Haabet has been hard-banned from Danish WP, and he appearsmake few valuable edits to English WP. His last edit was to add a picture ofGorm the Old to the articleGuthrum the Old. His talkpage will show that several users find him problematic. Is it wise to allow him to edit on English WP?--The trollfighter11:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

We let editors be until they cause troublehere... But I can say that editors that are banned on other Wikipedias historically tend not to last very long here (isn't human psychology fascinating?) His Danish userpage with the ban notice and some kind of commentary arehere; any Danish readers in the house?11:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, this guy's been here since early2004 2003!! with no blocks... Just let him be.11:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm probably the most active Danish editor on this project. Haabet is the only editor that has ever been banned from the Danish Wikipedia. This was a near-unanimous decision from the Danish administrators (19 of 20 admins voted, 18 of these in favour of a ban.)[1] If I remember correctly, they had to change policy to make bans possible. This ban can be appealed by Haabet once every year. First chance is 15 September 2007. The ban was due to Haabet inserting a lot of OR in articles relating to history which was upsetting a lot of people myself included. Haabet's other main area of contributions relate to corsets and the history of them. I have no idea if these edits are sound or not. Haabet was a very dedicated editor on the Danish Wikipedia, but the admins got completely fed up with cleaning up after him. I've only had sporadic encounters with him and the first one was very negative, but to give him the benefit of doubt; some of the last edits I've seen from him look more sound. I haven't checked his recent edits in detail, so this is just a hunch. His user name means "The Hope" so perhaps there is hope after all? What is perhaps a bit more interesting is thatUser:The trollfighter's edit history is less than two days old, consisting solely of reverting edits made byUser:Arigato1 and posting messages on talk pages,but this person already knows how to make posts on AN/I. Isn't this somewhat unusual?Valentinian^{T /C}12:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Since Valentinian, who is a user I respect, considers my activity to be suspicious and wishes to put me in a bad light, I hereby cease to exist as a user. Good luck with the project, and I hope someone else watches the edits of these guys, because I will not do that anymore.--The trollfighter14:00, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your statement that you like my edits. I am honoured. If you perceived my post as rude, I had no intention of being so. However, if I hadn't written the way I did, people might suspect that you were a sock of me. I've had to take a lot of crap from Arigato1, Comanche cph and Comanche's IP-address, but had Inot reacted now, I'd no doubt have to waste next week with new accusations that I was a sockmaster. I have no idea how many hours I've wasted on this nonsense. Perhaps I should simply spare the trolls the trouble and close my account myself. Oh yeah, and if anybody believes the sockmaster accusations, by all means run a CU on me. I couldn't care less.Valentinian^{T /C}14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

 DoneCould someone please block:

• Winnebago Warrior (talk⁺ ·tag ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log ·CA ·CheckUser(log) ·investigate ·cuwiki ·SI)

perWikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Arthur_Ellis.Kla'quot12:34, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. —^{C}12:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What is the current policy on red links? One anon user currently finds them offensive to the extent that they keep trying to remove them from theChesham article despite requests not to by several users and a note being added to the top of the article saying why they are left in. This same user has removed all the red links from the article at least six times in the last month and doesn't appear to want to listen to requests. Is it possible to lock the article against edits by anon users for a bit? What else can be done to get through to this user? --Roleplayer14:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

If a red link is to something notable that just doesn't happen to have a page at this point in time, then it should probably be left alone. Given that many of those links are to things that appear not to be notable, eg primary schools, it would probably be better not to wikilink them. Regards,Ben Aveling15:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to report a severe personal attack.194.9.5.10, a user with whom I've had considerably conflicts before, is an anonymous contributor. However, when you look at his "contributions" you'll see that the majority of his edits are him mixing in my discussions and always chosing the opposing side. In other words he watches my edits and tries to irritate me whenever he can. He wrote the following onTalk:Battle of Kiev (1941)

Dear gentleman, a little well-meant advice: Please refrain from discussing with Rex - it is not worth it, ie a waste of time. He is simply a choleric German-hating guy who is unable to argue systematically, coherently, academically and neutrally due to his limited mental skills and superficial knowledge as weel as to the fact that his mummy never really loved him.

He adapted this all out personal attack 2 times, before he removed it again. Nevertheless I do not want this clear personal attack to go unpunished, and I trust the dealing admin will understand this.Rex14:39, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

A simple {{uw-npa1}} template will suffice for this one, which I've done. I am slightly concerned, however, atthis (since when wasa dubious edit a personal attack?) There is another IP address involved,194.9.5.12 (talk•contribs), which is probably the same user because of the similar IPs.x42bn6Talk15:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. In that link the anonymous IP puts a NPA tagg on the word dubious, not me.Rex15:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's my concern. I can't find any real issues but I am still looking (while helping out on other venues) other than this one. My advice: If he is continuing to be like that, then he might just be being disruptive; but you can always keep level-headed and don't get angry. This anon, however, has made several good faith edits so it is probably not just to harass you.x42bn6Talk15:28, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I cancelled the statement delibrately and immediately after I had inserted it as I came to the result that it was to aggressive. However please feel free to check all my contribution and you will not find any unpolite or unfair comment whatsoever. As for Rex`s contributions, I would hardly allege the same... Kind regards, (194.9.5.1216:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Well, that was interesting.Archived.El_C17:26, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oncool wall, we had the list of cars on theTop Gear Cool Wall. Leaving aside the question of whether show segments are actually encyclopaedic, the list of cars form the cool wall is, as far as I can see, copyright of the show, just as the script is copyright, the lists from "top 100foo" shows are copyright, and the singles chart is copyright. I removed it. I'm sure some examples would be fine. I could of course also be wrong. More eyes, please, atTalk:The Cool Wall. Thanks,Guy(Help!)22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

