of disregard for others. Wiggy! (talk) 22:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I wonder how long it's going to take for him to get banned. I think he's had ample time (six months) to change, and he's not. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:41, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess I share Wiggy's frustration over what can be done concerning FN's behavior. Maybe a limiting of the behavior, so as to protect the project might be part of that resolution, such as a limit as to how many IfD nominations he can make, while at the same time attempting to counsel the lad as to the more accepted interpretation of our image use policy. However, that is me, trying to give someone the benefit of the doubt. As evidenced by the dust-up over at WProject Football this last May, FN has shown himself to be an adept editor who is not some newbie. He has a history of repeatedly engaging in pointy behavior and failing to follow consensus. If we give him the strongest warning possible regarding an impending ban, it just might help to rein in his more extravagant efforts to push a pov. I am not entirely convinced that the user is irredeemably beyond our assistance. He clearly knows how to edit, and I am of the impression that, if properly guided by someone FN can respect, he may yet be a positive editing influence in the Wiki community. Thoughts? - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 14:35, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts are that, judging by previous behaviour, anyone who tries to warn him will just be instantly labled a troll, and I see no way around that. _TalkIslander 16:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

The alternative is to remove him, and thus avoid the need to warn him. I think that's a bit much, but he has served to piss off just about everyone who comes into contact with him. We are a community, not his parents; if he doesn't think he needs fixing, then we can't parent him. We can kick him out of the clubhouse, though. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 18:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

(untab) Not sure I entirely agree with what your saying, but it's undeniable that something needs to be done, and I cannot do anything, as I'm too involved. I don't wish to give this 'editor' any more ammo. Help from another administrator needed. _TalkIslander 22:52, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? Someone's else's input would be greatly apprecaited... _TalkIslander 20:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(taken from archive - this has yet to be resolved) - other opinions/points of view needed... _TalkIslander 23:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• It appears that there is no appetite to discuss this matter, but there is also no objection to the 24 hour (now long since expired) block. Without (wishing to) look too deeply into the finer details, I would suggest a general warning that further disruption similar to that which prompted the earlier block will result in an indefinite tariff. I would suggest that the warning, and certainly the enactment of such a block, may galvanise any comment that may be provided in this matter. If there is no third party reaction, then the warning sticks and - if there are further problems - so does any indef block. LessHeard vanU (talk) 23:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This guy is an out and out disruptive user, irrespective of his 'motives'. He is operating on a one man mission, a la Black Kite. Hell, perhaps he is one of BK's 'throwaway' accounts. I'm afraid to say it, but there does not seem to be any admin willing to step up to the plate here, and knock this guy out of the park. MickMacNee (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact,it is precisely this sort of incident that colours the admins in their current colour. There are usualy plenty of them willing to pile in for easy incidents, but when it comes to stuff like this, they are rarer than rocking horse shit. MickMacNee (talk)

You guys are NOT going to succeed in getting rid of a user whose legitimate efforts at enforcing copyright policies you dislike, simply by screaming loud and long how "disruptive" he is. In fact, the above two postings by MickMacNee are the best example illustrating why Fasach Nua will not be blocked for what he does. A block warning, and a very serious one, goes to MickMacNee, for blatant personal attacks and disruptive campaigning. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Please get your facts straight, copyright policy has nothing to do with it. This user is operating outside of policy. Spamming IfD with nominations that are clearly intended to be pointy are clearly signs of a disruptive editor. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Being called a "disruptive user" by MickMacNee is possibly the funniest thing I've ever read. Mick, go and read WP:SOCK, then go and read our image policies, and then come back when you've got a clue. Oh, and thanks for informing me I was being discussed. Oh, you didn't. There's a shock, eh? Thanks, Black Kite 13:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Nah... BlackKite even opposed one of Fasach Nua's IfDs; can't be him. — Edokter • Talk • 14:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Not to mention that (a) it clearly isn't the sort of thing I do - even my "throwaway account" stuck rigidly to our rules and policies, and (b) Fasach Nua has been here ten months longer than me ... honestly, you'd think people would check tyhe obvious first. Black Kite 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I believe the following falls under disruption:

• [3]: Removing infobox with image, thus triggering a db-orphaned at Image:Kristy wright in 2004.gif.
• [4]: AFDing an article on the basis that it is a "non-free image gallery" and that the article was "non-notable" -- which was quickly overturned on the basis that the article was notable. The images were not tagged for being improper in any such event, and I cannot see a reason why they should be. It may be overloaded with copyrighted images, but that is another issue in itself.
• Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2008 June 26‎: Listing various images at IFD without tagging the image. seicer | talk | contribs 04:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Nonsense. Nominating an XfD, in good faith and with arguments based in policy, even if it later turns out not to meet consensus, is never disruption. The image in the Kristy Wright case was non-free and obviously replaceable (living person), hence an open-and-shut case; removing the infobox was the right thing to do because it contained nothing but the image. And tagging images on their pages has never been a requirement, just a courtesy. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you people. Right, it seems that a number of people feel that some kind of action is indeed necessary. However, I really cannot perform any action, be it a warning or block, except perhaps if the overwhelming consensus is to do as much. It really would be better for another uninvolved sysop to step in and deal with this. Do we have any admins who are willing to take a look, or should I resort to going door-to-door to some admins whom I find very helpful? _TalkIslander 08:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
    • To be fair, the recent ArbCom bruhaha might be distracting quite a few. Perhaps a door-to-door prodding might be called for. FWIW, I agree that this user has been on one of the worst fairuse pogroms I've seen in a while, many of which are just totally beyond the pale in terms of being incorrect. Wikinews gave these kind of loosers the boot, high time we did the same here. --Dragon695 (talk) 12:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
      • ...and I've just been called a troll again, here (WP:DNFTT link). Please, an uninvolved admin's assistance would be most welcome... _TalkIslander 12:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have warned Fasach Nua for infering, or at least appearing to, that you are a troll. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:06, 28 June

2008 (UTC)

I would take everything Islander has to say with big grain of salt. We have a history, Islander and I, and I know that he has indeed engaged in troll-like behaviour with me and inappropriate use of warnings/blocks. Other admins have had to step in and give him "advice" to lay off. Take it for what it's worth or don't take it at all. I had a username - no secret - and scrambled my old password due to dealing with Islander. Consider me a "character witness" or not. At the very least, I would suggest that Islander not personally pursue this issue with this user. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

72.92.4.157, accusing an established user of being a troll is a serious thing. Do you have any diffs that prove your point? You opinion is invalid unless you can prove yourself. The burden of proof lies in evidence.--SJP (talk) 03:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Help with User:64.41.7.95, please

Can someone please give me some advice on how to deal with this editor? They started editing on June 17 and came to my attention that day when they made a serious of extensive copy-edits to the article Casablanca (film): [5], [6], [7], [8] and [9]. Although these edits were not vandalistic in nature, they were unnecessary and, in fact, did not improve the article, and they were reverted by myself and another editor.

I then took a look at the editor's other edits, and found that most of them (actually, almost all of them) were of the same nature. They did not vandalise, but they left the article in distinctly poorer condition than before they edited. Clear and straight-forward language that was in no need of extensive editing was replaced with stilted language and convoluted constructions that were more difficult to understand. Occasionally, actual errors were corrected, but always along with a general diminishment of the article's quality.

There have been other problems as well. In this edit, in the article on Herpes simplex, the medical term of art "presenting" is replaced with a construction using the word "present". In this edit, to the article on the film Go Tell the Spartans, the words of a direct quote are changed, and my reversion (after notification to the editor of the error) was reverted by the editor.

The editor also has a habit on inserting a blank line after a section header, so that the edits they make cannot be directly compared to the previous version -- for instance, here.

I have tried to WP:AGF, and have left a number of messages on the editor's talk page suggesting that their edits weren't helpful and that they should re-evaluate their editing, but the response I have gotten is that my first message was deleted, any reversions I made that I brought to their attention were themsevles reverted, and my user page was briefly copy-edited.

If these are good faith edits, then I believe someone (besides me) needs to let this editor know that their changes are not improving the articles, and guide them in how to properly edit. If they are not good faith edits, then this is a particularly insidious kind of vandalism, because it will pass muster to the casual eye, while doing damage to the project. I haven't reached a conclusion as to what they are, I just know that I'm concerned that this editor is not responding, and is continuing to edit in the same manner.

I thank you for any assistance you can provide. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 05:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

This user is clearly trying to copyedit the articles in question. If you think that they are not making improvements by doing so, you should try explaining specifically what you think the problems are, rather than reverting with no discussion and telling the user to leave the project. It is hardly surprising that a new user will choose to ignore such rude messages. --bainer (talk) 06:16, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

That's an interesting take on it -- where did I suggest that the editor leave the project? I said that they should rethink their editing, and I stand by that. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 06:43, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I echo what bainer has said. Reverting with no discussion and making vague and problematic comments does not help.

• Example (in the first edit you made on the anon's talk page): "The changes you're making to this article are not helping to improve it. In some cases they are distinctly inferior. The same is true of many of your edits to other articles. I suggest you rethink your editing."
• Example (very recently): "You need to stop editing articles on subjects you have no understanding of...I will continue following your editing."

This is not at all helpful, or impressive, and is not something many people (if any) would approve of, and therefore, I'm not at all surprised at the IP's response, and I gather neither is anyone else. AGF, and remember WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.

To reiterate; If you think that they are not making improvements by doing so, you should try explaining specifically what you think the problems are. Engage in more collaborative discussion, and show mutual respect for other contributors. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this seems to me to be increasingly typical: someone comes with a serious concern, and the response is to totally ignore the substance of the complaint and turn on the complaining editor with accusations of incivility. When, exactly, did this become the headquarters of the politeness police?

Look, I agree, civility is important, but competency is much more important. And, yeah, all right, I do get a bit annoyed when bad or incompetent editing messes up perfectly reasonable articles, and when I start to get a whiff that darker motives may be involved, I get downright cranky. Whaddya gonna do? Change human nature? People who work hard on something naturally want to protect it.

Rather than trying to create homo Wikipedius, who smiles through the day and is always unfailingly polite, why not focus on something more relevant, like building a reasonably competent online encyclopedia for people to use, and that means focusing much more closely on what is done rather then on how it is done. It also means paying more attention to substance than to superficial matters of intrapersonal interaction.

It's my opinion that any reasonable editor who spends the majority of their time in articlespace would recognize this editor's work as being generally deficient - but perhaps I'm wrong. We'll never know one way or the other, though, if someone doesn't take a relatively detailed look at the editing in question (the way I did, by going through the edits in the editor's contribution history one by one -- there aren't that many of them), and examining them closely for their quality. As I said above, these are edits that will easily pass a casual inspection, you have to actually read them and compare them to previous versions in order to get the ways in which they hurt the articles they're in. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) ^{(talk / cont)} 11:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed, civility and competence are not mutually exclusive. Several users have suggested that you try a more constructive approach with the editor in question. Seems reasonable. Give it a try. 72.92.4.157 (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Ed Fitzgerald, you've already been told the basic principles-of-Wikipedia in an RFC on your conduct. "The purpose of Wikipedia is to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors" - I've highlighted the latter because you continue to forget this part, but overall, the statement has importance as a whole and its parts are intertwined. The problem is not the anon's (lack of) response to your rude comments - the problem is your poor way of handling it. You need to comply with this overall purpose and try again. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:AlwaysOnion

Resolved

 – Moved back by Tiptoety. — Wenli ^{(reply here)} 05:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

This user moved his talk page into mainspace here. Can an admin please move it back? --Atlan (talk) 18:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done Tiptoety ^talk 18:20, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

user:Papa Carlo meatpuppet of user:Kober

Posted to Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Kober
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I request that you have a look at the editing behaviour of user:Papa Carlo. Most of his edits are to help user:Kober by tag team reverting after Kober has used up his 3 reverts or has gotten blocked for 3RR. Just recently on the articles Georgian-Abkhazian conflict and War in Abkhazia Kober has been blocked for 31 hours for violating 3RR and Papa Carlo has miraculously appeared to continue where Kober has left off. Papa Carlo rarely gives any description in his edit summaries other than "POV" and rarely offers anything informative on the talk page other than to agree with Kober. I believe that Papa Carlo should be considered a meat puppet of Kober. For the purposes of 3RR and voting they should be considered a single user. Please see below for some examples/evidence: 1. Georgian-Abkhazian conflict Previous versions reverted to: 17:01, 25 June 2008 and 17:38, 28 June 2008 Kober's reverts: 1st revert: 17:04, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008 2nd revert: 17:08, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008 3rd revert: 17:38, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:01, 25 June 2008 4th revert: 18:00, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:38, 28 June 2008 5th revert: 18:08, 28 June 2008 Previous version: 17:38, 28 June 2008 Kober gets blocked for 31 hours for 3RR Papa Carlo comes to the rescue after a six day hiatus: 01:01, 29 June 2008 2. War in Abkhazia (1992–1993) Previous version reverted to: 10:18, 27 June 2008 Kober's reverts: 17:59, 28 June 2008 18:08, 28 June 2008 At this point Kober is blocked for 31 hours for 3RR on another article Papa Carlo comes to the rescue: 00:59, 29 June 2008 3. Abkhazia Previous version reverted to: 18:10, 20 June 2008 Kober's reverts 05:07, 21 June 2008 05:11, 21 June 2008 18:46, 22 June 2008 20:33, 22 June 2008 Papa Carlo comes to the rescue after a 2 month hiatus 02:45, 23 June 2008 4. Laz people Previous version reverted to: 19:27, 10 April 2008 Kober's reverts: 05:27, 17 April 2008 10:51, 17 April 2008 13:06, 17 April 2008 Papa Carlo comes to the rescue: 15:12, 17 April 2008 21:38, 17 April 2008 5. 2007 Georgian demonstrations Previous version reverted to: 18:01, 20 December 2007 Kober's reverts: 05:28, 28 December 2007 14:57, 28 December 2007 15:04, 28 December 2007 15:10, 28 December 2007 05:09, 29 December 2007 05:18, 29 December 2007 Kober then got blocked for violating 3RR Papa Carlo then comes to the rescue after a 1 month hiatus: 18:48, 30 December 2007 21:34, 30 December 2007 Using an IP sock 03:59, 31 December 2007 More examples can be provided. Thoughts? Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC) It would be helpful if you could open up a case at WP:SSP and copy this evidence over there. That would save space on ANI, but allow for further discussion. So far this looks like socking, but we'd have to examine Papa Carlo's other contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC) OK, I'll copy it over but two checkuser requests have come up unrelated: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Kober#Kober Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Papa_Carlo Pocopocopocopoco (talk) 04:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The trolls have eaten enough.

Relevant discussion at

→ another AN/I thread (Grawp is now making death threats...)