A list of facts is (by US law, maybe different elsewhere) ineligible for copyright, only a list based on opinion is protected. If these cars where in fact shown on the segment (verifiability may be your real problem) Then the list is fine. Otherwise, if theres no verifiable list, then its an opinion-generated list, and not allowed. The reason music charts are copyrighted is because its not a simple list of how often a record was played and bought, its a complicated procedure involving equations that arent public, estimation and research. -M^ask23:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that it's complicated, and has equations,'sweat of the brow', etc, does not in itself make the end result copyrightable in the US. (note: I am, as always, not a lawyer) --Random83219:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought the difference was between previously available info (a list of presidents of the USA is not copyrighted) and a list of newly compiled info (or "opinion", if you prefer), which is normally copyrighted. The Cool Wall is definitely "opinion", but the way it is presented is completely different from a text list. It isn't really a fixed list either. Still, rmoving the list of cars is the correct solution. Another problem isn't that it hasn't any secondary sources. We don't really need articles describing segments of show instead of critically presenting the secondary sources about them (no matter how briliant the show is).Fram05:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A List of facts is generally not copyrightable, although its arrangemetn may be, if original and non-trivial (alphebetic or numeric order are generally trivial). However, if a magazine article contained a "list of cool cars" in theopnion of the author, that list would be copyrighted. In this case, the list of cars on the "cool wall" is, if I understand it correctly, cars considerd 'cool' not on any objective basis, but simply in the opnions of the show's presentors, or which they think specific other people would belive to be "cool" or "not-cool". That is a clear expression of opnion, and so I think a list ofthis type is pretty clearly copyrighted. Whether the list is fixed or changes on a regular basis makes no difference, I think. The larger question about whether separate articles for individual episodes or elements of such a show are warrented is another matter altogether. i would be inclined to say no, but opnions could reasonably differ on this matter.DES^(talk)05:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would like someone to volunteer to communicate withUser:BassPlyr23. He has removed the{{ifd}} tag fromImage:1972 Israeli Olympic team.jpg three times[3][4][5]. Based on the tone on themessages he left me, I believe he would welcome a third part opinion more easily than he would welcome my opinion. --Abu badali^(talk)22:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What the image needs is the good fairuse rationale since this historic and non-reproduceable photo certainly qualifies for the specific article. It is hard to expect a newbie user to be able to come up with such rationale and Abu badali, an experienced image handler, if acting in good faith for the good of Wikipedia, should have helped a newbie user to write a good fairuse rationale rather than act in a way that would likely discourage the newcomer and turn him away from Wikipedia. IMO, Abu badali actions qualify as newbie biting and it is Abu badali who is to be taken to a woodshed about this, not a user who tries to contribute and does not know the wikilawyering rules yet. --Irpen22:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

To Abu badali: meh, I don't watch the images I tag with{{ifd}} to make sure tag stays on them. I just watch the IfD page to make sure the section isn't blanked. --Iamunknown22:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't know how to write a fair use rationale for this image because I see the rationale for using it (unless our own convenience). Feel free to fix the image if you can see more than I do. I didtried to explain the user what he needed to do about the rationale, and about removing the ifd tag, even after he suggested that I want the image removed because I wanted to praise "Palestinian terrorists"[6]. --Abu badali^(talk)22:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Ya I saw that and was pretty disgusted. Good job on remaining civil, though.:-) --Iamunknown22:36, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The image seems to be at a pretty high resolution (1000 px width) - I rather doubt that this qualifies per the requirements for "web-resolution screenshots". Do we define anywhere what "web-resolution" means? I've always taken it to mean thumbnail-type images of up to 400 px width or so. --ChrisO22:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Clarification - is it from the film? Was the film based on a real photograph of the atheletes? Can we claim{{Non-free fair use in}} rather than{{film-screenshot}}?Hbdragon8823:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I have reduced the quality of the photo and provided a fair use rationale. I still do not understand what prevented all the good people involved to do it earlierAlex Bakharev00:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Kudos Alex, you beat me to it. That what the experienced user should have done in the first place rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts. --Irpen00:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

"rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts" - This is a baseless accusation, Irpen! When did I threatened this user (or any other)? Provide diffs or retract this accusation. --Abu badali^(talk)01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen, stop it. Now. You have lodging baselessad hominem attacks against Abu badali all over the place. It's disgusting. --Iamunknown05:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

IMO, baseless accusations in ad hominemis indeed ad hominem. --Irpen05:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

No its not. I'm addressing the substance of the argument, not the person making the argument. --Iamunknown05:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please point out what exactly in my entry is an ad hominem. --Irpen05:23, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking, I'd love to. Per the Wikipedia entry,ad hominem, "An ad hominem argument ... consists of replying to an argument byattacking or appealing to the person making the argument, rather thanby addressing the substance of the argument." Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument that this particular image should be deleted; in other words, you have directly replied to Abu badali's deletion argument an ANI post not on the substance of Abu badali's argument, but on Abu badali him(/her)self. Thusad hominem. --Iamunknown05:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

First of all, the wikipedia articlead hominem is neither a reliable source nor a Wikipedia policy.WP:NPAis a policy and my entry did not violate WP:NPA in any way. I describe the matter as I saw it. My description was harsh butWP:CIVIL. Abu badali posted a complaint asking for a helping hand in the conflict. However, the conflict would not have escalated had Abu badali himself acted properly and courteously towards the users.

The experienced user greats the inexperienced one with a series of arrogant templates at her talk and posting the newcomer's contributions for deletion. This is not exactly the best way to engage the user, not familiar with a labyrinth of our image policy pages, into productive work. The contributor tries her best and she needs to be gently encouraged. The images, that she failed to properly tag, need to be examined, retagged when possible, deleted when necessary, with a friendly and helpful explanation on why we have to do the former or the latter. Instead, the user is communicated through templates that she, not used to the level of courtesy of some here, perceives as threats and intimidation. The user feels unwelcome as instead of a helping hand she gets the messages from what seems like someone who instead of developing articles like she does, goes around from user to user telling them what to do and claiming policies as an excuse to do that with impunity.

The inexperienced user starts looking for an explanation of such an unfriendly attitude and, since the particular topic is greatly politicized, mistakenly attributes the tagger's motives to the political agenda since she can't believe that someone would deal with her this way for any other reason (she was wrong at that and I don't think Abu badali's motives here are politically motivated.)

The bottom line is that should Abu badali have acted courteously and reasonably we would not have had the cause to discuss this incidents at WP:ANI. Stating this is not an ad hominem but simply an opinion on the matter. I am merely pinpointing the root cause of many similar conflicts in the past and want to prevent similar conflicts in the future. This is the reason of my post rather than, as you imply, some outstanding issues with Abu badali of which I have none. --Irpen07:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I though the user would know what the templates messages mean, as he/she already has a couple of them inhis talk page. Sorry if my judgment didn't lead to the most productive outcome. But is think that saying that I didn't act "courteously", "reasonably" is a little bit overreaching (considering I have even been linked to "Palestine terrorists"), but you're entitled to your opinion.

But you forget to address the main point being questioned.When did I threatened the user, as you accused me of in ""rather than hit the newbie with templates and threats of all sorts""? Threats are notWP:CIVIL, and accusing me of engaging is such behavior requires strong diffs. --Abu badali^(talk)11:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Irpen,this might be relevant now. Your statements referring to Abu badali's person as opposed to his argumentsarestilladhominem arguments and are thus irrational, irrelevant and false. Regards,Iamunknown16:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think Irpen was hasty in accusing Abu B of "threats of all sorts". That said, it's clear that the newbie uploader did feel threatened by the templates and the deletion nominations, and that communicating exclusively in templates and by rolling back their edits (with the automated edit summary "using popups", yet..!) is deplorable. Especially doing it to a new user, who is clearly doing their best to contribute... and then, when the user can't understand what the template is telling her/him to do (can't say I blame them), to repost thesame template, for the next image they upload... what were you thinking? Try to put yourself in the other person's shoes. Now, I could be wrong about your communicating exclusively in templates, you have a lot of contribs and I may have missed something. But the only non-template post to this person that I can see is on theImages and media for deletion, obviously too little and way too late.

Iamunknown, I have to say you're not helping. Please provide examples and diffs for your repeated claims that Irpen is posting ad hominem attacks "all over the place", or else stop saying it. There's no ad hominem from him here, that's ridiculous. ("Your statement that "That what the experienced user should have done" is directly commenting on Abu badali, the person making the argument"—er, no.) A common saying on this page is "Diffs or it didn't happen". I click hopefully on your links, to take a look a your evidence that these ad hominems happenedsomewhere, and find instead a clutch of internet definitions ofad hominem, plus our own pageWP:KETTLE... Don't waste administrators' time in this way, please. Give diffs or it didn't happen.Bishonen |talk02:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC).

Bishonen, last I was aware this was a dead issue. I can't imagine why you are bringing it up again just to waste admin time. --Iamunknown02:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Bishonen, thanks for the input. I'll try to do better next time. The "deplorable" automatic edit summaries were probably because I didn't had much much patience left forUser:BassPlyr23 after he linked me to "Palestine terrorists"[7]. I've recently been remembered to step away from angry users, and that's what I was trying to do. I'll try harder next time. Probably, by ignoring ifd tags removals as Iamunknown suggested above. Best regards, --Abu badali^(talk)00:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I am posting here regarding a dispute with administratorUser:Rlevse.

Background:User:Brain40 vandalized my talk page, reverting it 6 times. He was warned and continued reverting. He finally stopped whenthis 3RR dispute was opened.

However, despite the wording ofWP:UP saying otherwise,User:Rlevse has proceeded to take no action, close the 3RR complaint, taken WP guideline pages out of content (using a section that applies only toother users' talk pages to apply to edits performed againsta user's own talk page), and even stated onUser_talk:Brain40 that he is going to willfully ignore the matter.

I would like another administrator's opinion on this matter. This is whatWP:UP currently says about editing one's own talk page:

"On a user's own talk page, policy does not prohibit the removal of comments at that user's discretion, although archival is preferred to removal. Please note, though, that removing warnings from one's own talk page is often frowned upon."