Now that my pages are protected, I have reconsidered my retirement and have returned to assist with this site. One little fool hiding behind mommy's computer isn't going to scare me off. I've also contacted Comcast about the death threat. You know. That date- and time-stamped threat. They really took it seriously. So, I refuse to get mad. Thanks for the support and please forgive me my moment of weakness. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 04:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Abuse of adminship by User:Cryptic; requesting recall of his adminship

I politely requested he userfy an article and he responded by calling me a "spoiled child," which if not a personal attack is at least downright incivil as a response to a polite request which is why I gave him a warning. He responded by blocking me for "trolling" without any warning, without acknowledging that maybe his reply to a polite request was a bit unfriendly, and without even explaining on my talk page. Obviously, since I am commenting here, this block has been overturned after disapproval by multiple others (see [10], [11], and [12]). Again, blocking without warning, let alone responding to a polite request in such a disrespectful fashion, is totally unacceptable for an admin. Moreover, claiming he did it to prove a "point" seems a violation of WP:POINT. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems like the block was punitive and ill-advised. Still, no wheel warring after it's release. though I am not an administrator, I'm not sure as to what can be done about it now. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 01:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe User:Cryptic is a member of the group of administrators open to recall. I would suggest a RfC/Admin Conduct, and provide further information. The block was bad, and response not much better, I agree, but you'll need more then 1 bad incident to be taken seriously if you're going to put in a request to recall/desysop him. SirFozzie (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The accusation of trolling probably stemmed from the fact that you gave an tenured admnistrator a "welcome to Wikipedia" warning, which probably was viewed as a deliberate slight. Although, I presume it was just an oversight. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

We have tenure? Awesome! ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 02:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, not in that sense. Wisdom89 _{(T / ^C)} 02:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

When someone is tenured, they're hard to get rid of. Some folks resort to assassination, but that gets messy and can cause legal trouble. My usual approach is to ring their doorbell and run away. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I don't really warn editors that much and so when I went to the warning template page looking for an appropriate warning, I wanted to go with the lowest level one I could find and so just went with that template. In any event, AfDs and DRVs, as far as I am aware, are supposed to be discussions, not votes, i.e. discussions in which we engage and interact with each other. How does he respond to a discussion? Well, instead of say commenting on the topic under discussion, he comments on me instead. Now, it's not just with me. Notice this edit summary, which seems to be something of an assumption of bad faith. See also: confrontional comment, losing cool, unconstructive edit summary, etc., and from a quick look, it seems with ease I can find more if necessary, i.e. a rather unhelpful and unfriendly manner of dealing with others, which is totally unbecoming of an admin. Plus, looking at his own block log, the self blocks of thinking "MSK's unblock shows the system's still broke" and "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet" are also somewhat wikidramatic and seem a bit of a concern for an admin. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hasn't Arbcom already set precedent in this sort of matter? [13]--Cube lurker (talk) 02:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While an Arbcom decision is indicative of what Arbcom may do in the next similar situation, their decisions are non-binding, and do not set precedents. --Badger Drink (talk) 23:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If we start approaching this as tenure, then really RfA is just an opportunity for a tenure-track position, with, say, quarterly or bi-annual reviews. At the end of six-twelve months the review board (bureaucrats) can decide whether you become tenured; if so, you are no longer open to recall. Mackensen (talk) 02:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

This bock and subsequent discussion here seems to go along with this one. Just pointing it out. Wizardman 02:32, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

The thing is that regardless of what happens here, I now have a block on my log that I should not have, which is why for preventative purposes so that he does not abuse the tools again, I suggest one or more of the following as possible solutions: 1) some kind of similar length short block of his account; 2) loss of adminship; and/or 3) an apology. Now as far as how I approach AfDs and DRVS, I set up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Insults like this are not going to convince anybody of anything. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(keeping this short to avoid an EC, although I'm not an admin and have little standing to comment) The last time LGRdC was creating massive drama in this forum was Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive424#Months of harassment from RobJ1981, where he claimed that he was so ill (kaff … kaff) that he would have to take a wikibreak, and all he wanted before he left was for another user to be blocked. Well, the other user was blocked, and, mirabile dictu, LGRdC came back a couple of days later as well as could be. Is there no one who can see this person for the lawyering, passive-aggressive, disruptive user that he is? Deor (talk) 02:44, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You really are going to mock someone for when they were sick?! Seriously?! As far as disruptive, maybe you should re-look at your own incivil personal attacks: [14] and [15]. Which is odd, given my multiple attempts to be nice and cooperative with you: [16], [17], etc. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC) --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

'Waah, an admin has reminded me that I'm being a dick; quick, kick him out!' HalfShadow 02:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

HalfShadow, retract that personal attack, please. Deor, this is rather bizarre behavior from the two of you.. what gives? SirFozzie (talk) 02:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry but arbcom has clearly stated that blocks are not to be used in disputes, much less to "remind someone they're a 'dick'"--Cube lurker (talk) 02:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, too, but I'm not going to retract anything. Giving an admin a welcome template as a response to a failure to userfy an article is just not in the cards. Block me too, if you want; the spectacle of sysops falling all over themselves to accommodate the Pumpkin's every wish is just more than I can stand. Deor (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

And, for the record, I deny that either of the diffs that Pumpkin linked to above constitute "incivil personal attacks". This is my last contribution to this thread. Deor (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I gave him a warning for making a personal attack. I am not asking admins to "fall all over themselves to accomodate me", but to prevent future bad blocks. I'm not looking for revenge or something, just reassurance that such things won't happen in the future. Jumping into this discussion just like you did at the one you linked to previously does not help. And as I've said, it is really disappointing that you continue to be mean to my even though I have tried to be nice to you. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record, how is this being a "dick"? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

For the record: he told you 'no', then, when he expanded on that because you didn't like the terminology he used, you first templated him and now you're suggesting he be de-sysopped. Admins do all the work around here and I'm tired of seeing them be dumped on because your feelings have been hurt. HalfShadow 03:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

After he said, "no," I politely explained my request. Did it really justify this response? As for the allegation against me, I respectfully asked the deleting admin about the closure and he suggested I go to DVR, which I did. Trying to talk to admins politely should not receive such a harsh response. And it's not about my "feelings," but a concern of this kind of thing happening again to anyone, not just me. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:16, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's to me that's why I added the single 'quotes'--Cube lurker (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of LGRdC's present and past behavior, Cryptic should not have blocked him himself simply for templating him, even if that's not exactly the friendliest thing to be doing. If LGRdC is behaving unacceptably, I'd suggest a user RFC or other steps in dispute resolution. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 02:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I up a while ago a table at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions with the hope of receiving constructive suggestions at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 02:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm with Morven here (shock). Y'all got into a spat and Cryptic made a bad block. It's not a blockable offense to template the regulars but it's an act of shocking tactlessness that leaves me feeling rather unsympathetic. Mackensen (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It may not be the nicest thing to "template a regular" but that's one of the worst blocks I've seen in quite some time. Cryptic needs to offer a full explanation. - auburnpilot talk 03:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty self-evident, doesn't it? By explanation, do you actually mean apology? Because you're can't compel one of those. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, I don't really warn people and just went with what seemed the tamest one on the warnings page after he made this edit. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That's no kind of an answer--you've been here a few years and appear to have a grasp of the language. Mackensen (talk) 03:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, with regards to warnings for comments like that would you suggest I do? Is it appropriate to give some kind of warning and if so what? Yes, I have been here for a while, but there is a good deal I haven't worked on or really think I know a lot about. Warnings are one area that I haven't really worked on; plus, I did not check his contrib history to see how long he's been around. So, I know for the future, what would be the way to go when someone calls you a "spoiled child"? Thanks. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

You say, "Hey, please don't engage in personal attacks." or "That was uncalled for, I'll ask a different admin." I think that is what is meant by not using templates and you having command of the language ;-) Avruch 03:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is it ever okay to warn admins? Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Being an admin doesn't really play into it - its generally considered impolite to template anyone but a newbie, there is a page about it at WP:DTTR. Avruch 03:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but that's kind of funny. Try to ues an essay in an afd and you get berated for it because it has no weight. Violate another in user space you get blocked.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

While the block was uncalled for and definitely not appropriate, LGRdC's actions aren't exactly perfect either. I think emotions were high on both sides, and frankly, LGRdC, despite the civility he conducts his discussions with, often irritates or aggravates users with his rationales. In this light, I could see Cryptic taking a templated message (to an administrator, really? That's really tactless) as trolling. This naturally does not excuse his conduct, and he should have been cool-headed despite the situation, but this is probably the situation he felt he was getting into. That said, going back to the original intent of the thread, you're not going to get him dysopped for this. Nowadays, the requirement for revoking adminship is more or less massive OMG drama that ends up at ArbCom, which this definitely is not. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:28, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Sephiroth, as I said above, I saw a personal attack or incivil comment and thought the correct response was to post some kind of warning message. While I do welcome a lot of editors, I really don't warn them unless it's the anon vandal warning template when I revert first time vandalism. If you look at the discussion that brought us here, I made a really polite request and responded to his initial response in a still respecftul manner. If admins look at the contribution history of the article in question, you'll see that it was one that I was indeed in the process of make serious revisions to. As for revoking adminship, it was just one of a few ideas presented above as a possible preventitive measure. In any event, the weather sirens are going off here as we have a tornado warning. So, with that, I guess good bye for now. And again, anyone is invited to my deletion talk page indicated above to offer constructive criticisms and advice. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 03:43, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Regardless, your response to an uncivil comment was a templated message, which again, is really tactless, and users can take it the wrong way. If someone gives an actual response (regardless of the civility), and you respond with a template, then it's basically like a slap in the face. You're implying (not that I'm saying you were implying this, which you weren't; however, this is how it's taken most of the time) that you don't want to waste time to write an actual message and you're simply falling back to templated messages to end the conversation. Again, I'm not saying your intent was wrong or that the block was justified (quite the contrary); however, you have to admit that it was a rather tactless act, especially for a user such as yourself that has been here for so long and should be familiar with such things. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, and I appreciate your comments, but I really have not done much in the way of warning users other than with the anon-vandal welcome (in my over 20,000 edits, there's maybe a handful and none that I can easily find at present) and I was honestly stunned by his reaction as usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I did not add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child," which I believed merited some kind of civility warning and I thought I was going with the lowest level and tamest one on the page. Also, before giving him the warning, I did not check his edit history to see how long he's been around. In any event, it really is not that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I did not demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Plus, it is frustrating that someone would react in such a manner, because as you know, sure I may disagree quite strongly with editors in discussions, but even though say you and I have had some strong disagreements in AfDs and DRVs, I still occasionally look for somewhere where I might be able to help you or get along a la User talk:Sephiroth BCR#Vandalism to your userpage so that it is clear any discussion disagreements are not personal or anything. I have done such things for a number of editors I have disagreed with. I guess it would be nice if some of those with whom I disagree would also take these kinds of proactive steps. I appreciate that you responded nicely in the aforementioned case: User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles#Re:Vandalism. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 17:46, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi, dropping a few words as someone who's worked with Roi a long time (both antagonistically and cooperatively--check his block log). As far as I can tell, Roi rarely does the template thing and probably wasn't aware that templating an established editor is considered rude. A word to the wise is sufficient: sysop or not, when someone's been around a while the custom is to open a dialog. Would someone consider doing a one second block to notate his block log, if he's amenable? It wasn't a blockable action, and one bad block almost never leads to recall (almost--check my ops history). The bottom line here for those who don't know him is that Roi is an inclusionist; a scrupulously polite editor who didn't used to play by the rules but learned his lesson and who expects those who have different wikiphilosophies from his to play by the rules too. Durova^Charge! 03:36, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• As an admin, given the community's trust, doesn't cryptic need to address this, he knows this thread is here. [18]--Cube lurker (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• [did it myself - nvm! Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)]
  • It is my hope that for anyone who has any advice for me to make use of the chart I made at User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions and to offer constructive ideas on that pages talk page. In any event, regarding that user, please note that an admin has already said as much. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
• Cryptic should accept an appropriate punishment and in future try not to perform privileged tasks which might be perceived as emotive. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
  • The thing that really had me here is that usually when I ask someone if they would userfy something, they respond in a friendly and helpful manner. As another example of a positive such discussion, please see User talk:Sandstein#Deletion of pizza delivery in popular such and such where I accepted a compromise. So, you can imagine why I for one might be taken aback by Cryptic's reaction to my request, but again, I didn't add the warning template into the discussion until after he called me a "spoiled child." In other words, it really isn't that hard to interact in these kinds of discussions in a civil and respectful fashion and as you can see in these examples, I asked, I didn't demand and in the latter, I accepted a compromise. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cryptic responded very rudely to a very reasonable request (and I think someone else should see to it that the deleted article gets userfied for him); templating him for that was a misstep, but a minor one. For Cryptic to then block Roi was a huge misstep, however, and calls into question his suitability for adminship. Everyking (talk) 05:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Wizardman has userfied it for me. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:38, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated rudeness and a retaliatory block is troubling, I agree. Let's hope it was just a one-off by someone who was having a bad day. If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC. Durova^Charge! 06:00, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we can condemn his action all we want, but this is really too far. We all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that. If it does it again, file an RfC on his conduct. If it continues past that, go to ArbCom. Trying stuff like that isn't constructive and really, is just plain rude. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 09:31, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone hectoring Cryptic like that does not help anyone, particularly Bstone. Neıl 龱 10:07, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Why should there be something wrong with asking someone to resign their adminship? Everyking (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not what he said, it's how he said it. Neıl 龱 10:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

If Cryptic was open to recall, that would be reasonable. Cryptic isn't in the category, so probably doesn't consider himself open to recall. It is a poorly worded request; it starts from the invalid assumption that Bstone has a right to make the request. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I am unaware of any policy saying that editors cannot ask an admin to resign. DuncanHill (talk) 15:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I politely, formally and civilly asked Cryptic to resign his admin position. I did not attack him, make over the top accusations or use any manner of hyperbole. It was a simple, formal request. He is free to ignore it. However, GRBerry, I am looking for a policy which might be titled "Non-admins are forbidden from asking admins to return their position", but I cannot find it. Can you point me to it? If it exist I shall offer a full retraction and formal apology to Cryptic. Bstone (talk) 16:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Bstone, going around politely, formally, and civilly asking admins to resign their bit, (or asking editors to leave the project, for another example) is neither constructive nor helpful, policy or no policy. Where I agree with you is that it's allowed. Policy doesn't prohibit you from being civilly rude. ---Sluzzelin talk 17:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand the "every admin gets one free" attitude so prevalent around here. I'm all for forgiveness and understand that we all make mistakes every once in awhile, but Cryptic has not yet been an acknowledged that what he did was out of line. Of course, we can never force someone to apologize, but we sure can take away his admin tools if he doesn't address this issue before when he starts blocking again. HiDrNick! 12:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

1) Contributors are humans with lives; Cryptic has not contributed for several hours now. 2) One of the early steps in dispute resolution is disengaging; before heading off (to bed?) he acknowledged the thread, and appears to be intentionally choosing not to participate in it. This is reasonable. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with point 1 totally, and did not intend to give the impression that I'm advocating swift action. I just think that this issue should be considered unresolved until it is addressed by Cryptic in due course. Editors above are saying, for example, "we all agreed it was a bad action, end it at that." It should not end at that. As a community, we should be unwilling to "agree to disagree" with Cryptic's implicit position that block was justified. I think most reasonable people would be content to let it drop if and only if Cryptic acknowledges that it was in fact a bad block, but this feeling that "it was a bad block, he's unblocked now, get over it" is unsatisfactory. If Cryptic refuses to acknowledge that the block was flawed and should not have been made, it should be addressed by the Arbitration Committee, and ultimately a steward. HiDrNick! 16:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I doubt any admin goes around with a smile and a get-out-of-one-bad-block-free card wondering when to play it. Sysops get pulled in six different directions at once. Administrators get headaches, catch the flu, stay up until the wee hours trying to get stuff accomplished on Wikipedia. On the right side a chorus yells don't you edit articles anymore? while each time the sysop starts a GA drive other people tug at the left sleeve. Admins are expected to have the wisdom of Solomon when dinner is about to burn in the kitchen. Slicing the Gordian knot isn't enough; admins are expected to remove it surgically. And in return for this unpaid labor, they sometimes get compensated in curses or worse. After a while--being human--chances are an admin will flub something once. If it becomes a pattern, yes, the community addresses it. But flubbing something once is called being human. Durova^Charge! 10:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

You know, I really wish that Badlydrawnjeff was still active. He'd be a good advisor to Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. They share a philosophy, but jeff was a lot better at communicating and working with those who disagreed with him. GRBerry 13:35, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to bring up a completely separate issue involving Cryptic that I feel is quite similar to the one being presented here, but shows pattern. I've been trying to get an explanation from Cryptic for almost two months now as to why they had placed a block on my account for a couple of days without any discussion, notice, or warning. Since then, I've asked several times for them to bring clarity to the issue, but have received little to no feedback from Cryptic. I've hunted for quotes to policies and have even brought up examples of other users with the same "violation" Cryptic very briefly claimed I made, but have gotten absolutely no response. To me, this, along with the new incident, shows a solid history of poor communication and abuse of admin tools by Cryptic. I would like to see these issues with Cryptic escalated as well. What can be done? Roguegeek (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

See what Durova said: "If it becomes a pattern, the thing to do would be to open an admin conduct RFC." Carcharoth (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The block wasn't a particularly defensible thing in this instance, although it could be argued that the templated warning, while understandable, wouldn't likely win friends. I think the trout might be the best option here for this single instance, but, if it were found to continue in the future, an RfC would be reasonable. John Carter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