I read that to mean that removing warnings (which is also sketchy, since "warnings" are not defined) is frowned upon but there is absolutely no rule against it. It's not considered vandalism, so one cannot revert removal of warnings by oneself under the vandalism umbrella forWP:3RR.

I don't believe that a block ofUser:Brain40 will be necessary unless he continues to vandalize my user page, but this matter ought to be straightened out and the administrator should be informed of correct WP policy. If the policy in practice disallows removal of warnings from one's own user talk page, the guideline page needs to be changed to make that clear.

I became aware of the policy as written when a warning I left on another user's user talk page was deleted by that user. I checked the rules to see if he could do that - and it's allowed. If the rule allows a user to revert,ad infinitum, another user's talk page to re-insert a warning, then an administrator ruling to this effect entitles me to do as much to this other user's talk page. I highly doubt that is the case. --Tjsynkral23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought that the new consensus was that it was okay for editors to remove warnings from their user talk pages and that said removal was considered ackowledgement by the editor that they had received a warning. If so, it could be that not everyone has gotten the "word" on this.Cla6823:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would be a good idea if theguideline page was clarified, either way. Even though I think it is perfectly clear right now that removing warnings from one's own UP is allowed, some people need it spelled out in black and white. --Tjsynkral00:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the procedure is for rewording any of the guidelines, but if someone could point me in the right direction, I could try to "get the ball rolling" on it.Cla6802:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I resent these remarks made by tjsynkral, as soon as I made a comment on his talk page he blanked it before he probably even read it...though it is true I was in violation of the 3RR rule it was only to revert vandalism and repost my warning (ironically about 3rr) on this man's user page. Once the edit war got out of control me and another editor reported tj to an administrator. One is not supposed to remove warnings from talk pages as clearly stated byUser:RlevseTotallyTempo02:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Rlevse does not make policy; Wikipedia policy pages define policy, and policies are made byconsensus. Furthermore, you had no contact withUser:Rlevse at the time you made the reverts, nor didUser:Brain40. He was only introduced to the issue when theWP:AN/3RR issue was opened. --Tjsynkral02:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The policy certainly needs clarified and announced, it's too open to interpretation. Let's say User:ABC123 gets a valid vandalism notice, removes it from their talk page, gets reported to AIV and the admin checks to see if they have been warned and then has to dig through history pages to find it? Hardly conducive to admins fighting vandals. Note the case in question was 3RR, this is just a theoretical example.Rlevse02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

That's sad... as an admin it is your responsibility to check the history for removed warnings, and you've revealed that apparently you are loath to check up on these things. Even if it were against policy to remove warnings, it would still happen and you would be expected to look for that. Also, we are still left with a problem in defining a warning. If I went on your user page and warned you for vandalism, without any basis - would you be forced to keep it forever? --Tjsynkral03:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Rlevse is trying to apply the guideline's consistently and it isn't his fault if they're vague. If no administrator action is required here, then I think the next step would be to take this issue to one of the community forums such as the Village Pump.Cla6803:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The guidelines don't mention anything about removing warnings being prohibited (only that they are "frowned upon" - much like racism is "frowned upon" but not illegal). The best word to describe Rlevse's actions isarbitrary. --Tjsynkral04:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

And what is your point? State it succinctly, preferably, in less than 30 words. — ()04:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Can a user delete warnings from his own user talk page? Can another user revert the warnings back onto the page 4, 5, even 6 times, despiteWP:3RR? Wiki policy says yes and no, butUser:Rlevse says no and yes. This is a problem. --Tjsynkral04:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's ok to remove warnings, although it's better to leave them then to edit war about their inclusion. You should never revert a page more than 3 times in 24 hours. You should never characterise an edit as vandalism that is intended in good faith. It was a mistake for other editors to assert that the 3rr did not apply, but it wasequally wrong for you to revert the page more than 3 times. If anyone should incur the penalty here, it would be you, since you reverted the page more than any other individual. So be glad for the inaction on AN3.Guettarda06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so. ReadWP:3RR. I may edit my own user space as often as I wish. The sole exception would be if my edit violated WP policy, which it clearly does not. --Tjsynkral22:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I doubt 3RV applies to one's talkpage when removing warnings. --Thus Spake Anittas13:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree withGuettarda andUser:Rlevse.TotallyTempo18:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't mind me, just think this thread could use some illustration so we all know what we're talking about here. --Random83219:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

TortureIsWrong (talk ·contribs ·logs) has been using increasingly incivil[8][9][10][11][12][13] andpointy comments[14] atWP:RFCN. The user has now started nominating other frequent RFCN editors for RFCN[15], in response to the RFCN nomination of his own name. The latest, forCascadia (talk ·contribs)[16], is pretty blatantly againstWP:POINT since Cascadia is a region, and the User states onher his User page thatshe is from there. I believe TortureIsWrong should be blocked for a short time to allow the user to reflect onWP:CIVIL andWP:POINT, and on how to contribute without disrupting Wikipedia.Flyguy649^talk_contribs03:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I note thatTortureIsWrong (talk ·contribs) has been blocked, per the above converstion filed while I prepared this report. I'm leaving this up for the difs.Flyguy649^talk_contribs03:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Didn't see the Male userbox on my userpage, ther flyguy! I know I'm a big guy and have long hair, but last I and my finance checked, I was still a guy. LOL!Cascadia^TALK|HISTORY03:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, Cascadio ... er, Cascadia.Flyguy649^talk_contribs03:49, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• • • Plainly wrong as the referral to an Admin has been found in my favor. I was right, not disruptive.TortureIsWrong07:19, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • You are trolling, plain and simple. Your first block was short because all first blocks are short. I would highly suggest not pushing your luck. -Merzbow07:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I would highly suggest that you add that comment to your user page that you're not the REAL Merzbow if you haven't done so already. I would also suggest that if you're going to take shots at other usernames you should make sure your own house is in order first.TortureIsWrong07:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Please do stop trolling.Proabivouac07:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• TIW, you seem to be bothered often by what goes on atWP:RFCN. I really think you will enjoy editing here much more if you avoid that place altogether, and concentrate on writing the encyclopedia. That seems more conducive to your happiness than getting frustrated in a place you don't even like.—coelacan —08:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It has to be said that, after applying for a change of name and having "TortureIsWrong" accepted, and then joining in discussions atWP:RFCN for some time, his name was suddenly (and without going through proper procedure) proposed for blocking by another regular at RFCN, immediately supporeted by a third. It seemed to me and to others there that this was not entirely a good-faith proposal. It included the claim (though rapidly struck out) that "TortureIsWrong" might be offensive to bondage-lovers, and other absurdities. TortureIsWrong's misbehaviour is not excused by this, but his frustration is understandable. --Mel Etitis ()09:40, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The nom was perpolicy; I admit that the trolling drew my attention to the username but the behavior in itself was not the reason for the nom. As far as procedure, the user replied atWP:RFCN before I could put a notification on his/her talk page, so I didn't see the point in a superfluous notification. I suppose I could have requested that the person change their name before nominating for discussion, but given the user's previous behavior and comments regarding their name in previous discussions, I saw the chance of that being a constructive conversation as being exactly 0%.RJASE1^Talk13:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be noted that theuser is trolling again by inserting irrelevant POV into a policy discussion.RJASE1^Talk16:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

• Torture is most definitely trolling on the RFCN. He votes 'allow' on almost, if not all, cases, even if they are clearly against policy. The most recent wasMike J FOX (talk ·contribs). Rather than arguing from policy he challenges its legitimacy. In addition to this he has been generally uncivil and caused disruption in the discussions. I don't know what is motivating him; perhaps he has been bitter about the board since they forced him to change his more blatant violating name. But regardless something needs to be done to prevent his continual disruption there. Thank you.The Behnam17:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
  • • I'd like to respond to that by referring people to the recent goings on in the [Byron Coley] article. Am I really the one being "uncivil"? I would also like to point out that my username has now undergone two affirmative reviews and some of the RFCN regulars are still complaining about it.TortureIsWrong20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
      • No one is talking about your username, so I suggest you to stop hiding behind the nonexistent "there's nothing wrong with my username" curtain. — ()20:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
        • I've already said that I can explain the Bryan Coley thing for you, but you haven't made any effort to contact me directly. We won't distract this discussion with accusations against me anyway, especially since you have made little effort to resolve the 'faith' issue with me. Try my talk page, please. Thanks.The Behnam20:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that admins look at the discussion for themselves. TortureIsWrong is flailing about, and apparently doing his best to disguise the fact that there's an unpleasant witchhunt against him, mounted by a group of editors whose approach to Usernames is via a narrow and doctrinaire reading of policy, and who reject any disagreement with their interpretation as being based in a misunderstanding or rejection of policy. Early mediæval Christianity offers some insrtuctive comparisons here, as does 20th-century communism. --Mel Etitis ()20:24, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm - yes, I see your point, Mel. Having a civil discussion about the appropriateness of a username is exactly the same as burning witches, the Inquisition, and the gulag. What was I thinking?RJASE1^Talk20:50, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Comment. There is no question in my mind that TIW is being disruptive on RFCN. Regardless of how wronged he may feel,being disruptive andPOINT-y is the exactwrong way to go about expressing his displeasure. The main complaint provides diffs of such behaviour. He has been directed toWT:U multiple times as the correct place to express his disagreement with policy. There is no excuse for his disruptive participation and vicious attitude. That being said,some editors on the "other" side are being problematic as well. They are responding to TIW'sbaiting. Additionally, after TIW's RFCN was closed as "allow", the decisionwas questioned (and lead into a broader debate about RFCN). A lot of implications of bad faith and policy abuse were thrown around. That is to say, TIW is not solely responsible for the poisonous atmosphere. Itseems to me that some of TIW's "opponents" rely on an overly strict interpretation ofWP:U not supported by consensus, while ignoring the provision ofWP:U that specificies the line between acceptable and unacceptable is at the discretion of other editors. Much as TIW should raise his concerns onWT:U, should should the "other side" express their concerns about the policy onWT:U.Neither side should be trying to force a significantly broader or narrower policy outside of the policy page. Just my thoughts and observations. Take 'em or leave 'em as you will.Vassyana23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your balanced remarks here, Vassyana. I won't deny that I may have gone overboard on occasion, but I really do feel like I have been set upon by a small group of RFCN "regulars" rather unfairly. And it's not really that I disagree with overall policy - I just think - as did the admin who found my name was not a violation - that the SPIRIT of the policy is far more important than picking out a small provision and hammering it to death. I didn't take it to WP:U because it's more a matter of the way policy is interpreted than it is a matter of rewriting it. Again, thanks for your remarks.TortureIsWrong00:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be nothing but a disruptive RFCN troll and I can't see any reason not to block him.John Reaves(talk)00:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user has a long history of being a contributive editor, not just a RFCN troll. As has been noted here, the RFCN got heated repeatedly, and there is definitely a 'clean up wikipedia' vibe there. I'm not defending, NOR excusing his actions, but the RFCN stuff has been getting ridiculous, especially in light of the names of some of those most interested in 'protecting' wikipedia. While a 'cool down' block might be valid, there's a lot of context here, and probably a need for some communication to those who seek to 'gentrify' Wikipedia, one editor at a time. Go look at the other debates there recently. Fenian Swine's is a good example of the troubles. An editor with a longstandgin rep, who went through RFCN before, and got a compromise hammered out, now months later, it's back up, and there's a group who refuses to examine or acknowledge standing compromise. There's a lot going on here, and blindly examining TIW outside of context won't actually help anything.ThuranX01:25, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Fenian Swine was only up at RFCN to bring resolution to a complaint posted on this noticeboard. That issue has been closed and his username was allowed. I'd reconsider the "long history of being a contributive editor" statement above - the user has only been registered about six weeks and has been problematic all along. For some history, check not only his talk page and contribs but also the talk page of his previous (pre-block_ username,User talk:MoeLarryAndJesus. A look through the history will give you an idea of the problems. However, this is probably not the forum for this, and an immediate block probably isn't the right answer - despite the problems, the user has also made positive contributions. I'm thinking an RFC on conduct is probably the best way to go, to get some community consensus.RJASE1^Talk03:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that most of my editing time has been taken up defending my username (which was affirmed) and then dealing with the resulting fallout from people who were greatly upset that it had been affirmed. I have also spent some time defending the username Fenian Swine (closed as No Consensus, default to Allow) and dealing with other RFCN issues. Others are free to call such efforts meaningless if they will. Currently I'm involved in the RFCN against Heavybuddha, which will almost certainly close as Allow. I'd like to spend more time adding information to music-related articles, but it's hard to do under the present circumstances.TortureIsWrong03:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You've also made unneeded comments such as "long live Fenian Swine!" --TeckWiz^ParlateContribs_@(Lets go Yankees!)03:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I suppose that was unneeded. Is there a requirement that all comments on discussion boards be necessary?TortureIsWrong04:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no fallout from the allowance of your username, other than the reaction you get from constantly bringing up a now-dead-thank-God topic. If you want to defend other usernames (which is fine) and write music-related articles (which is great), then by all means do so instead of harping upon a no-need-to-be-shoved-into-everyone's-faces incident. — ()03:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