What you're addressing here, John, is a report of a second instance (unrelated to Le Grand Roi's template warning and block). Avruch 18:58, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. I stand corrected. The comment by Roguegeek could stand a lot of better information as to what the specifics of the matter being discussed are. However, even taking that second instance into account, we still have only two instances. For the step being requested here, that might be a bit extreme. Although ArbCom would definitely be an option here, and I don't want to speak for them, I would think two could still be marginally acceptable, although some sort of formal notification of his conduct being specifically called into question would be reasonable as well. If a third instance were to arise, particularly after specific warnings regarding such conduct are made, then there would be much less question or defense of such action. John Carter (talk) 19:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At a quick glance, the Roguegeek block is related to several pages like this being deleted numerous times and Roguegeek re-creating them each time. But Roguegeek's talk page history shows a distinct lack of activity around the date of the block, May 3, 2008. Some discussion is here but I see no hint of pre-block warning. Roguegeek's deleted contribs (admin only) show re-creation edit summaries of "why are my own templates being deleted?" which are a little sad. Unless I'm missing something, I'm not real fond of how that went down. User templates deleted, the user not understanding why and re-creating, twice, three times, four times, still no discussion - and then block. No deletion explanation (until after the fact), no block warning, not even a note to say that the user was blocked! Peculiar at best. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:10, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, all I'm looking for is understanding and have gotten zero help from the user in question. And yes, I was upset about the block with no discussion what so ever. I just happen to stumble upon this conversation and thought to myself, "hey I have a similar experience." I'm still actually needing some advice that I'll take to a different discussion page. I just thought it'd be helpful in this specific discussion to show a little more history from a complete separate instance. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 20:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Admins are here to serve our editors and readers, not vice versa. One inappropriate block (Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles) is bad, two (Roguegeek) is unacceptable and then stonewalling Roguegeek's requests for an explanation takes it all over the top; I'm losing confidence in Cryptic's suitability to be an administrator. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I see now that Cryptic did respond to Roguegeek although I still consider the block to be very out of line. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a vague memory that there was some central discussion about deleting such "voting" templates, but I may be wrong there. That's beside the point, though. Cryptic absolutely should have communicated with Roguegeek about all this. Unless Cryptic can point out where this was discussed, why he blocked, and why there was no follow up, then there is a problem here. Admins have to be approachable, otherwise the whole system breaks down. Carcharoth (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

My concerns here do extend beyond the incivil reaction to a polite request and the subsequent block when I warned him for his comment to me, which again I got from Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace and I went with the Level 1 for "Personal attack directed at a specific editor," as I thought apparently incorrectly it would be the tamest reaction to go with for what I thought was a first time thing. In actuality there seems to be some kind of longer-term frustration he has regarding Deletion Review discussions. For the larger context, please note that Cryptic blocked himself for a month on 2 April 2008 under the rationale of "clearly too stressed still to be around people yet". Several comments in Deletion Reviews this year seem to confirm that. See for example "Doesn't anybody bother to check google anymore?," [19] (seven editors arguing to keep in an AfD is not "near complete consensus" and the crux of the comment focuses on an editor rather than the article under discussion), mildly sarcastic tone, says "Utter disgust" as part of his comment, note edit summary, says that "It physically pains me to complete this mangled review request," claimed clear consensus in DRV that ultmately closed as relist for an AfD that ultimately did not result in the article being deleted, "Like, y'know..." seems confrontational, use of "lazy" seems unnecessary, and calls the AfDs "nauseating" when again the article ultimately was not outright deleted. You'll note that I did not participate in a number of those DRVs, so it is not just a him and me thing by any means, but rather what seems to be increased frustration with DRVs in general. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where immediate admin action is called for. However I see reasonable evidence that Cryptic's conduct as an admin has been questionable in at least a couple cases. Taking this to a user conduct RFC might be a better venue than here. Friday (talk) 21:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've raised my primary concern at User talk:Cryptic#Your block of Roguegeek (3rd May 2008). The previous discussion can still be seen at User talk:Cryptic#Vote templates. From what I can tell the sequence was that Cryptic deleted a series of user templates, and when they were recreated he blocked instead of trying to explain why they were deleted. After the block had expired, the user (who seems not to have realised they were blocked until after the block expired) came back and asked again, and Cryptic then explained and pointed to some deletion discussions. The problem is that this was all in the wrong order. From what I can see, the block was a heavy-handed way to get a message across. If Cryptic can explain his actions, we may be able to avoid a user conduct RfC. Carcharoth (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, let's not rehash any of this any more until Cryptic is active and can respond. Like everybody else, I too have some concerns about the two incidents in question -- but without Cryptic being here to respond, this is just a pointless pile-on. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:25, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

one of the requirements for being an admin is not to have excessive sensitivity to personal criticism. anyone who would block after a relatively innocuous template, with a background of incivility otherwise to confirm its not an isolated incident, should be desysopped. the Tango arb case cited is very much to the point here. Further, this admin is one of the few remaining ones without email enabled, and it's deliberate. I don't accept his excuse of privacy--the same reason applies to everyone, & the rest of us tolerate it. If he doesn't trust gmail, there are alternatives. (

As for the matter giving rise to the block, personally, I've been templated several times, sometimes in good faith, sometimes not, and I can;t figure out why it should bother me very much. If our templates are too rude, it is a matter that affects everyone. After all, why shouldn't established editors follow the same rules as everyone else and get the same warnings if they do something that an editor thinks wrong? If we want to prohibit it, we should try to adopt a policy decision to that effect, WT:DTTR is just an essay, and I hope and expect it wouldn't pass. If someone wants to take it as policy, it even says: "Having said this, those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template. They may not be aware how familiar the user is with policy, or may not consider it rude themselves. They may also simply be trying to save time by avoiding writing out a lengthy message that basically says the same thing as the template, which is, after all, the purpose of a template." so its not just a block in a personal dispute, its a block without any support in policy either.

Sure, let's wait for a response, but the only response I think likely to improve the situation is a long wikibreak or surrendering the mop. DGG (talk) 00:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

His refusal to respond to any of this stuff is quite telling, I think. Wizardman 16:33, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm absolutely disgusted by the actions of Cryptic. Lately this user has broken a handful of policies. By being very uncivil to someone, unjustly blocking someone, and failing to communicate this user has not only broken the administrator code of conduct, but also WP:CIVIL. Clearly some action needs to be taken for these violations of policies, but I don't think taking the tools away for him is justified. Beside recently, he seemingly doesn't have a history of abuse.

I think he should be banned from using the tools for a while. Due to the seriousness of abusing the tools, only blocking him for a few days seems to be not enough. 1 or 2 weeks would send a strong message to him. If this behavior continues, then he should have the tools removed. I don't know if the community can give partial blocks. I know they can give full blocks, but I'm not sure about partial ones.--SJP (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm troubled by this contributor's apparent lack of activity (Nothing since June 25) and everyone's interpretation of it. It is entirely possible that he's on wikibreak (a bit convenient, but WP:AGF works both ways) and forgot to template it. He may feel really bad about his actions and be afraid/ashamed of editing. I don't know him, so I can't really judge that. In any case, I think he should be given an opportunity to defend himself/apologize before anything happens to him. If he resumes editing, we can assume he has read or will read his talk page, which has multiple links here. If not, the issue becomes moot. Until then, I think this discussion should be put on hold as unresolved. If he doesn't come back in a reasonable amount of time, he can be provisionally/temporarily desysopped since dormant accounts don't keep their bits. --Thinboy00 @261, i.e. 05:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello, this worries me. Some one brought it up on Cyptic's talk page here. I find it troublesome that the blocked individual had no idea he had been blocked. When users are blocked we hope they learn from their mistake; how good is the block if the blocked user comes back asking (in good faith, as is evident by her edit) why she was blocked? This block seems like a punishment. Perhaps the admin is stressed at the moment? It happens to all of us, but he should at least leave a note here about all this? Brusegadi (talk) 07:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Where am I meant to be looking for help?

Ok, let's try this again. I'm unsure of where the correct place to report this is, so if this is the incorrect venue, please let me know so I can put it in the correct place.

IP editor 158.230.100.102 (talk · contribs) has repeatedly made the same edits to the Space Wolves* page, which adds what looks lie POV ("Space Wolves are the best" type thing) to the article. He has been repeatedly asked to discuss the edits on the talk page and/or supply a reference for the addition, but has not yet responded, either on their talk, or the articles talk page. Some examples of diffs: [20][21][22][23][24][25][26]. I had reported it to WP:AIV but it was probably to early to be classed as vandalism.

The same edits have also been added by Ashleythor8sxd (talk · contribs), though I'm assuming that's the IP above logged in. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

* Yes, I know the Space Wolves article, and the 40K/Warhammer articles in general, are to "in-universe" - the 40K project is slowly going through them, transfering them to a 40K-specific article, and wikifying the ones staying here.

Don't worry it will not be in-universe shortly... --Allemandtando (talk) 16:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Well, the article looks much better now, and I believe this will resolve the edit war. I worry this is not exactly what Darkson was looking for, but it's an outcome.. and like I say, the article definitely looks more like an encyclopedia article now. Marking as resolved.. --Jaysweet (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with marking this resolved - although I've no issues with what's done to the article, it still doesn't answer my question of where I should have been looking for help. Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 08:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• tap, tap, tap* - Hello? This thing on? Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 07:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

POV

Hello can someone please tell Hudavendigar (talk · contribs) to stop adding unsourced pov to articles. I counted a total of 5 times he has added unsourced absurd content to controversial articles. Some examples, [27], [28], [29] he removes all reliable sources and adds absurd things that do not have references or are not third party. This page is more proof for bias, [30]. --Namsos (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

If this is a persistent difficult, you may wish to file a request for comment on the subject. Looks like User:Khoikhoi has had a word with them fairly recently, so I'll point them here. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I've warned Hudavendigar that he will be placed on restrictions if he continues to edit disruptively. He did not reply to my final comment, which gives me the impression that he understands everything that I said. Please let me know if he starts edit warring again. Khoikhoi 01:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

A simple review of my activities would reveal that a number of individuals have been relentlessly vandalising my edits and contributions, removing refernces, altering objective entries into povs then complain to the editors. I have refrained from using wiki tools to silence and intimidate and patiently provided more sources and references and contributed positively to wiki. I hope the transparent efforts of some here to silence me is obvious to the editors and I would urge them to also send a few warnings to the individuals who have displayed no good faith and openly abused the sytem to ban my contributions on what seems to be purely ideological grounds.--Murat (talk) 03:18, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Based on what you just wrote, I'm not so sure that you understand the message I was trying to get across to you. You have been involved in several content disputes with many users over the past few days, this is not a case of vandalism. Your comment here goes against what I was trying to stress to you on your talk page: Wikipedia is not a battleground. Please read this policy and the other ones I cited on your talk page so that you fully understand. Khoikhoi 04:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Despite my many warnings, Hudavendigar has continued to edit disruptively, and continued to revert and revert across numerous articles. Because of this, I have placed him on editing restrictions per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2#Amended Remedies and Enforcement, see [31]. Please let me know if there are any objections. Khoikhoi 06:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Milky water

Someone should probably take a look at this user. They claim to be a spammer, have made no real contributions besides vandalizing another userpage [32] [33] , and that one day they will "kill the admin who banned spammer of wiki" (they're also apparently a "fag"). This person is obviously not here to contribute. Oh, I think this is that blocked account he was talking about. --UsaSatsui (talk) 08:58, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Now indefblocked as a vandalism-only account. -- The Anome (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:William M. Connolley

Resolved

 – hopefully Viridae^Talk 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Can someone please tell this sysop to stop removing other people's comments, namely mine [34] [35] [36]? (Note: I've reinserted it a few times as it's my comment - not his, and he shouldn't be touching it).

Next thing he's probably going to do is protect the page and remove it again though. The last time I checked, this was both incivil and disruptive - I'm allowed to keep/explain my concerns on the RFA record, and he has no right or superiority to persistently remove a comment not made by himself on a whim that he thinks it's irrelevant. He also refuses to open a discussion on it.

Could someone please also inform him of this? Thanks - Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Generalmesse using socks to circumvent todays 48h block URGENT

• User:Ronpillao is one of the many socks of User:Generalmesse, who was blocked today for insults, 3RR violation and socket puppetry. User:Ronpillao was 6 months dormant, comes back to life today and continues the exact same nationalist propaganda crusade of User:Generalmesse. examples: Generalmesse edit and a Ronpillao edit. He even uses the same edit summaries: example Ronpillao example Generalmesse. I suggest: Block Ronpillao, extend block of User:Generalmesse (who is actually one of the many socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove and semiprotect First Battle of El Alamein, thanks, --noclador (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

ENDORSE Editor is now destructively editing articles including GADA 601 and Goose Green, some of the few examples of British and Argentine editors working constructively on Falklands War topics, as well as articles related to the North African campaigns. Justin talk 22:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Blocked Ronpillao 24 hours for 3RR at First Battle of El Alamein. Editors who have knowledge of this case are urged to add more data at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. If a strong behavioral case for sockpuppetry can be made there it could justify longer blocks for some of the listed accounts. Not all of those accounts are currently active, and I don't see any bad edits at Goose Green. EdJohnston (talk) 04:37, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Where are the admins??? No one intervenes while User:Generalmesse now uses User:Saintsarecomingthrough ([37]) to go on were User:Ronpillao ([38])left off before he was blocked for 3RR. It is time to: Block all the socks! extend block of User:Generalmesse (who is actually one of the many socks of banned User:Giovanni Giove and semiprotect First Battle of El Alamein. This is urgent as this destructive behaviour goes on for a week now! --noclador (talk) 08:52, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have fully protected the article for 72 hours, and suggest a semi-protect when that expires. I have indef blocked Saintsarecomingthrough, and upped Generalmesse's block to 1 month. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Kudos to the admin who has protected the page, I was just preparing a report for a page protection request. The rapid response is appreciated. Justin talk 09:07, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For any admin watching this, list of suspected sock puppets is here Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd, I've just added user:Topmalohouse that has been used to canvass none-involved editors over night. I suspect this editor will have many more in reserve. Justin talk 09:19, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Busy boy, another suspected sockpuppet user:Historyneverrepeats Justin talk 10:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• In an edit summary, User:Saintsarecomingthrough announced his intention to recruit meatpuppets from the comandosupremo forum. I looked at the forums at http://comandosupremo.com but did find any recruiting post. Also, that web site appears fairly serious, so he might not have had any success.
  • I indef'd partly on the publicly announced intent to recruit, rather than any success in doing so. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
• As to whether User:Historyneverrepeats could be a sock, he appears to a be a bona-fide long-time contributor and I didn't see him making any abusive edits. It also seems that User:Topmalohouse is a regular editor who works on Italian military history. In this comment he identifies himself as David Aldea. An author by that name has published a book about the Falklands War. How we managed to get an edit war involving both El Alamein and the Falklands is still a mystery. EdJohnston (talk) 14:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Except that on User talk:DagosNavy#==porfavor DagosNavy ayudanos--nosotros de sangre italiana-- en la pagina de la Primera Batalla de Alamein those two editors are urging User:DagosNavy to help him out on First battle of El Alamein. Which was pointed out in the evidence at WP:SSP. And for the record I've worked with User:DagosNavy on a couple of Falklands related articles and I do not think for one second that he is in anyway a meatpuppet of User:Generalmesse, just an innocent caught in the crossfire. I've also already explained that User:Generalmesse makes the link because he posted that he had a mission to clear the image of the Argentines as "poor fighters". Also, could someone have a look at the comment posted in the conclusion and tell me what they think User:Steel means? The first time I read it, it did not come across well and I'm still not sure if it means that no action is going to be taken. Justin talk 20:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• To User:EdJohnston: re. User:Historyneverrepeats "a bona-fide long-time contributor" 14 edits in a year??? and in his last edit he says that he was: "usando el nombre "generalmesse"" - using the name "generalmesse" to edit the articles: Siege of Tobruk and Operation Husky. re. User:Topmalohouse "a regular editor" with just 6 (!!!) edits??? in his last 2 edits (a whooping 33% of his total!) he complains that he can not add his imagination (or disillusion) of a never happened "gran victoria terrestre italiana" (great Italian victory) and that I'm not letting him add his stuff - well his stuff is fabricated exaggerations and/or blatant lies that were broadcast by Radio Rome or Radio Berlin during WWII and he wants to add them because those two are very neutral and reputable sources (for him)... Sorry, User:EdJohnston but you did a less than stellar work checking up on this two "users". --noclador (talk) 15:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm not convinced that Historyneverrepeats and Topmalohouse are socks; more details at User talk:EdJohnston#re. User:Generalmesse. I suggest that any further discussion should continue at WP:Suspected sock puppets/Giovanni Giove 2nd. EdJohnston (talk) 17:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Article hijacked by non-NPOV problem user Turkuun again

I have noticed that the eser Turkuun (talk · contribs) is trying to repeat the user case of Finland where numerous fellow editors found mistakes and violations in his edits - regarding the economy and politics. A quote from the case: The user Turkuun has aggressively replaced major portions of the article with his far-right extremist non-NPOV views. Something should be done about this. He is attempting to demonize the public sector, trade unions and the welfare state ideology, all of which are well-respected by the vast majority of Finns. In doing this, the views that he purports are often not sourced or not at all supported by the sources he cites, or when they are, the sources are not NPOV or the support is vague. The POV that he is forcing on the article are worship of the NATO and some form of laissez-faire economism.

Having presented the not so old case I am afraid that this is happening in Estonia article as well. He has been given warnings including warnings in the article talk page and user talk page that repeated reinserting is considered vandalism. The last warning was given in this post after which he immediately reinserted his version which has not gained any approval by the majority as the edits have a massive impact against the hole article. As he has made violating contributions before - see the Finland case - and now again, I would suggest to give him a ban in certain articles in order to avoid such problems in the future. It seems to me that this user is not willing to cooperate and with other editors and refuses to contribute in the article without having to rewrite and restructure the hole article. I have been almost 3,000 various edits in contributing to various article with one aim only and only - to improve them. I have never added any text onto the Estonia article which could be regarded as vandalism or anti-Estonian. Karabinier (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you please provide some diffs? The above is not a diff, but a version. Gwen Gale (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

For example, the previous version has the structure:

• • Economy
• Resources
• Infrastructure
• Industry and environment
• Trade and investment

• • Society
• Education
• Science and infotechnology

Turkuun version has only:

• • Economy
• Overview of economic sectors
• Trade
• Infrastructure

The user Turkuun has removed lots of data - entire chapters and sections - which are important to the article - as society and economy are far too complexed and can not be said in just few statistical sentences as he has done so far. Also he has not introduced his position in the terms of the society chapter deletion what so ever.

The texts provided in the sections do now create an overview about the countries economy. For example: Turkuuns:

• Overview of economic sectors

The 20 most valuable companies based on 2007 profit estimates by GILD are: Hansapank, Eesti Energia, SEB Eesti Ühispank, Eesti Telekom, Tallink Grupp, Olympic Entertainment Group, Tallinna Sadam, Tele2 Eesti, Sampo Pank, Tallinna Kaubamaja, Merko Grupp, BLRT Grupp, Elisa, Tallinna Vesi, Transgroup Invest, Eesti Raudtee, Kunda Nordic Tsement, Viru Keemia Grupp, Falck Baltics, and Pro Kapital Grupp.[78] In terms of 2003 sales, the 20 largest companies included Kesko Food, Stora Enso Timbe, EMT, Elion Ettevõtted, Eesti Põlevkivi, Silberauto, Toyota Baltic, Eesti Statoil, Rakvere Lihakombinaat, Lukoil Eesti, Kreenholmi Valduse, and Eesti Gaas.[79] Estonian Institute of Economic Research publishes top company awards in various categories, where Estonian small and medium size companies take many top positions. How is this related with the economy introduction - this is just a rip off from 2003 not 2007 Baltic Business news webpage Also there are data which has fact errors or is inaccurate as this is just a list of different companies of which some do not exist under the old name - for example SEB Eesti Ühispank - which was transferred to SEB. Also Hansapank name is to be changed in 2008.

• Estonia is ranked 21th of 121 countries in the Capital Access Index 2005 by Milken Institute, outperforming Austria and Italy among others. These figures are already old - 2005. Estonia was placed into 10th position lately - Postimees article about an american economy journal Forbes: Estonia was placed to 10th position in the terms of good economical climate

Karabinier (talk) 01:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great that you point out that the SEB Eesti Uhispank is old name, but remember, the article correctly only states that these were among the top 20 in 2003 and claims nothing about today. If you think introducing important companies is not essential at all, be bold and remove the list, but remember that Wikipedia provides references not original research. It remains somewhat unclear, however, what is that you are exactly saying here? Could you concisely summarize your point?Turkuun (talk) 02:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Instead of a logic introduction of the economy you just added endless line of company names which tells relatively few words for a reader who is about to read about a country he or she has never heard of. Your idea of starting a nation article economy section with a endless line of different companies is confusing and not good at all. This article is not a sandbox where to test every great idea one may have.

Would you care to comment the Finland article case where you have also achieved quite "good" reputation with radical edits and statements? Karabinier (talk) 10:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

For instance, top companies show that there are plenty of companies related to Estonia's petrochemical transit trade. But then again, I or anyone else does not seem to be against removing it! If you find econometrics or economic rankings "radical", improve the article! It would be considerate if you sometimes replied to questions about what is your point? If some number is two years old and you find an updated source, I doubt any editor is against updating it?

You copypasted a half article from non-free sources, and you seem to be offended that it was found and reported by me. That's why I recommend that you put your efforts on contributing free text&images from the beginning. You have done wonderful work on Estonia article and I'm sure all editors hope to see you continue with correctly licensed material. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit that I also found numerous non-free article rip-offs from your version - taken from the [www.investinestonia.com] webpages of which you seemed to have placed as the only grale of the economy section updating. Karabinier (talk) 15:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:72.75.24.245 and 3RR

This user has 4 time deleted/reverted statement confirmed with internet link in article Magnum Crimen:

• 28 June 16:44
• 28 June 18:43
• 28 June 22:46
• 28 June 22:58

It is possible to notice that user AlasdairGreen27 has rewriten article trying to find compromise but User:72.75.24.245 is again and again deleting link http://www.ex-yupress.com/feral/feral240.html. All in all in less of 7 hourse he is edit warring in this article against 5 different editors which is in my thinking close to record.--Rjecina (talk) 23:23, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment needs to go on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR. A warning about edit warning should been given first. --neon white talk 00:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  Comment: I've placed a 3RR warning on the user talk page at 00:33, 29 June 2008. I suggest that if the user reverts again after that warning, you report it at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as Neon white suggested. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

  • In my thinking warning has not been needed because he has been warned many times by other editors before about unconstructive edits [39] POV editing [40] vandalism [41] [42] and other stuff [43] [44]. My mistake --Rjecina (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
    • All above consists only false accusations - I was removing baseless and false disqualifications of this book by the people who never read this book. Also It is visible that the above does not create 3RR case due to the fact that there was a productive edit in meantime - I've added valid reference - the book title, author, publisher and stub tag. Moreover all above is an orchestrated harassment.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

IP making legal threat?

Resolved

Is this a legal threat? If so, I think a short-term block will need to be imposed per WP:LEGAL. Thanks, D.M.N. (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, it's a legal threat. The last line confirms it isn't as a joke or anything. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for 48h. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 09:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I get scared when people threaten to sue me in a sentence that includes the words "CHANGEING" and "INFORMOTION"... someone remind me to not let him anywhere near copyediting, please... Alex Muller 10:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a joke. Why would Vicent Kennedy McMahon Jr., aka Vince McMahon, care about a Wikipedia page? Just block the IP over vandalism. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Attention to organized disruptive gangs

I was editing the CPI(M) and I observed that there were a number of people who would just blank or delete my well referenced and relevant sections on frivelous reasons. I would just undo the delete but then another user would come and delete it. Within a short time and after three reverts I would become liable to breaking the three revert rule or I just had to wait for another day to restore the ruthless delete. It was frustating because I was a single person fighting against a group. Initially I thought it was edit war and a number of people were just protective of an ideology. I looked into the history of the page which goes over three years, I was shocked and horrified to see what has been happening here. It is not just edit war but a well planned an organized ploy. Many users before me had their well written and relevant sections deleted and in frustation they either stopped contributing or got banned for violating the three revert rules.

This has not just been happening on the CPI(M) site but also on most of the other articles on Indian political parties and groups. As a result if you see most of the articles on Indian political parties look onesided and have lost the NPOV therefore compromising the integrity of Wikipedia articles.

I am therefore requesting you to investigate and see for your self the disruptive pattern. And since many contributers have been banned I suspect some adminstrators are also involved.

I will not be surprised if i also get banned for raising this issue. So far despite many request for investigation I have been asked to take the matter to Dispute Resolution which cannot provide resolution to the problem I face. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk • contribs) 12:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment FYI - Concerning Sindhian's edits to CPI (M) please see, Sindhian's edits and 'Accusations and Controversies' chapter. This is a continious discussion on Sindhian's recent edits and their problamatic nature. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Jaysweet has volunteered to look over the edit history of the article, starting in a couple of days time. In the meantime I am getting tired of seeing Sindhian bringing up this matter on yet another forum. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:15, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Sindhian, I have briefly looked at the edits in question, and while some of the information is sourced and relevant, the general tone is inappropriate and I have serious questions about some of the sources. Also, I am beginning to agree with Soman (talk · contribs) and others that a separate "allegations" section may not be appropriate for a political party.

At this point, you will either have to:

1. Educate yourself further on WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:UNDUE, in order to understand why your additions will need to be rephrased/reorganized/scaled back;
2. Find another unbiased editor who is willing to assist your; or
3. Wait until Monday.

Further forum-shopping will reflect very poorly on you and your proposed changes. I trust you'll refrain from that in the future. Thanks. --Jaysweet (talk) 16:01, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I was having a feeling that Jaysweet is the leader of this diruptive gang but was not sure so far but now it seems obvious. Another thing I want to get investigated is how many editors who have contributed on CPI(M) website were banned and what was the role of Jaysweet in thatSindhian (talk) 09:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, how to blow your chances of credibility in 53 words of moronic paranoia... I am now officially Not Bothered in helping this pillock. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I looked into the wiki pages of other political parties of US, Europe and realized that contraversies are generally not mentioned. It seems to be a non-written Wiki rule and as a result I will withdraw my section on CPI(M) completly. Based on this reality I also realize that I have gone overboard in my suspicion about Jaysweet. My sincere apologies. I would like to withdraw that comment. unsigned comment added by Sindhian (talk Sindhian (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that Jaysweet is sufficiently robust enough to continue to assist as he had previously indicated, and especially in lieu of the withdrawal of the comment. I am now officially again bothered enough to assist if required. I also apologise for and withdraw the pillock comment. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Comment Calling other editors "leaders of a disruptive gang" is far from appropriate and does not facilitate constructive editing. This subject has been reported to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR as well. I would ask for his editing history to be reviewed - but I believe that his comments above accusing Jaysweet of leading a disruptive gang is enough information. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rotary International Talk Page

What a mess, I am getting fed up trying to be constructive.

See 'The Rotarian Affair' at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Bradipus

and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rotary_International/Archive_3#Protected

for some history.

See Talk:Rotary_International and it's history for the mess that has been made in the last 14 hours!

I hope you can see a way to fix it..... thanks. Ariconte (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I started a discussion about this on WP:AN last night; at present, the talk page is semiprotected to save the editors being attacked the stress of dealing with it. Tony Fox (arf!) 19:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Persistent harassment, false accusations and incivility even after multiple warning received

Rjecina is constantly engaged into incivility, false accusations, and harassment against me for more than two months. He continually reverts all my edits calling me a sockpuppet of some banned user. He requested the checkuser against me - which rejected Rjecina's accusations - see [45].

Furthermore, administrator Mangojuice responded to Rjecina's accusations here [46] saying

Furthermore, WP:AGF dictates that, given the checkuser results, we assume this is not the same user. Being from the same city is not misbehavior.

About this man harassing behavior - warned another administrator, Barneca here [47]

But I have no special knowledge about what's going on in those articles; all I see, frankly, is you and Rjecina reverting anyone who disagrees with you as a "sockpuppet of JAComment". I'm just not going to take you word for it, especially after only three edits that don't look bad to me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here [48],[49]

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([50]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

But Rjecina keeps reverting my changes under accusation as if I were a banned user. See [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57]

Rjecina was warned by other user - see Rjecina talk page [58]

Please, take proper administrative actions against Rjecina and his blatant violations of the Wikipedia Code of Conduct.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

I have taken the liberty of moving this from the top of this page where it was posted to the bottom for greater attention. Please be aware that this thread is related to the above Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:72.75.24.245_and_3RR. I have also notified Rjecina about this thread. AlasdairGreen27 (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Long comment by barneca

Since I've been mentioned by IP 72.75... as someone defending him, I'll chime in here. I'm not very active right now, and in a few days I'll be out of the country for 2.5 weeks and completely unavailable, so I apologize in advance for the disorganized brain dump here. If needed, please ask me for clarification soon, so I can reply before I leave.

• Above, IP 72.75... is taking my comments out of context. I said that to User:Mendaliv in response to his request that I block User:Brzica milos etc as a sock of the at-the-time blocked User:J. A. Comment and the IP. Please see my entire response here: [59]. I declined to block mainly because I was not convinced Brzica milos etc was the same person as J. A. Comment and the IP; since the IP has tacitly acknowledged above that it is the same person, I think this helps prove Mendaliv's point.
• I originally blocked IP 72.75... as a sock of J.A. Comment, used to avoid a block. When User:Mangojuice unblocked J.A. Comment, I then unblocked the IP, as there was no longer a justification for blocking. However I remain convinced (based on editing pattern, reading between the lines of the Checkuser, and actually their comments above) that the same person is behind J. A. Comment, the IP (and many more in the same range), and (now) Brzica milos etc as well.
• There is an accusation that this person is also User:Velebit. I believe this is likely, but haven't seen enough info to be positive, and don't have the time to research it myself. Please, someone familiar with this, supply the links to the multiple WP:SSP and WP:RFCU pages that apply here, which I should do but just can't right now.
• There have been a couple of checkusers done on Velebit and J. A. Comment and the IP range. The IP editor has taken the results as a vidication; however, I'm pretty sure the actual result is "nothing can be proved", not "the IP is vindicated". I apologize, hopefully someone can supply links to the checkuser page in question, I need to wrap this up and go.
• Until there is a decision somewhere that the user behind these accounts is also Velebit, I think the reversion of all their edits by Rjecina and Mendaliv based solely on the assumption that they are a banned editor should stop. For now, argue the merits of the edits, not the presumed identity of the editor.
• Summary: I strongly urge User:Rjecina, User:Mendaliv, and (I think, from seeing a comment somewhere that I can't find now) User:DIREKTOR to get all their ducks in a row, and prepare a fresh WP:SSP report, with all of their evidence and diffs organized, and settle this once and for all. Personally, I believe them, but at this stage all they're doing is reverting people as "sockpuppet of banned user", with no proof, and I don't think the case is obvious enough to keep doing that. Due to conflicting admin actions on this, an unclear CU report, and the fact that this is another one of those nationalist-POV wars that is so convoluted and so damaging, I strongly feel that this needs a fresh review, with all cards laid out on the table, and a definitive discussion and resolution.

--barneca (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

---

• I live in a democratic and free country, which I am a citizen (USA), which credo is that anyone is innocent until proven guilty! The comment above is just denial that very basic human right. I am persistently marked as a guilty party with no proof - a way used to excuse the reverts of anything what is not to User:Rjecina and Co liking. I already told it to barneca that I'd like to be judged only by the quality of my contributions to Wikipedia. What he proposed above - is a sort of witch hunt. No one (User:Rjecina especially) can be absolved this way as barneca proposed. That User:Rjecina was indulged into a long range of harassment of others is seen here [60],[61]

You, however, Rjecina, are very clearly engaging in a campaign of harassment in order to get as many opposing editors blocked as possible. You're apparently even keeping a list of trophies ([62]). I'll wait for comments from others here, but I'm seriously considering handing out some fresh sanction under WP:ARBMAC against you at this point. Fut.Perf. ☼ 10:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• • As to the WP:DUCK I hope that barneca is familiar with the fact that WP:DUCK is not a part of the official Wikipedia policy:

• • This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikipedia contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Two problems:

1. Yes, you are innocent until proven guilty, but in order to prove you are guilty, evidence is given. That is what Barneca is doing. He is also clarifying his statements and explaining his actions. Bringing up "innocent until proven guilty" is completely illogical and has utterly no bearing on these proceedings.

   Evidence is not given nor it exists - doubts and accusations are not evidence. J.A.Comment is absolved of any guilt but - here are claims that I am this user puppet! So - the 'evidence' is already rejected and that fact must be respected fully. Repeating accusations that are rejected consists a clear case of abusive behavior.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 17:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

2. Yes WP:DUCK is an essay, but stating that also has utterly no bearing on these proceedings. What Barneca is saying there is that since your editing patterns are so similar to the other guy's, there is little reason to believe that you are not the same person. WP:DUCK basically says that if something quacks, there is no logical reason not to believe it is a duck.

   Which 'patterns' you do see - may ask you? Are you User:Rjecina alter ego? I see the same pattern of behavior followed by both of you. Also, bear in mind that some 'patterns' are already rejected as a proof of guilt - see [63] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.24.245 (talk) 18:10, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

J.delanoy^gabs_adds 17:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

72.75.24.245, could you please stop interleaving your comments with other people's comments? It makes the whole thread difficult to follow, and in the previous case it broke the formatting of J.delanoy's comment and I had to go in and reformat it. Please leave new comments at the bottom. Thanks! :) --Jaysweet (talk) 18:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I was not originally going to get involved with this, I was only pointing out that two of your arguments do not pertain particularly well to this situation. However, I took the liberty of following the link you gave me, and what I saw is very interesting.