If you want to see the fallout just check out the talk pages ofRJASE1 andTheBehnam. I'm not making it up.TortureIsWrong04:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then ignore them. Easy as that. Strike the high ground when others do not. — ()04:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Thus far it seems like being proactive works better around here. If I had ignored "them" my username would have been banned. I didn't, and it wasn't, and as far as I can see RFCN has been improved as a result.TortureIsWrong04:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, I meant ignore themnow, now that the issue is over (at least for most of us). I still have people seething over my past actions from month's past, yet you don't see me burning with vengeance. — ()04:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Um, if you bothered to look at the link I provided, you'd see that this is happening today. I'm not "burning with vengeance." I'm dealing with an ongoing situation. As far as "vengeance" goes, I'm not the one preparing an additional complaint, am I?TortureIsWrong04:45, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem could be solved without any further action by civil behavior on your part, as many people have pointed out. That's what I would prefer, actually.RJASE1^Talk04:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Recently we've had some problems with hoax articles on alleged future automobiles. There was one round of about 5-6 articles that went to AfD. Last week, we hadanother AfD about the same subject. These articles were created byUser:Teddy.Coughlin (who also had a penchant for adding blatant misinformation to articles) andUser:Hardlinger. Another article,Saturn Avaze, was created recently byUser:Dathe remoncado, possibly in response tothis. These articles were written very similarly, usually only one or two lines of poorly written BS. --Sable23220:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The article was recreated again byTony Nizwin. I deleted it and added a sock tag to Tony Nizwin's page.IrishGuy^talk20:54, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

What else can we do to about this? I'd say that this Dathe remoncado is most likely a sock of Hardlinger. I'm going to tag both user pages as such, but it's this Teddy Coughlin I'm not sure about. The other three accounts are only used for creating articles, Teddy Couglin is used for adding misinformation to articles as well (there have been what appear to be a few good edits). --Sable23200:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Babysbottom's only edits to date have been to use a group of user pages and user talk pages as forums for chatting with other users whose only edits are also restricted to said chatter. Babysbottom is the most prolific among them and has been warned several times[17][18][19]. The typical response usually to ignore or avoid the actual issue[20][21] and the same attitude is shared by others in the group[22]. The complete list of the group appears to be:

• Babysbottom (talk ·contribs)
• Hamsterpoo (talk ·contribs)
• Small Dodge (talk ·contribs)
• Choclatemuffin (talk ·contribs)
• Cherry01 (talk ·contribs)
• Cherry02 (talk ·contribs)