I would like you to answer this question, please: Why did you, on this page, (where you are trying to prove that you are not related to J. A. Comment) use almost the exact words and style that J. A. Comment did in his unblock request? J.delanoy^gabs_adds

Also, 72.75, above you say "He requested the checkuser against me" (emphasis mine), and link to Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/J. A. Comment. So, which of the editors in that RFCU are you admitting to being? Never mind, rhetorical question. There is really no doubt you are J. A. Comment; that whole issue is a red herring. The question is, are you also Velebit and all of his numerous sock puppets? I don't know the answer to that (and again encourage others with more experience with Velebit to present their case clearly and completely), but the more I see these types of games being played by J. A. Comment, the more credence I give to the accusation. --barneca (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) @72.74: Maybe piling on is not worth it here, but while I'm at it, can you please explain this? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 18:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Against me means that I used 71.252.xxx.xxx addresses earlier when editing. These addresses are listed in that checkuser request. When I say 'patterns' I've meant patters of false identification, of lies, of slander. Seeing J.A.Comment absolved I see myself absolved due to the fact that we in the same case (among others) falsely accused. Clear enough???--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Please note the IP has just gone ahead and blanked some of the above comments. I've reverted on the spot. D.M.N. (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Excuse me these are my comments - I simply re-arranged them.--72.75.24.245 (talk) 19:23, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • There has been proposition that I start new case against this user and so... You are all invited to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Velebit2--Rjecina (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
  • In the end is this is new user and not puppet it will be interesting to hear explanation how 72.75.24.245 knows Future perfect words from 22 April. For me this answer will be very interesting ??--Rjecina (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Tocino

Tocino (talk · contribs)

He often calls Prime Minister Thaci of Kosovo "the snake" despite earlier warnings. I think he should be blocked.84.134.113.43 (talk) 20:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Having checked the article for Hashim Thaci I note that "The Snake" is the Anglicization of his nom de guerre, as mentioned in the article, and is thus not innately pejorative. I only saw a reference to this name in one talkpage in the most recent contrib history anyway, so I don't think this is a matter that requires admin action. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:37, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

User Karabinier

• The report I put in copyright violations page: Article Estonia - User Karabinier (talk · contribs) is found to repeatedly reinsert large sections 100% copied from non-free sources, some of copyright violations summarized in this warning. He has been given warnings at least 5-10 times, including warnings in the article talk page and user talk page that repeated reinserting is considered vandalism. The last warning was given in this post after which he immediately reinserted violations. He has made non-violating contributions so I suggest not to give a permanent ban, but some temporary ban recommended by Wikipedia:Copyright problems (17 United States Code 512) policy might do good.
• I also point out that he is hardly participating in the talk page and repeatedly goes deleting content. Again, he has received multiple warnings.
• Could someone take appropriate action with temporary ban or inform how to proceed with him?

Turkuun (talk) 19:39, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Karabinier's talk page is full of warnings about blatant copyright violations and the few sections I checked in Military of Estonia support the concern that too many of his contributions arecopy&paste and non-free images. Another his article, Military of Estonia is a compilation of copy&paste from this page. Could someone remove those violations? Is there some automatic tool to check for copy&paste? Turkuun (talk) 20:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been following this fairly closely. It seems the copyright issues only concerns a few paragraphs, however facts and figures published by Estonian government websites is public domain under Estonian copyright law. In any case the correct response would be to re-write the paragraph in your own words, rather than deletion. However Turkuun has been massively restructuring the article, removing subsection titles, moving paragraphs around mixing it up. I tried to restore some logical structure [64] but he again merged and mixed many of the sections [65] . Others are not convinced that Turkuun's edits are moving the article in a positive direction [66] and his attitude seems to be excessively combative and confrontational. The end result is that the Estonia article is being excessively churned. The best response here is to fully protect the article for a week so that some concensus on article structure can be arrived at on the talk page before any major changes. Martintg (talk) 21:59, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the copyright violating section (the source says it's license is free for non-commercial use only, so one can't copypaste text from there) and restored deleted paragraphs you deleted. Estonian copyright law states that court decisions and administrative documents (and transcripts) are public domain, which probably means that websites are not under public license. The burden of proof is on the one who copypasted them into the article. Karabinier reverted his copyrights violations quite many times before I had to become confrontational enough to find some administrator.Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

• Seems Turkuun has also been massively restructuring the Finland article as well Talk:Finland#Article_hijacked_by_non-NPOV_problem_user_.22Turkuun.22, upsetting quite a few people in the process. Given that Turkuun has joined Wikipedia in April 2008 with only 500 edits to date, it seems remarkable that he was so quick to know how to use the various boards here and exploit a relatively minor copyvio issue in a way that preserved his version of the article. Could he be a sock puppet of some banned user, someone like User:Petri Krohn for example? Martintg (talk) 22:02, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The copyright problem does not disappear anywhere by accusing other users. I have always asked contributors for consensus process, and as you can read in the Estonia talk page, Karabinier has hardly responded there, except for accusing me for being "inaccurate". I have considerately provided well-references numbers, such as the fact that oil shale makes only 1% of Estonian GDP, and neither you or Karabinier has contested these in any other way than deleting them. Oh, and please look at articles Sweden, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, and Lithuania if you seek to make a personal attack. Otherwise I propose energies are directed on making Estonia better. Cheers. Turkuun (talk) 13:32, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I think the next time this user uploads something that violates copyright laws he should be blocked. On June 27th he received a [67], which states that if he makes another disruptive edit he'll be blocked. Also, in the past he has been warned many times about not uploading images with copyrights. He is clearly well aware that it is against wikipedias rules to upload copyrighted images. Also, he should probably be blocked for a fairly long period of time. He has been blocked in the past, so he's a repeat violator of wikipedias policies, and some of his edits break laws, so what he is doing is serious.--SJP (talk) 03:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

There are no more copyright issues in the out pointed articles provided by Turkuun:

• like this 100% ripoff from riikogu.ee (riikogu.ee content might be public domain, but no such claim is found): The Riigikogu elects and appoints several high officials of the state, including the President of the Republic. In addition to that, the Riigikogu appoints, on the proposal of the President of Estonia, the Chairman of the National Court, the Chairman of the Board of the Bank of Estonia, the Auditor General, the Legal Chancellor and the Commander-in-Chief of the Defence Forces. A member of the Riigikogu has the right to demand explanations from the Government of the Republic and its members. This enables the members of the parliament to observe the activities of the executive power and the abovementioned high officials of the state.
• like this 100% ripoff from mil.ee: The national defence policy aims to guarantee the preservation of the independence and sovereignty of the state, the integrity of its land area, territorial waters and airspace and its constitutional order. Its main goals remain the development and maintenance of a credible capability to defend the nation's vital interests and development of the Defence Forces in a way that ensures their interoperability with the armed forces of NATO and European Union member states and their capability to participate in the full range of Alliance missions.
• like this 100% ripoff from ria.ee: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. Currently the leading organization in the Estonian cyber defence is the CERT (the Computer Emergency Response Team of Estonia), established in 2006, as an organisation responsible for the management of security incidents in .ee computer networks. Its task is to assist Estonian internet users in the implementation of preventive measures in order to reduce possible damage from security incidents and to help them in responding to security threats. The unit deals with security incidents that occur in Estonian networks, are started there, or have been notified of by citizens or institutions either in Estonia or abroad.

Karabinier (talk) 11:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Great, it would be a shame to lose so much good material. Do you have a proof that they are public domain? Where can we find it? Also, Military of Estonia and Maavägi are your copypaste from mil.ee websites so this affects on those articles as well.Turkuun (talk) 13:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Correction to what Martintg claimed above: content of Estonian government websites is not automatically in the public domain according to Estonian copyright law. Similar to many other European states, Estonia exempts only [68]:

1. legislation and administrative documents (acts, decrees, regulations, statutes, instructions, directives) and official translations thereof;
2. court decisions and official translations thereof;
3. official symbols of the state and insignia of organisations (flags, coats of arms, orders, medals, badges, etc.);

A government website is not an "administrative document". This applies both to text copypasted from such site, and to images. They must be removed. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

The Estonian Copyright Act exempts also

1. news of the day; and
2. facts and data;

so it is not so clear cut. Government websites publish press releases as well as facts and data. Martintg (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Majority of the text has been already removed. At the moment I am afraid there is some Copyright paranoia going on. There is one section - transportation which needs still a little clean up from the issued text. This i will do in few hours. Karabinier (talk) 17:49, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I just remind that there are copyright violations also in Military of Estonia, Maavägi (both copypaste from mil.ee), and perhaps other articles.Turkuun (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Is www.mil.ee a literary or artistic work, or a publication of government facts and data? The issue becomes one of plagiarism, not copyright, the solution is to rewrite it in ones own words or properly attribute it, not deletion.

For example, the alleged copyright infringement cited by Turkuun: The Military of Estonia is introducing a new 21st century based cyber warfare and defence formation in order to protect the vital infrastructure and e-infrastructure of Estonia. This qualifies as "news of the day" and as a "fact" under Estonian copyright law. Martintg (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Brechin High School

User Jansennricardo has recently created the page Brechin High School. He started the page with school teachers included. This was removed by myself as WP:WPSCH suggests that this should not be included. Since then he's continuely re-inserted such lists despite them continuely being removed by myself and another user. Both myself and the other user have tried to contact Jansennricardo through his Talk Page here, the article talk page here and indeed with inline comments on the page source all to no avail. He has been editing with multiple small edits so it's probably best to look at the page's history to see the pattern. I accept there will be differences in opinion about what should be included but his refusal to talk to other editors about it means I feel something needs to be done. At the moment he's not guilty of breaking the three revert rule as recently they've not been in 24 hours. He has been guilty of breaking the three revert rule in the past but as there had been no warning I did not report them for it (warning has now been given). Ideally I'd be after a user block or page protection (without the teacher information) as an administrator feels is most appropiate. Brought this here as not sure where else to take it. Dpmuk (talk) 10:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

According to this, he appears to be a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I left him a final request to collaborate, otherwise I'm tempted to instate a short block just to attract his attention. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 15:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you know that he's at it again. List of teachers is back. Dpmuk (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Just In Case (Anye Elite song)

User:Chocolatecbj (article author) and User:Aleader are repeatedly removing the AfD nomination header from this article. Although undoing vandalism I'm loathe to fix this again as I'm at 3RR. Can someone else take over? Thx. Ros0709 (talk) 21:45, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Barnaca seems to have resolved it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it was LossHeard vonU who solved it, but if he's open to sharing credit, I'll take it. --barneca (talk) 23:41, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk page squabble

A little gentle intervention by an uninvolved admin might be in order on Talk:Intelligent design, where there appears to be a bit of a talk page edit war. --Jenny (recently changed username) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

thanks, I'd appreciate that. I was just coming here to file a report myself... I'm trying to make what I think is a perfectly valid point on the talk page - one that's getting some support from other editors - and I find that my discussions keep getting getting marked as archived without further comment. now I wouldn't mind the conversation getting archived if it was actually finished, but archiving it in the middle of a discussion is really just bad manners

and yes, I do understand that the editors there are tired of debating things; but no, that's not an excuse to simply archive a discussion out of existence. I'd like it if they would actually address my points rather than removing them. --Ludwigs2 22:42, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Posting of my personal information

Resolved

 – Revisions deleted and oversighted.

In an earlier thread, I commented about the anon-IP / throwaway single-purpose account based image blanking at Keshub Chunder Sen. Now, it appears that Ronosen (talk · contribs) and/or his numerous IPs (some open proxies, some single purpose sock accounts such as Worklikeadog (talk · contribs) are digging up my personal information and posting in the talk page. For example, here they dig up my personal flickr account (of my family photos) as part of their rant. I request immediate action against this violation of my privacy. (The sockmaster actually deserves a block anyway for his 3RR violation via the sock/proxy/ips (195.178.107.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (open proxy), 69.197.132.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) , Worklikeadog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), Ronosen (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)).

Please handle this immediately. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have deleted the revisions with the link to flickr from the generally accessible history. I will contact WP:RFO for you; they may or may not delete it, but now, no one other than sysops have access to that link. -- Avi (talk) 23:40, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I have also warned user:Ronosen. -- Avi (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've also requested a RCU for user:Ronosen, et al., here: Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Ronosen. ~ priyanath talk 00:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have been informed that oversight has been completed. -- Avi (talk) 02:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Hiram111

User:Hiram111 has been repeatedly removing sourced paragraphs in Druze, including here, in which he lied in the edit summary that he added the same thing in another section, and here. This isn't edit warring. The user is involved in a series of bad faith edits, for example here, where he removed two large paragraphs (one of which is extensively referenced), calling it "absurd unreferenced info" in the edit summary, and doing the same thing here. I warned him the first time here. He deleted the warning shortly after. I warned him again for the final time here, to which he replied with his own warning. The nature of his edit to Walid Jumblatt alone is enough to get him blocked. Please disregard the fact that I am anonymous so as to take my complaint seriously. Thank you. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 00:43, 30 June 2008 (UT== Reply to anonymous user 63.216.113.124 ==

The anonymous user 63.216.113.124 had insisted to place in the introduction of the Druze(which is a religious group) this section :

The Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah, an eccentric who prohibited the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating, is the central figure in the Druze faith, as he is considered by the Druze to be the reincarnation and manifestation of God[7][8][9][10][11]. He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation.

And other poorly referenced out of context info in the History section aimed to defame the Druze religious community.

When he was alarmed by several users on the Talk page that inserting the “banning the popular dish Mulukhiyya and grape eating” in the introduction is inadequate and that he added unreferenced information like “He was killed by his servants, but the Druze maintain that he disappeared and went into occultation”, and that it was out of context like here and here his reply was by calling us liars and that he owns the right to delete (like deleting and ridiculing cited facts like that the Shihab family was noblehere) and to add whatever information he wants(like that in the history section) after his edits where reverted he started engaging into editing wars and placing vandalism warnings on my talk page and that of Emilyzilch without realistic reasons while abusing Wikipedia’s anti-vandal policy to intimidate other users and to bully his way around.

About the Bad faith edits I guess its clear who was vandalizing the Druze page and who was abusing wikipedia’s mechanism in banning editors of his type.

About Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri page it’s clear that I was removing biased information completely contradicting with wikipedia’s NPOV policy and that of living people’s biographies.

I believe by seeing the users contributions it will be clear who is abusing wikipedia's policies and who is disrupting the job of building a better encyclopedia Hiram111 (talk) 02:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC) C)

I don't understand why you insist to keep on lying. Five books, including one by Mordechai Nisan and another by John Esposito, is not "poorly referenced" nor out of context. Then you say that I added "unreferenced" (in bold) information about him being killed by his servants and the Druze believing he went into hiding while you intentionally disregard that it is written in some of the sources. You lie again and point out, in bold, that the Shihab family being "one of the noblest families in Lebanon" is "cited" when it is clearly not. As for Walid Jumblatt and Saad Hariri, I don't think people are stupid enough to interpret removing large heavily sourced paragraphs as enforcing the NPOV policy. I don't have time for this. This user should be dealt with for his disruptive edits, and I'm surprised and disappointed that no administrator has given this issue any attention. Someone who has done this kind of edits despite warnings shouldn't be allowed to edit and should have been blocked long ago. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet of Thekohser?