Though it should be noted that some of them have only made a couple edits. They don't seem to be receptive, and none of them have contributed constructively. I feel like any more warnings are just wasted effort.Leebo^T/C20:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I came acroos a page once when people were using it as a Myspace and then just blanked it and leftChat room-like comments removed byTellyaddict (talk ·contribs). Maybe this could be done and a explanation in the edit summary as it does violateWP:USERPAGE andWP:NOT. Any thoughts? -Tellyaddict21:03, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This has been done, and some of the pages were deleted by an administrator, only to be recreated with more chatter. They have also taken to responding with personal attacks. I'm not sure how they misunderstood Wikipedia's purpose to this extent.Leebo^T/C21:08, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I am filing a request atWP:RFP for Full Protection of the User talk and User page, this should prevent it as if blocked they are still able to edit their User talk page.Tellyaddict21:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babybottom's user page is now proteted against recreation, but I've left the talk page until there is post-block abuse.John Reaves(talk)21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Babysbottom recently blanked Small Dodge's talk page and continued the chatting. I'll revert it, but should action be taken with Babysbottom?Leebo^T/C18:48, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

AndUser:Hamsterpoo createdUser:Hampstershite after being username blocked for the "poo" part, I guess.Leebo^T/C19:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hampstershite blocked.IrishGuy^talk19:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I hate it when people get too light handed with this. All accounts blocked.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 19:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)Talk pages protected to prevent further conversation.^{On Belay!}19:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot (talk ·contribs) is claiming "ABC News concluded that the Drudge Report sets the tone for national political coverage." When IWP:ATT this claim the user wrote "rv. Are you being deceitful, or just obtuse?"[23] More opinions welcome.Arbustoo21:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Umm, the title of the referenced article at abcnews.go.com is "Drudge Report Sets Tone for National Political Coverage".Seems a rationale for the edit, though a summary of the articlewould might be better, rather than just repeating lead.Shenme21:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

It's a review of a book by Mark Halperin, who is the originator of that quote. At any rate, I can't fathom how this requires administrative intervention; please keep it to the article's talk page. —bbatsell¿?✍21:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The second line of the title is "Book Compares Online Newsman to Walter Cronkite".[24] The article is an interview/review of thr authors' book. If ABC believes what the authors said it isn't claimed. I posted it here as I was attacked by another editor on my talk, the page talk, and the edit summary. Rather than have an edit war, I thought it was better for others to give their opinion.Arbustoo21:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again reverted[25] claiming the ABC News believes this.Arbustoo21:56, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Arbustoo (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·page moves ·block user ·block log) was blocked for edit warring onDrudge Report (edit |talk |history |protect |delete |links |watch |logs |views), and says my 3RR report of his 4 reverts in an hour and 20 minutes was "deceitful"[26] because I (apparently) reported them in reverse order.[27] I asked for a retraction of the "deceit" charge and got none.[28] His unblock request is awaiting review.SandyGeorgia (Talk)01:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I have opened an RfC asking a narrow pair of questions on this issue. I believe that some editors with a history of antipathy toward Matt Drudge are mischaracterizing the source in question. SeeTalk:Drudge Report#RfC: ABC claim. -Crockspot15:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Arbustoo on the 3RR report, and fail to see how it was "deceptive". The reverts were listed in reverse chronological order, which is a bit nonstandard, but I saw that and read them from the bottom up anyway. Regardless, there were four reverts.Seraphimblade^{Talk to me}16:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

It has recently come to my attention that Arbustoo is under ArbCom sanction for edit warring. Considering two prior blocks for 3RR, and an ArbCom ruling, I am concerned about his lack of understanding of 3RR; I have filed a report atArbcom enforcement.SandyGeorgia (Talk)19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

John2429 (talk ·contribs) is soliciting people to conduct paid interviews for a purported Grad School project. Please seeWikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Looking to Interview Wikipedians,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Looking to Interview Wikipedians,Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz#Looking to Interview Wikipedians, andWikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/American Civil War task force#Looking to Interview Wikipedians. Is this activity permitted? Should these be removed? Should any warnings be issued for this? --After Midnight⁰⁰⁰¹18:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I personally would turn a blind eye as its for a non-profit organisation.Epbr12318:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• I brought something similar to this up a while back and the general consensus of the people who responded to myWP:AN post seemed to be to let it slide.--Isotope2318:23, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• This is legitimate. I've spoken with him, and I wouldn't worry too much about it.alphachimp04:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• Indeed. John's project is legitimate, and part of an academic research project (fully approved by his university). I have communicated with him too. --Ragib04:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