Resolved

 – User:Subjected to harassment has been indefinitely blocked as a sock by Raul654. EdJohnston (talk) 05:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Subjected to harassment (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Statements on the userpage are consistent with Thekohser's editing history, and his statement on the ArbCom RFC page that Jimbo violated conflict-of-interest norms by appointing Essjay to ArbCom is a classic meme of Thekohser. Yechiel (Shalom) Editor review 03:42, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Druze

Resolved

 – Nothing to see here. --jonny-mt 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand how you people allow such edits to go unpunished. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you can allege citation and then post only that material which suits you from those sources. Your citations are suspect - I have examined them and they are biased, out of date (cf. taqiyya), and usually do not say what you claim they say! Not only that, but you refuse to discuss this issue on the talk page and you left a 1-warning ban threat on my talk page without signing or discussion. em zilch (talk) 04:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I made it clear on the talk page when I added direct quotations from the book. If you think they are biased, then it is your problem. Amusingly, the same sources are used throughout the article. 63.216.113.124 (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not the place for content disputes, and I'd like to remind you that administrators don't "punish"--we prevent. If you would like some outside help, may I suggest either the NPOV noticeboard or getting a third opinion? In the meantime, I'm marking this resolved, as there doesn't seem to be a need for immediate administrative action (and since the page is already protected. --jonny-mt 08:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:96.238.40.131 block review

Ok, block review for User:96.238.40.131. Per my last ANI notice, this IP address has been messing with Sportsbook.com and my user page. A few days ago, I warn him again about messing with the page. While it's been a few days (and an anonymous user), the IP address then responded uncivilly to say the least and with more crap on my user page. I blocked him a week but after this much time with the same user, does anyone object to a much longer (I'd say 6 months) block if he returns and acts the same? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously the same user. I'd say 2 or 3 months, but same thing, really. Longer than the standard one week to two week escalator, for sure. Combative and disruptive editor. Enigma ^message 08:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It gets a little more complicated. This is a sensitive IP address belonging to the US Department of Defence! Long-term blocks must be avoided, so please keep it to one week for now. It can be reviewed next week if it starts again. Papa November (talk) 09:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think there's a bug in the block page as every IP address is being flagged as belonging to the department of defence. Ignore my last post! Papa November (talk) 09:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User Mark Barnes

In an attempt to help the community, I recently added some factual information, with references, on the Crop Circle page. The next day, I noticed Mark had reverted all my information and blocked me from posting again. I am really confused on how my information netted a blocking. As i started reading the discussion, I noticed how abusive this Mark guy is at not allowing any information except the skeptical approach on this page. I can understand if more than him believe that the infomation i added added nothing to the page, though i believe it added ALOT to the singular viewpoint currently on it, but how did it deserve me a blocking. I believe this user likes swinging his stick around a bit too much, narrowminded approach to public information aside. If it isnt too much trouble, i would like someone to take a look at my changes before they were reverted and some of the messages on the discussion. I would just let all this drop if I didnt think this kind of an attitude can be really harmful to a public domain wiki such as this. Thank you so much in advanced.Rich1051414 09:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

You are not blocked, so far as I can see. Mark reverted one of your edits, is all I can see. Try Talk:Crop circle to resolve the content issues. I don;t see any admin action required here. Kevin (talk) 09:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Curious message on block page

Has anyone else noticed a misplaced message when attempting to block IP addresses? It states "You are blocking a sensitive IP address belonging to the U.S. Department of Defense. Please be sure to notify the Wikimedia Foundation Communications Committee immediately."

It appears at the top of every IP block page I've looked at in the last few minutes, for example, this fictional user. Any ideas where it's coming from? Papa November (talk) 09:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this. I only see the little block on the side of "sensitive IP addresses".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 09:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm currently seeing it for IP adresses. It's not the normal sidebox. Kevin (talk) 09:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Appears to be due to this change to MediaWiki:Sysop.js. bou·le·var·dier (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the change - it looks like that was causing the problems. Everyone needs to purge their cache and hopefully all will be sorted for now. Ryan Postlethwaite 10:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that solved the issue. Perhaps someone needs a good troutslapping! Spellcast (talk) 10:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've fixed it, and learned a lesson about testing in a live environment. Thanks especially to Ryan for the quick revert and Boulevardier for the notification; trouts are welcome on my talkpage. :) east.718 at 10:49, June 30, 2008

Urgent: Repeated disclosure of personal information

Resolved

 – Protective measures taken.

Ronosen (talk · contribs) has already been blocked for using open proxies for sockpuppetry, and also for disclosing my personal information. Now, in his talk page, he is again revealing links to my personal pages off wiki. As a quick measure, I have reverted the info, but it needs to be oversighted immediately. He is apparently stalking me and exposing my personal information on a repeated basis. --Ragib (talk) 04:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes please, would someone oversight the edits and also permanently block User:Ronosen from editing his talk page. He already knew it was a blockable offense and yet did it again. ~ priyanath talk 05:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I request another admin to handle the disruptive user's talk page immediately. He is repeatedly posting personal info there (he's permablocked for this very reason, but using his unblock request in the user talk page to reveal my info). I would have protected the page already, but I don't want to use my admin rights here, so please, an uninvolved admin needs to protect the page after removing the personal info asap. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisions with link deleted. Oversight contacted. Will warn that return of link will result in talk page protection. -- Avi (talk) 05:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Belay the last point, MastCell has already protected the page. -- Avi (talk) 05:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ummm... are you sure this is resolved? I am still seeing the offending url in the history and diffs. Maybe re-delete? Mahalo. --Ali'i 13:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Die4Dixie

Die4Dixie (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), a tremendious editor with a block[69] and a stunning history of warnings and incivility. Was warned[70] of an escalating series of blocks for any further personal attacks (see [71]), returned from a short period of inactivity from this particular account to accuse me of "douchebaggery", lying, and harassment - after making two bogus retaliatory complaints over my username for having cautioned the editor over incivility. I'm already at 3RR so could I please get someone's help in removing these nasty comments? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 08:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

THe comments carefully attack the behavior of this user who is acting like a wikistalker on my talk page.Douchebaggery, while not friendly, has been determined not to meet the threshold of incivil. I will get page diffential on it, and return. i wish this user would just go on and find some other ox to goreDie4Dixie (talk) 08:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[72] On my talk page this user claims to have made this edit. Therein the problem "lies". Claiming to have removed a report when you did not, well I'll accept a push poll on what it is.Die4Dixie (talk) 09:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ugh. Again the personal attacks about lying, wikistalking, and douchebaggery. I guess it comes with the territory of being on troll patrol. This editor has been nothing but trouble since their account creation. Yuck. Wikidemo (talk) 09:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Editor continues to accuse me of lying even after report filed.[73] Wikidemo (talk) 09:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC

"Removal of text

Policy shortcut: WP:RPA

There is no official policy regarding when or whether most personal attacks should be removed, although it has been a topic of substantial debate.[1] Removing unquestionable personal attacks from your own user talk page is rarely a matter of concern. On other talk pages, especially where such text is directed against you, removal should typically be limited.

Nevertheless, unusual circumstances do exist. The most serious types of personal attacks, such as efforts to reveal nonpublic personal information about Wikipedia editors, go beyond the level of mere invective, and so can and should be excised for the benefit of the community and the project. In certain cases involving sensitive information, a request for oversight may also be appropriate." Ever since this editor has made this report he continues to attack me personally. I recommend that he disengage, and leave me alone. Or at the very least dust off his wiki law books and figure out what constitutes a valid civil or personal attack complaintDie4Dixie (talk) 09:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikistalking by User:Wikidemo on my talk page

Wikidemo continues to remove my comments from my talkpage. He has a peculiar individual definition for civility and attacks. iWANT HIM TO DISENGAGE, AND GO AWAY AND LEAVE MY TALK PAGE:[74]Die4Dixie (talk) 08:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

(consolidating this preemptive report here - I warned the user to stop making personal attacks or I would file a report. - Wikidemo (talk) 08:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC))

Can you both calm down and leave each other alone?

There's no need to revert a user removing a message from their own talk page — it indicates that the user has read it, and there's no value in keeping it there as a public humiliation. We also shouldn't be continually reminding people about blocks they had several months ago. Comment on the content, not on the contributor.

With that said, I can see a lot of rudeness on the other side, too. Surely you can make your point without calling comments 'douchebaggery', and so on.

Please try to resolve your disputes through discussion, not with reversions and threats of reporting, because, since this behaviour goes two ways, if there were to be any blocks made, I would make the same blocks to both users. However, I think that you two can resolve this dispute without resorting to 'policy', and threats. We do have guidelines on dispute resolution, and I suggest that you both consider using those instead of this page, which is not a part of the process. — Werdna talk 09:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Amen. I vote he remove my page from his watched list and just go away :)I promise to stay off his page--Die4Dixie (talk) 09:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

With all due repect (to Werdna), you seem to be jumping to conclusions. Your comment indicates you have not reviewed the situation carefully. There is no "both ways" and there is no "dispute" to resolve. There is a misbehaving tendentious editor who and has been threatened with an escalating series of blocks and is engaging in the same problem behavior again, and there is me, an editor trying to keep the peace on the project. AN/I is the right place to report a user who should be blocked. Equating trolling, with being the victim of trolling, is not useful, nor is threatening a long-term productive editor like me with a block. Can you seriously allow the ridiculous accusations against me of lying, wikistalking, and "douchebaggery" to remain on the talk page? Wikidemo (talk) 09:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

your personal attacks only serve to further discredit your misunderstanding of wiki policy. Please review the policies, and leave me and my talk page. Your continued presence on my talkpage and shrill accusations do nothing to further peaceful editing here.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I really don't want to carry on a dialog with this editor. Yet there is no legitimate reason why I should avoid dealing with their disruptive editing when I encounter it just because they're being vicious and personal about it. Yet again the editor accuses me of lying[75], with some new invectives thrown in - something about dog vomit, persecution complex, and bad faith. Editing the encyclopedia, and even dealing with troublemakers, should not mean having to put up with this kind of abuse. The editor has been blocked and warned of escalating blocks for doing it again. I hope someone will actually enforce the behavior policies instead of letting this editor continue the disruption. Wikidemo (talk) 10:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

disengage, have a cuppa, leave me alone. your continued badgering to provoke me into a truly bannable offense is tiresome.Two admins have suggested thatt you do this. This forum shopping for someone who will reinforce your perceptions of me as a "bad"or "problem" editor while vindicating you as a peacemaker after your continued junking up of my talkpage and refactoring my comments on my own pages is over the top. Please, you are the only one attacking here.just stop.--Die4Dixie (talk) 10:26, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can see two users disagreeing. That's a dispute. Have you considered requesting a third opinion? — Werdna talk 10:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned, you and enigmaman are right. your third and his fourth one seem judicious and wise. Hopefully this is now resolved and he has ceased lurking around my talkpage.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

[76] would tend to show that I might need a third opinion about his behavior and my own. I'm happy to let him own the obama articles, which he appears to be happy to do as well, so no conflict there.I suppose I could open up my own report with all kinds of fancy links to his personal attacks, but frankly it would take to much time and it's really not worth it.Die4Dixie (talk) 10:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that third opinions are to offer nonadministrative perspective over content disputes, not for immediate, blockable conduct problems. There's no active content dispute and no underlying disagreement - it's only over whether the editor should be repeatedly accusing me of bad faith and lying, name calling, etc., over dealing with their problem behavior. Setting aside the editor's attempt to cloud the issue by trying to portray me as the problem, that would seem to be an administrative matter. I have no grudge or beef here. Only, if they continue the tendentiousness and disruption they need to take a break from the project. If you look at this editor's edit and talk page history, all of this is very obvious - it hardly warrants any hand wringing. Wikidemo (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating word, tendentiousness. If we have no content disagreement, how can you attack me as tendentious? I have been very careful to attack your misguided behavior, while you have stooped to name calling. Because you shriek for bans and blocks and dichotomize the editors into good and bad( you angelic, of course) doesnt mean the behavior of which you complain is what you say it is. Disagreeing with you is not tantamount to uncivil , nor is it a personal attack.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated, unrepentant accusations of lying, "douchebaggery", bad faith, and wikistalking, and multiple retaliatory administrative reports - hence, WP:TEND and WP:NPA. If this editor thinks it's okay per WP:NPA to call another editor a douchebag and a liar, could someone please correct them because they show no sign of ameliorating this - they repeated and amplified the attacks a few times after filing the complaint. Wikidemo (talk) 11:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

WOW! I never called you a douchebag, nor have i called you a liar. I only attacked the deviant behavior, not you as a person or an editor. You seem to have some difficulty appreciating the not so subtle difference. I welcome you to read the policies in question and not twist my innocuous comments into something that they were not. Please stop trying to game the system. You seem to have racked up an impressive record of reporting almost every editor who disagrees with you. That is an abuse of the system. I hope the errant behavior will be dealt with , and not you as a person nor as an editor.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:24, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Diffs are provided above for these repeated, ongoing insults. Your new ad hominem notwithstanding I have indeed dealt with a number of trolls, sock puppets, and COI editors here, and asked for the patient help of our hardworking administrators. My track record is pretty good - you will find that many are blocked or banned now. Wikidemo (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

READ the policies, Please. GIve a diff where i called you a douchebag or a liar.you try to make my confrontation of you behavior into a personal attack. If you have read it, the please do so again, paying careful attention to what it says. then point out where I have attacked you personally.Disagreeing about what behaviour you exibit it is not an attack. This is getting tedious. Yawn.--Die4Dixie (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Please don't continue this discussion here. If you can't resolve the dispute amongst yourselves, or at least ignore it, we may need to ban you from interacting with each other. You are wasting the space of this noticeboard with a frivolous, useless dispute that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia, and everything to do with inflating your respective egos. — Werdna talk 12:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Arsenalboi18

Resolved

 – Blocked. Nick (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This user seems to have decided to go on a spree of leaving profanity-laden and offensive comments on various user and article talk pages: see e.g. [77], [78], [79]. Presumably some kind of admin intervention is required, but I'm not sure whether I should be reporting this here or at WP:AIV. Scog (talk) 12:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

...and talk page protected. Some people should learn to quit while they're behind. --Rodhullandemu 13:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of User talk pages of Sockpuppets

The user talk pages of a number of sockpuppets of User:Dan d dog20 (CU confirmed socks) have been deleted by User:PhilKnight as G6 (housekeeping) speedies.

I've asked him to restore them as out of process deletions, on the grounds that;

1. We do not routinely delete user talk pages (although we may courtesy blank them)
2. These pages contain an important history related to the shenanigans of the puppetmaster

He has declined, stating that we routinely delete the user talk of socks. Would appreciate a second opinion from another admin.

Mayalld (talk) 13:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This isn't worth wasting more time over. I'll restore, however user talk pages of indefinitely blocked users are routinely deleted, and there is nothing worthwhile in any of the histories. PhilKnight (talk) 13:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it's a sockpuppeting issue, leaving the old information around in a visible way ought to help people recognize them when they return. I'd say there's some value in keeping them. Friday (talk) 14:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It would also help others if a SSP case comes along concern the indef-blocked user. If a talkpage is deleted then evidence is hidden. I could understand if it was deleted for personal issues/BLP/legal etc, but not in this case. D.M.N. (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The user pages weren't deleted, just the user talk pages, which have now been restored. PhilKnight (talk) 14:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Redirect-philic user

User:Mac has been creating a bunch redirects that seem to be unnecessary. (Clean Car Challenge and Strategic Energy Technologies seem not worthy of redirects to U.S. presidential candidates position on plug-in hybrids and Energy policy of the European Union respectively.) Can someone with the tools and knowledge see which redirects need to be deleted and do so? I have also warned the user about not creating links in pages that go to themselves... Brusegadi (talk) 18:26, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Plug-in hybrid, plug-in hybrid electric vehicle and PHEV redirect to the same page. Do they give fundamental value to the article. Yes and no. No because it is a redirect to a page with no adittional information. And yes because when I write PHEV I go to he right page to see the information I was looking for. In any case, the Clean Car Challenge can become a major and article in the future when more measures are proposed out of the campaign. On the other hand, more information about the European Union Strategic Energy Technology Plan : http://www.eubusiness.com/Energy/strategic-energy.02, http://www.greenpeace.org/eu-unit/press-centre/press-releases2/EU-Strategic-Energy-Plan-071122 (this is a criticism), http://ec.europa.eu/energy/res/setplan/doc/com_2007/com_2007_0723_en.pdf (this is included in the GHG emission control and elimination and energy policies in the European Union) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The clean car challenge was a major announcement by John McCain about specifically plug in hybrid cars, and Strategic Energy Technologies seems to come up whenever European matters are discussed on C-SPAN (yes, i really do watch it, im a nerd). The redirects seem to make sense (at least the 2 you linked). -M^ask? 20:31, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, both of the redirects mentioned seem to have context within the pages they lead to. This might be more appropriate for WP:RFD. – Luna Santin (talk) 21:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I have already warned Mac about this as well:[80] and [81]. Mac creates redirects to articles using POV terms he/she seems to endorse, and then insert links to those redirects in various articles. Half the time, the link redirects to the very page the link is on. Mac's answer the first time was that "Rome was not built in a day." NJGW (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Some of the redirects are now full and independent pages that used the {{Rhere}} template. Other articles begun as stubs. Do you think stubs would disappear from Wikipedia ?. This is an encyclopedia killing error.--Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, they seemed unrelated. I feel ignorant now ): Ill try to watch C-span! My apologies. Brusegadi (talk) 05:29, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Why ?. It was only an affair read a little more the article  ;-) --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it seems Mac is not going to comment until he/she comes back (hasn't edited since 6/27, so maybe tomorrow). In the meanwhile, any suggestions on how to handle future redirect issues? In the past Mac has ignored the issue (there's a thread from Feb. '08 on Mac's talk page that is about redirect problems as well). NJGW (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, a suggestion really established by Wikipedia: {{Rhere}} is an old and well established template that one can use to improve the encyclopedia. --Mac (talk) 06:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

What?! You created that page, and it makes no sense. What is that template for? What does "This page redirects here" mean? What is the point of redirects that travel to the same page they started on? NJGW (talk) 18:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see how that's used. How pointless. Just make a stub. The use of the template seems very obtrusive, which is probably why you don't even use it anymore. NJGW (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dem1970: Legal Threat

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. (on Dem1970 Talk)

The article at issue is Steve Windom.

My most recent edit to the article is Steve Windom(version).

Dem1970 has made a threat of legal action ("If you continue to defame people online, the proper authorities will be notified.") at my Talk page, User Talk: Audemus Defendere.

Dem1970, who has never made an edit other than to the subject article (and my Talk), has made several edits to the page over the last 72 hours, removing material I had added. These culminated in a mass deletion of material at Steve Windom (version).

If you will review the talk page on the article, you can see where I have tried to get Dem1970 to work with me on accurate, balanced NPOV language, without success. I have placed a WP:3R warning on Dem1970's talk page. This is an NLT complaint, not an effort to get an Admin into an edit war (which I am trying to avoid), but the background may be useful.

And FTR, about Dem1970’s invocation of “privacy.” The subject of the article is a former Lt. Governor, who ran for Governor. As the cited news stories indicate, the controversy was the subject of dozens of newspaper and TV reports. “Privacy” is hardly an issue. I also wrestled with the language of my last edit to get NPOV, and was careful not to inhale without a cite to a major Alabama daily newspaper.

Dem1970 also made similar comments, describing my additions as defamatory, after creating my user page, which I had not previously desired to have created, see WP:UP#OWN. The page was deleted at my request by Admin Athaenara at 03:44, 29 June 2008.

Thanks guys, and sorry to have to bother you! Audemus Defendere (talk) 05:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like it may be the article's subject; this is a delicate situation, and should be handled with care. At the moment, I've invited Dem1970 to join us in discussion on the article's talk page, and will shortly be cross-posting this to the BLP noticeboard. Will try to keep an eye on things, from here. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:52, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope he joins us there; my luck on that has been spotty. And I, too, am wondering if it's the subject. If not, he/she has a copyright issue with the photo from the subject's website. (see Talk). Audemus Defendere (talk) 06:05, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Luna, all evidence points to Dem1970 being a single purpose account. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

the article nonetheless does have some problems. In particularly the video capture there is probably inappropriate . DGG (talk) 17:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia and my account is not single purpose. I am not a programmer and am learning the rules still! I did not mean to create a page for Audemus; I was trying to leave a comment on his talk page and put it in the wrong place. I was also not making a legal threat and have clarified that sentence...proper authority = Wikipedia Admin. I am a Democrat who is offended by Audemus' original edits (i.e., hacket jobs) on a number of Republican candidates. Many of those have also been fixed by others before I needed to jump in. I have written more on the specific talk page at issue but hope Audemus' overemphasis of certain events and clear bias against the subjects ends here. Best,Dem1970 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I was wrong. :) Ottava Rima (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy to report, Dem1970 is on the Talk page of the subject article. Now that he's there (how sexist of me to presume "he"), I have tried to set out the outstanding issues as I see them, for those with an adequate supply of coffee. Everyone jump in and let's see what happens. We do have some additional editors jumping in rather than talking, including one with a bare IP address and no other contribs.

Ottava, I hope you were wrong. Let's see.

And DGG, the topic may be hard to understate. If you read the pertinent part of my Talk, you'll see the "jug" deal may have cost the subject the 2002 Governor's race. And it's not like the desk wasn't blocking the view in the pic. :-) Audemus Defendere (talk) 03:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I sent Dem1970 an email, and I am waiting fro a response back. I don't know anything about the page, which side is "correct" or not, or anything similar. Instead, I will try to guide Dem towards the best way to present his argument in a civil and respectful way in order to ensure that others can understand. Ottava Rima (talk) 14:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I responded on your talk page. I thought the "edit war" was over. I did not make any additional changes and did not make any legal threats. Thank you for stepping in to broker peace, but we're good, no? Other, more seasoned, editors are now involved. I have been writing on talk pages, now that I know to. My early edits do nothing more than betray my newcomer status and once I learned some of the basics they got less deep! Dem1970 (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Finding those who agree with you is an important first step. However, gaining the respect of those who disagree with you is the ultimate goal. Lets try to build bridges and work with Audemus to both of your satisfactions. How does that sound? :) Ottava Rima (talk) 16:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A small proposal: I have issued a request here. Now, if Audemus and Dem1970 are willing to provide information, we can work together to build a longer page that puts together a nice, well-rounded biography that will be informative, honest, and make everyone comfortable. However, I ask permission from both sides to archive the talk page in order to preserve, but remove from immediate sight, the dispute in order to show that both sides are willing to move on and improve the article instead of beating a dead horse. How does that sound? Ottava Rima (talk) 18:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Repeated incivility by Revan ltrl

This user has repeatedly made uncivil comments on Talk:System of a Down (diffs: 1, 2, 3, and 4.) I have warned Revan Itrl several times, both on the talk page and on his talk page, to no avail. I'm getting nowhere with him, and felt it would be inappropriate to take further action myself, given that I have been the target of his incivility. Thanks for any assistance. Parsecboy (talk) 02:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have given Revan ltrl (talk · contribs) a final warning for personal attacks and incivility. --Jaysweet (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Parsecboy (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sneaky vandal

Resolved

Special:Contributions/Bigntall18 - I get the feeling most RC patrollers aren't checking edits with edit summaries. Block please. —Giggy 06:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. Fast enough for you ^_^?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

3 minutes? No way! :-) —Giggy 07:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, the latest offer is tempting... Enigma ^message 07:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Come now! You aren't corrupt enough to accept bribe money? And its such a crummy offer...only fifty bucks! Why not slip a Benjamin or two? Whoops - did I say that out loud?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 07:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey it is a pretty good offer :D --Namsos (talk) 07:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd unblock and reblock, but I don't expect they'd actually come through with the money. Besides, it's only about 32 €. —Ilmari Karonen (talk) 20:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

IP range block needed

• 189.192.xxx.xxx

Not sure of the scope needed here, a portion of this IP was blocked several months back but this person is relentlessly coming back every day or so with a slightly different IP address and making tons of vandalism edits before s/he is noticed. I've been catching as many as I can, but a partial list is here. Don't know how many would be affected by a range block (I suspect a lot) but this person really needs to be stopped. - eo (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 189.192.0.0/16, up to 65536 users. Shouldn't be blocked for long. Let's try soft for 24 hours. --Rodhullandemu 17:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Tocinos Vandalism

Moved from WT:AN.

Here's an excerpt:

What about Portugal? I think this source is quit clear!84.134.93.251 (talk) 17:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

NewKosovoandMetohijaReport is a biased, propaganda outlet set up by separatists who wish to tear Serbia apart.. They publish words such as "I can only reconfirm that we have the support of about 100 world states willing to recognize Kosovo independence immediately after our declaration"... link here = [7] Sorry, but this source by itself is just not good enough. --Tocino 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Stop using that "100 countries will recognise thing" its getting old. A source is reliable when they use direct quotes. Even you have said this before. I dont like using New Kosovo Report when its their own views and analysts, but direct quotes is good enough for us to use. Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Also Tocino, please be WP:CIVIL and stop inflicting your own personnel viewpoints into this page Ijanderson977 (talk) 18:59, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Ok then how about this one... "Macedonia and Montenegro expected to recognize Kosovo in June".... link here = [8] . Once again this isn't even a proper news outlet, it's a propaganda website run by separatists, which has no credibility and will say anything regardless of the facts. I wouldn't put it past them to completely make up those quotes. --Tocino 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC) It says the word "expected" therefore not 100%. Also its not run by separatists, its run by Swedish people. Ijanderson977 (talk) 19:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC) It just shows that they've been horribly wrong about saying so-and-so will recognize in the future. Their servers may be in Sweden but it is run by Albanians. Although certainly there are those outside of the Balkans who do not respect the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Serbia, such as Carl Bildt. --Tocino 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

non-free article discussion and 3RR

Relevant discussion at

→ WP:AN#Non-free images in "List of" articles

Hello, There has been a running discussion about using non-free images in List of characters in Grand Theft Auto: Vice City. This discussion has occurred mainly here, here, here, and here, in addition to various user talk pages. In good faith, User:Black Kite has violated 3RR in an attempt to deal with what he sees as enforcing image policy.

The problem is that in these discussions, he is the only one who seems to have an issue with having a single image in the article, and that is what he has revised three times. My concern is that this seems to be a user who is taking his own interpretation of policy as policy. For example, he's claimed that the Spock article should not have a picture of Spock (though acknowledges that there is "some consensus" about having a single image about the subject of an article) I'd like some kind of guidance here. Thanks Hobit (talk) 18:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 1) To violate 3RR you actually have to revert four times
• 2) Although this is irrelevant, because image policy enforcement is immune from 3RR, not that you'd want to have to test this out too often
• 3) Where did I claim the Spock article shouldn't have a picture of him?

• See [82]. Perhaps I misunderstood your "# Yes, that's absolutely it. They should." Hobit (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• 4) I really cannot help it if I am the only one enforcing long-standing Foundation policy against a number of people who wish to use their interpretations of it. The long-running saga of non-free images in lists and how they violate WP:NFCC has been rehashed in long and tiresome detail many times before. Non-free image galleries where the image exists purely for the sake of decoration just don't fly, I'm afraid, and I'll continue to remove them where I find them, except where they can be justified by policy. The Free Encyclopedia is already nearly dead, but if someone wants to block me for 3RR and put the final nail in the coffin, then so be it. Black Kite 18:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect. The 3RR explicitly provides that the spirit, not the letter, of the rule is the important thing, and people intentionally edit warring may be blocked at LESS than 4 reverts. It says you are not ENTITLED to 4 reverts per day. Reverting 3 times is bad enough as it is. As for nails in coffins, I'm sure Wikipedia will do just fine without you. If you find yourself the only one enforcing long-standing policy, then either you are misinterpreting the policy (highly likely), or it is no longer valid policy (far less likely). ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 18:58, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It is little wonder that our copyright policies are generally ignored, is it? Far more likely than your scenario, of course, is that lots of editors object to the removal per policy of their decorative pictures in their articles, and try to wikilawyer round image policy. I would point out that on every article I am clearly laying out policy on the talkpages, in many cases putting tags on to warn editors before removing the images. Rarely do I find a reasonable policy-based reply when my edits are reverted. Black Kite 19:00, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Given that you've messed up one interpretation of policy thus far (3RR, as noted above), I should think your interpretation of a significantly more controversial policy to be less than authoritative. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• BlackKite happens to be in the right. There's been huge debates about this before. Articles with dozens of images where there's one image per character are flat out in the wrong, and have been for a long, long while. See Wikipedia:NFC#Non-free_image_use_in_list_articles. And, the rhetoric about whether he is wrong or right on 3RR and thus expanding it to his interpretation of other policies is hardly helpful. Let me know when you're perfect so I can view every word you speak as being authoritative. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The link you provide above is a content guideline, it is not policy. Try again.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• I'm getting a little disgusted with people saying "it's not policy! It's a guideline! So there! pttbptbptbptbptb!" The guideline is descendant from the policy and demonstrates community consensus on how the policy is supposed to be applied. You can't just wave the "it's not policy!" flag and ignore it. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:38, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Get as disgusted as you like. When you're talking about blocking people and warning them, you lose a LOT of authority when it is not a "policy based reason" as he so often repeated, but is in fact a guideline that explicitly allows for exceptions. What makes you think I can't wave the "it's not policy" flag, while you and Black Kite can wave the incorrect "It is policy, do this or be blocked" flag? There is a reason that it is not a policy: it does not have the level of consensus to be elevated to that level of enforceability. That alone should be reason enough that Black Kite should not be edit warring over the issue. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• You seem to be of the mistaken impression that I threatened to block someone. I don't know how you reached that conclusion. Since you seem to have errors in reaching conclusions, I don't think I can treat the rest of your commentary as authoritative. Or, do you retract like comments about BlackKite? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• You are referring to policies whose violations are blockable offenses. Ergo, it implicitly carries the threat with it. Consider this: He's warning people. What does he intend to do if they don't stop? The answer is, have them blocked. That's implicit in both his, and your comments. As for my commentary, at least all of mine has been correct. I'd advise you to consider that a) opinion seems to be against Black Kite here, b) you're escalating a situation that you're in the wrong in, and c) sarcasm is the protest of the weak. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• So referring to policies means I'm threatening to block someone? You serious? How in hell do you reach that conclusion? I didn't threaten anyone. I'm not even an admin! I couldn't block someone even if I wanted to! Thanks for calling me weak by the way. I appreciate the compliment. Any more compliments you'd like to send my way? I wonder, do you think I'm threatening you if I mentioned WP:NPA here? Maybe you should block me for threatening you, as that would be a personal attack wouldn't it? Waiting for the block, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Sigh. Rhetoric is obviously lost on you. I'm done here, my point about the rationality of your position has been more than adequately made in your comments above.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, you are done when you accuse people of being able to make any proper conclusion of policy then when brought to task for the same transgression fail to see the error of your position. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Sorry, but applying mis-guided interpretation of policy does not exempt you from 3RR. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I've protected the page for 24 hours, due to edit warring. Talk it out, guys. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:10, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, can't we all just get along? Could everyone be happy if, during the next twenty-four hours, someone drafted a brief but well-sourced discussion of the visual style of GTA:VC? That would firmly anchor a fair-use claim for an appropriately illustrative image, and you all could stop calling each other names. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 19:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This dispute seems to be overflowing a bit. A thread at WP:AN, WP:ANI, and an anon edit-warring with a WP:POINT removal of fair use images at the Featured article Pauline Fowler, and making threats at my talkpage. I personally don't like messing with issues related to images and fair use, but the WP:POINT and forum-shopping actions have to stop. --Elonka 19:11, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• The forum shopping is probably my fault. I brought it to NFCC and here thinking they were the right places. I was unaware of the rest until after I posted this here. I'm happy to have it in any one place and think this is probably the right place, but am happy with whatever. Hobit (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is over the top, really. Why can't people just use common sense about fairuse? Why do we have to be anal about policies that are only in place because a select subset of anti-fairuse editors WP:OWN the WP:NFCC policy page? Before anyone thinks of telling me the WMF mandates it, it does not for reasons I have already pointed out on the NFCC talkpage ad nauseum. They are clear that each project is totally free to set our own policy on fairuse and quite frankly being anal over video game characters is just plain retarded. --Dragon695 (talk) 19:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you want to accuse people who support fair use reduction as WP:OWNing the NFCC pages, without merit I note, then I'm sorry but I'm going to have to accuse you of owning WP:AN/I against fair use reduction. Cut the rhetoric. DISCUSS, don't attack. --Hammersoft (talk) 19:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