Hope this is the right place. I fear it isn't, unless oversight is appropriate.Special:Contributions/172.164.50.47 shows a personal attack being added on two user's talk pages (claimed to be, and likely to be, the same person). But they have fake signatures. So perhaps this is really about attacking the person whose signatures they are. There has been intemperate discussion e.g.[31],Talk:Scotch_whisky#Map. Neither user is active at the moment, but they edit in bursts. I don't know what to do about it anyway. Would it be in order to just delete them as personal attacks, or is that out of order on another user's talk page? The IP appears to belong to AOL, so there's no profit in investigating that further.Notinasnaid18:43, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and warned the IP, although if it belongs to AOL, it may not do much good.Heimstern Läufer18:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This guy is already blocked for vandalism and is expressing his general contempt for the community by abusinghis talk page. Not a crisis worthy of AIV, but worth making note of.. His 24 hour block expires in a little over 2hrs --Versageek19:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted. If he wants to remove warnings, that is his perogative, but he isnot entitled to falsify posts by others.IrishGuy^talk19:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to reset the block timer for the disruption and perhaps extend it for falsification of posts. I'd say an indef block on this guy is going to be pretty inevitable, he isn't going to grow up in 2 hours, is he.--Nick^t19:30, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty clearly a vandalism-only account, why is it not already indefblocked? I'll do it myself unless someone gives a reason I haven't seen. —bbatsell¿?✍19:31, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Block away. Watch out for vandalism from his IP, though:81.153.33.130. That will surely follow.IrishGuy^talk19:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. I've reverted and protected his talk page, btw.--Nick^t19:47, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I tried to extend the block to indefinite, but it wouldn't let me. But seriously... When's the last time anyone sawany good come out of these vandalism-only accounts? I never have, in fact I've seen these accounts step up their vandalism to something worse when some administrator decided to block them for a finite amount of time. This one more than warrants an indefinite block, IMHO, especially when he's changing other people's comments like that.22:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User:63.151.150.82 appears to be a single purpose account, with the sole purpose of vandalizing (blanking) the text ofVincent Fumo, and replacing it with a BLP violation. The user has been warned once by a bot, and once by me, atUser talk:63.151.150.82. -Crockspot19:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Sounds like a job forWP:AIV if he does it again...--Isotope2319:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

User [User:Khoikhoi| Khoikhoi] and [User:Beit_Or| Beit Or] began stalking and reverting all of my edits back to own versions without any comments or discussion here[32] here[33] here[34] here[35]. Suspected sockpuppet of user Khoikhoi who also has been stalking and reverting my edits consecutively[36], here[37], here[38], here[39]. --Oguz119:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no sockpuppetry or stalking here. You have also beenwarned about this.20:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I have blockedOguz1 (talk ·contribs) for 2 weeks for disruptive editing andWP:POINT violations.20:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The following usernames all appear to be socks of the same individual, whose every edit is either link-spam, information about himself (Asa Dan Brown), or information about his company/organization (Insight Psychological Inc). I happened to notice this trend after watchlisting some random pages due to vandalism. I'm not sure what needs to be done, so I am bringing it to your attention here. The suspected usernames/IP, along with some representative diffs, are listed below. Thanks.Pastordavid20:12, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

• Insight psychological inc. (talk ·contribs ·count)diff,diff,diff
• Psychological - insight (talk ·contribs ·count)diff,diff,
• Insight Psychological (talk ·contribs ·count)diff,diff,diff
• 142.59.133.152 (talk ·contribs ·count)diff,diff,diff

Drop byUser:Shadow1 and ask to have the offending link/links added to Shadowbot's spam blacklist.--Nick^t20:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Done. But should account creation be blocked on the IP? I am generally not quite so adament about vandalism blocks, but this sort of revolving account creation seems to game the system. --Pastordavid20:38, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind ... for now I am satisfied with theapology offered by the "staff of Insight Psychological", and will simply let the matter go for now. --Pastordavid21:08, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I created this page, as a simple category, to flag BLP concerns quickly:WP:BLPC. It seems like a good idea. -Denny21:03, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I recently rolled back all edits bySwilson86 (talk ·contribs) due to highly suspect insertions of links to apparent airport websites and I just wanted to mention it here in case anyone wanted to double check my actions. -- ^|21:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

They appear to be spam.Frise21:52, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

An anon in the 72.xxx... range added this question to the Reference Desk:[40]. Since an anon in that range has repeatedly been adding anti-Semitic, anti-Stern polemics to the Help Desk, I deleted it as trolling. I now have the following on my Talk page:[41].Corvus cornix22:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You...!!! --Golbez22:15, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

How could you! -M^ask22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I will be quite upset if my garishly extravagent salary dries up. --Pastordavid22:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Could this be harassment or something? Or perhaps a littlepointy?x42bn6Talk22:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I love threats like that. They cheer you up when you're in a bad mood cause they're clearly such bollocks. Like when people threatened to sue you, with no grounds at all. I find it hilarious. --Deskana(ya rly)04:12, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's the 71.xxx... range. My bad.Corvus cornix22:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. Those 71.xxx folk only haveningi's anyway. Too piddling by far.Shenme23:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

User:PadrigPlasdig appears to be on some sort of mission to troll user talk pages. SeeSpecial:Contributions/PadrigPlasdig. This is leading tocascade issues (or he's got a sockpuppet that he's using to complain about himself - either way, it's bad). —DragonHawk(talk)23:10, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Dramatica troll; username blocked, user talk trolling deleted/removed. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩23:32, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was quick. What service!  :-) —DragonHawk(talk)23:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, we aim to please ˉˉ^anetode╦╩23:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

This user keeps adding unverifiable information ([42],[43],[44],[45],[46]) without citing a source. The user did this after a final warning and also created a few unsourced articles (possibly hoaxes). These includeRebbeca Langron.Squirepants10100:04, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The user never provides an edit summary.Squirepants10100:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

• You should list vandalism at Administrator intervention against vandalism[47] --Masterpedia03:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't sure whether this was obvious vandalism or not.Squirepants10103:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)