To be a little less harsh - It seems that both sides were edit warring (to an extent) over a policy that isn't cut and dry. Now, there is merit to both sides of the issue. If the page were to go to Wikipedia 1.0, it can't have any "fair use images". Is this page going to get into Wikipedia 1.0? I haven't a clue, so thats moot. However, one image is an interesting thing. I would suggest that if a member really wants images for the game, to request from the manufacturer/owner of the lisence to images that would be legally acceptable to use without "fair use" and then have them send in a legal notice/email/whatever they call those things to the OTRS to validate it. I think that would be the best way to proceed and then everyone will be happy. Yes? Ottava Rima (talk) 19:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An excellent point. There was disucssion about this here and I offered to undertake such a task. Unfortunately I was unable to find the time and it was put on the backburner until it was completely forgotten (a personal family friend of ours died, so this was extremely low on the list of priorities at the time). We could consider giving it another shot (with as many editors as willing to participate to help get something like this done right). But that can possibly wait until after the main dispute is resolved. Just something I felt like mentioning, y'all. --.:Alex:. 19:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Don't worry about it - it is clear that it is pointless for me to continue trying to help out here. I have asked to be desysopped and am having a long break. Might be back sometime, but not soon. If anyone wants to continue trying to fix fairuse problems (you'll need good dispute resolution skills!), the latest list of articles is here. Adios. I think you can mark this resolved. Black Kite 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Nah. More like you were harassed to death. Policy by thuggery, and to hell with what the Foundation says. What do they matter anyway? They're not Wikipedia, right? Right? --Hammersoft (talk) 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The foundation doesn't say anything, they leave this matter up to the projects. Try reviewing what REAL harassment is, from the number of editors who have actually been harassed. Having a thin skin is not the same thing. Black Kite was in the wrong, he got upset, and chose to leave. You have misinterpreted a number of our policies and guidelines, as has he. There's no harassment, or thuggery going on here, and if you climb down from the Reichstag, we'll all be ok. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• If you were in the right with regards to policy, this would make sense. Unfortunately, you're not. Liberal fair use is against policy here. It's blatant, and obvious. The Foundation has ruled that the use of fair use images must be minimal and that such policy may not be circumvented, eroded, or ignored on local Wikimedia projects. You want to ignore guideline, you want to ignore Foundation policy, then uphold local policy that doesn't specifically forbid per-character images in list articles and then say we're all wrong and are climbing the reichstag. That same policy doesn't specifically forbid the use of album covers in discographies either. Nor does it specifically forbid screen shots of every episode in episode lists. Nor does it specifically forbid the use of fair use images to depict living people. But, all those uses have been deprecated as well. Not to worry though, everybody is wrong and you're right because policy says you're right! Please go add album covers back to discographies and see what happens. I look forward to your future work restoring thousands upon thousands of fair use images that were deleted without support in policy. Let me know about your progress. Thanks, --Hammersoft (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Strawman is made of straw. The foundation has required projects to develop EDP's, and the content of those, within the boundaries of the law, are to be determined by the projects themselves. They have not said anything about the definition of what is brightline amount of allowable fair use content. What is allowable on each project is for that project to determine. Again, your ridiculous strawman fails. Watch it burn. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you ought not to be giving people here lectures when you cannot even give a civil response to someone asking you why you removed content on your own talk page.⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 20:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• "Within the boundaries of the law" You've just proven that you lack critical knowledge with regards to fair use and it's role on Wikipedia. Wikipedia policy on fair use is deliberately a superset of fair use law. As for civil responses, referring to me as "weak" is hardly civil on your part. And, my response was direct and to the point. Hobit's under the mistaken impression that I removed an image from the article in question. I didn't. I haven't even edited the article. He's barking up the wrong tree. Of course, I'd be quite happy to apologize for that error if you can show me where I removed images from that article. Waiting, --Hammersoft (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Request The discussion seems to have spread out to outrageous proportions and is extremely hard to keep track of. I'd like to make a request that we centralise all discussion related to this matter to a subpage of the Adminstrator's noticeboard. Or at the very least, subsections of one of the AN discussions. --.:Alex:. 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I would like to apologize to Black Kite if I was rude and lacking in civility. I let my frustrations get the better of me. --Dragon695 (talk) 20:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, just seeing this now. Elonka is obviously from the "I don't need diffs" school. There has been no edit-warring by me, and no WP:POINT action. What Elonka interprets as a threat is presumably my saying that my next stop in lieu of good arguments would be FAR rather than the dispute resolution she rather bizarrely pointed me to. Non-free usage is germane to the FAC. 86.44.16.82 (talk) 21:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The above anon, 86.44.16.82 (talk · contribs), has been blocked for one week for trolling. --Elonka 03:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP deleted speedy moved to user page.

Could someone look at this? I deleted the article as an attack. I think it should be deleted as well. Unless I'm over reacting? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

• I didn't move it to userspace, I recommended that the author (a genuine newbie) move it there if he felt it was more than an attack page, and to make it more than an attack page in short order. S. Dean Jameson 00:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Misunderstood. The thing is should it even be there? Cheers, Dlohcierekim 00:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hard to say. I replied to the article creator on his page that perhaps he should take his work on this offline, until he's worked it into a less "attack-y" format. S. Dean Jameson 00:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I deleted the article pretty fast. Thought the best way to check my enthusiasm against reality would be to ask here. Cheers,Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 00:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm deleting it again - doesn't belong on the encyclopedia in any place in the form it's in. FCYTravis (talk) 02:42, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism-only account

Resolved

 – Blocked as vandalism-only account. Bencherlite^Talk 09:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Vinta81 isn't currently active, but has made only vandalism edits and vandalised after final warning. TransUtopian (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Special:Contributions/Argentineboy

User has a serious problem with personal attacks [83] and [84]. Yngvarr (c) 09:05, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I reverted the talk page and warned. Didn't do the userpage as it will only wind him up further. A time out seems appropriate if he keeps up his behavior. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 09:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

User:Kintetsubuffalo

Can an administrator let this user know that rollbacking good faith edits, such as here and here, are not permitted? I'd talk to him/her, but I think someone with higher authority would be taken more seriously. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:45, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's his own user page. --B (talk) 01:49, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

That doesn't permit him to use rollback. He shoudl explain why he's reverting A Link to the Past's edits, because they are in good faith and are not obvious vandalism. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think this guy is clearly abusing rollback. A LOT of stuff deserves an explanation. If he's reverting beacuse it's a copyvio [85], then say so. Tiffany (Child's Play) is arguably a main character in addition to being a villain, but even if it wasn't, that's still a content dispute [86]. Changing a nickname/adding a middle name [87] isn't really clear vandalism, it's not complete gibberish. He's also rollbacking OrphanBot's edits [88] [89] [90] and then claimed that the image was GFDL when the user made no such proclimation. This rollback on Girls with guns is clearly a content dispute, as is this edit. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:33, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I just deleted the image since it's been more than a week, so only administrators can see the Dunross.svg image eidt. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really not sure about those reverts of OrphanBot at all - Rollback is for obvious vandalism only, and bots don't vandalize unless they're malfunctioning, which OB certainly wasn't then. Several of the others are arguably vandalism, but since they are arguable, some other method should be used - good-faith Twinkle revert or the undo button to leave a reason, for example. I don't see any evidence that the user is using it to edit war, however, so I'd suggest allowing the user to retain it provided they explain their recent actions and promise to use it more responsibly in the future. Rollback really isn't that important a tool, and it hasn't been severely abused here. Kintetsubuffalo has been notified of this discussion and been requested to comment. (diff) Hersfold non-admin^(t/a/c) 03:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I've been asked to speak regarding my use of rollback, presumably because I cleaned up the whinings of a tendentious user or my own page last night. I have recently moved to Japan and most days get less than an hour of Internet time. I don't have time to answer every wikilawyer and troll on here. When they show up on my userpage, I have clearly stated rules at the top, and feel no compunction in reverting them.

As to my rollbacks on Girls with guns, the user has been repeatedly told that some things are not germane to the article.

Same goes for Colorado_Springs_Christian_Schools. The edits are not about people of note and border on slander or libel or other fun things to get Wikipedia sued, further they are not encyclopedic. Close enough to vandalism to warrant rollback.

If you want to take back rollback from me, be my guest. I did without it for over two years just fine. But I'm not a problem editor, so consider the source, whatever choices you make. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ps-oh, and Tiffany was overmuch information for a disambig page with a link right to the topic. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

pps-The now deleted image was labeled "self" by the creator, so yes, there was a proclamation, Hbdragon88. All I did was tag it with the missing licensing. It sounds like you're assuming bad faith about me. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 12:40, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

ppps-Japanese don't have middle names, the system doesn't work that way, so yes, it's clear vandalism. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:06, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm really curious how making sure that an edit war doesn't start at Yamcha qualifies as wikilawyering or trolling. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is what the image description looked like: {{Information |Description= |Source=I created this work entirely by myself. |Date= |Author=[[User:FreeNAS Translation Crew|FreeNAS Translation Crew]] ([[User talk:FreeNAS Translation Crew|talk]]) |other_versions= }} In that descritpion I see nothing about him licensing it as GFDL. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think User:Kintetsubuffalo is just frustrated here while genuinely trying to help article building. So I advise him to take a deep breath. I suggest Kintetsubuffalo use the rollback tool correctly and explain your reasons when asked; if a certain user is problematic, ask for help or report to the appropriate board. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Taking deep breath, and duly noted for articles. But on my talk page I will exercise what I see fit, and that absolutely includes ignoring and avoiding respect to editors like the one above whose own talkpage shows he's not worthy of any such respect. I should see this "incident" as a badge of honor, in the company of such other long-time, productive editors like Collectonian. :) Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Walled Garden being protected by 4chan organised IPs

Hello - over the last few days, I (and others) have been trying to clean up the Warhammer 40,000 articles. There are numerous massive massive problems in this area - articles can be over 100k and yet have no content that is permissible by our policies and guidelines - it is exceptionally rare that any have references or content that match our policies. In addition, many seems to have huge sections that appear to be copyvios. I have been trying to rationalise content - where possible merging, otherwise where there is duplication, redirect to a umbrella article. At some stage yesterday (and while I'm in bed), members of the 4chan website become aware of this and decide that no clean-up will be permitted by us "faggots". The idea is that they will just watch, revert clean-up and report any of us attempt it as vandalism. No removal of the lavish (and I'm convinced in many cases copyvios) fictional histories will be permitted. Take Weapons of the Imperium (Warhammer 40,000) as an example of the current state of arts in this area - it is so in-universe and over detailed that it is concerned with the construction of fictional bullets - including as many diagrams as you'd need to construct your own. I'm baffled where to go from here - do we just write off some areas as untouchable? oh - the 4chan thread was here but isn't anymore, I don't know if it's been moved or deleted - but this google provides some proof of it's existance --Allemandtando (talk) 18:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a lie, you have been indiscriminately deleting random articles, making no effort to ensure that the redirected page is properly linked to an umbrella article. The main articles themselves do not contain any overlapping material that was deleted, if there was any in the first place.

You have not summarized ANY of the material you have deleted. In fact, having taking the time to compare your edits, they ALL consisted of deleting whole sections and paragraphs or the entire article itself replaced with a very barebones redirect to a parent article. The parent article itself was further cutdown by you.

Additionally, you have been expressing a disturbing glee in your edit summaries, leading me to assume that you are using policies as a cover to mask whatever odd intentions you have for your haphazard pickings of select w40k articles.

Your edits came to my attention when you deleted the Horus Heresy article as I was refreshing it, right under my nose. Do not mislead the admins by saying that some anonymous group of wrathful miscreants are reverting your 'hard' work, if it is work at all if not outright vandalism.

If you have taken the time to properly rework the material to avoid in-universe perspectives instead of outright culling them, leaving nothing for future users to view or improve on, or even taken the time to discuss your intentions (and follow them) in the talk pages, you might not have run up against such opposition.

99.240.112.75 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can vouch for Allemandtando's characterization of the WH40K articles. I stumbled on them a couple weeks ago, before they came up at ANI, and, uh... heh, well, I took the cowards way out and decided to pretend they didn't exist :D

Allemandtando, do you know what the IP is referring to in regards to "disturbing glee in your edit summaries"? Even though I am sure you are doing the right thing (you did great work with the Space Wolves article, BTW), this has gotta be really frustrating for the people who worked on those articles, so anything that even resembles gloating might exacerbate the problem. But I dunno, since the IP didn't provide a diff, who knows what he/she was even talking about? heh...

Darkson (talk · contribs) mentioned that a Wikiproject was in the process of moving this stuff to an external Wiki -- maybe if we could get more details of that effort, we could placate the 4chan folks, or come to some kind of understanding or compromise with them?

In any case, I'll put some of the articles on my Watchlist and try to get yer back. The articles as they exist are a policy nightmare. --Jaysweet (talk) 19:21, 30 June 2008 (UTC) Full disclosure: I am not an admin, but I feel I can help out here anyway.

As far as I can see the wikiproject is abandoned, I'm guessing that they all moved over to wikia - all of the tranwiki tags I've seen are five or six months old. Darkson pulled me up on some of my edit summaries and you can find my response here. I don't want anyone to think I'm got involved in this work because I like deleting content - I got involved in it because nobody else wants to do it. Other projects like the star wars and simpson wikiprojects have put their houses in order but there doesn't seem to be anyone able or willing to do it for this area. --Allemandtando (talk) 19:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Having come over from two other wikis on wh40k, I can say for sure that a lot of the material being deleted is unique to wikipedia. I would suggest that if you are going to improve the articles, at least dedicate the effort as you did for the lightsaber article instead of reverting or having several other people continuously reverting your deletions. Otherwise I am considering these actions vandalism.

99.240.112.75 (talk) 19:39, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

since all of my contributions and that of others in this area are currently being reverted by IP en-masse, regardless of what they are - how do suggest that's actually going to be done? --Allemandtando (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

So 99.240.*... Are those other WH40K wikis open? If so, why don't you just copy the content from here over to those Wikis? --Jaysweet (talk) 19:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

This is not true at all, if you noticed many of the IPs incorporated changes as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Founding&diff=222624402&oldid=222624081. But this articled that improved over your own was carelessly reverted back to a version you made that had broken links.

Additionally, you are making the changes without complete disregard of the opposition of several individuals who are not simply random IPS as seen here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Weapons_of_the_Imperium_(Warhammer_40,000).

I would like to also inform you that EEMIV Darkson and Jaysweet thoughtlessly reverting the articles into deleted versions while simultaneously sending threatening templates, without any consideration of their actions in the fact that there are a good number of users who do not agree with this course of action who are not simply random IPs marks to me as a vindictive backlash instead of improvement of articles in good faith.

Currently, Jaysweet is attempting to get an admin involved to block said users and random IPs instead of opting for discussin g of how to best handle this situation, which I find to be a very rude protocol wrought with a vendetta against users who's only crimes are reverting edits made by the volition of one person and not having a username.

I will not undo Jaysweets revisions until the matter is resolved, but i would hope he will pause his reverts when he reads this so that we may discuss courses of actions that will satisfy all participants.

99.240.112.75 (talk) 19:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Already have paused my reverts (mostly because I am busy with other stuff, heh). So what do you think about my suggestion above? Wanna copy the pages to the other Wiki(s) before we start cleaning them up? --Jaysweet (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Currently checking Lexicanum.com to see what unique material from wikipedia can be moved. This may take a while as my free day is almost end. I'll try to do as much as I can. 99.240.112.75 (talk) 20:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

For what it's worth, although I'm disapppointed that the articles are being culled as they are, Allemandtando has unfortunately been following policy, and as he pointed out, the 40K Wikiproject seems to be dead - there has been at least 6 months for the articles to have been moved across - if they haven't, then no-one can blame anyone else but those involved (I wasn't, as I couldn't be bothered to sign up for yet another website,and I thought there was more involved than a simple cut & paste - I thought the history of the article needed to be kept?).

And yes, I did revert some reverts of Allemandtando's edits this morning, but then I came to the conclusion it wasn't worth the effort getting involved in an edit war over, and left them. In fact, I removed all 40K-related pages from my watchlist - I just can't be arsed to fight over them anymore.

Still, nice to see the fallout get's more response on this board than my original request for guidance regarding a vandal. [I'd insert a rolling eyes smilie here if Wiki had them.] Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 20:51, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I beg to differ, I find that he is avoiding policy via deletion rather than meeting them with proper edits. The deletion / redirects would have been fine if there was some way for an average user to access the info. He could have redirected, then added a summary in the parent article, then further include a link in the 'see other' to a dedicated wiki. For example.

Instead, he deletes the article, than further cuts down the main article. No evidence of the article having existed or any leads to more readings on the subject remain. Bearing in mind the average user will not check the edits history, this information that was the sum of work from previous editors (of various quality) has been effectively erased from the public eye.

It is the lazy way out that improves nothing and deprives users of any method of looking up the subject / consulting further sources of subject.

As to why, suddenly, three other people who are not involved with Allemandtando's work would blindly revert instead of acting as middleground makes me assume that all of you are now far more concerned with backing up the original editor for the sake of it rather than any perceived adherence to 'guidelines'. As the edit histories show conflicting reasons for edits that favor mass deletions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.71.152.81 (talk) 21:05, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

can someone protect my userpage from ip editors please? (see recent contributions) --Allemandtando (talk) 22:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

• Just a note that there is a perfectly good Warhammer wiki over at Wikia that would probably love to have all this stuff :) Better there than here! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 03:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

We have a major major problem - I have obtained Warhammer 40k source books - from a quick skim, at least 50% of most articles are direct lifts and therefore copyvios. I'm going through line by line and removing copyvios as I find them. --Allemandtando (talk) 12:12, 1 July 2008 (UTC)