I really need some assistance here. Check the history of this page and the talk page, but the long and short of it is,216.139.219.148 (talk·contribs) is accusing me of having a Judeo-Christian bias because I don't think the bust size of a fictional character is encyclopedic (or even necessarily very important).JuJube01:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Other than that, I'd encourage you to stayWP:COOL and have a reasonable discussion with the editors involved with the page. Consider asking for help fromWikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games and/or athird opinion if that doesn't lead to progress. The person may just be passionate about their topic rather than intentionally trying to rile you, so try to find some common ground to work from.William Pietri01:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
This article either needs deleting or fixing BADLY. As it stands, it's nothing more than a dartboard for random garbage, most likely from students. I can't make heads or tails of where the article ends and the vandalism begins.
Well, I appear to have a talent for turning really crappy articles into only moderately crappy articles, so I will take a look at this one for you. --Haemo02:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The article appears to be about a non-notable student. I added a proposed deletion tag but there is absolutely no references or sources and a search around the Internet shows nobody named Jesse Bower as described on the article. Should it be speedy deleted instead of prod? --Hdt83Chat04:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There is nonsense on the talk page of Spam, which for obvious reasons is a target for such things. The user who posted part of it keeps trying to revert it[1] on the grounds that the talk page policy doesn't allow removing information posted by others. It doesn't seem to me that that part of the policy should apply to vandalism, but can an administrator please look at this?Ken Arromdee14:50, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Totally offtopic (the topic is improvement of the article) remarks and vandalism can be removed from article talk pages by any editor. I've made a note of this on the editor's talk page.Kusma (talk)14:57, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Looks like the "resolved" tag was premature. He just put the nonsense back with a comment saying "revert war".Ken Arromdee21:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
"Temporary full protections are used for enforcing a 'cool down' period to stop an edit war." User:Zscout370 has given no indication that the full protection is temporary and apparently has the intention to full protect the article indefinitely.Jingra1118:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The reality is that the dispute will not be resolved anytime soon. Several users involved have stated outright that they simply will not debate the issue.Jingra1118:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
That's unfortunate, then. Maybe they'll just have to learn to work together, or they won't be able to edit the article.Sean William18:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
The users who have refused to debate the issue have displayed no desire to edit the article. Preventing them from editing it will therefore not motivate them to reach an agreement. Meanwhile, those of us who wish to make constructive edits to the article could be locked out for weeks or even months.Jingra1119:02, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This is the second protection the article was given. The first one was a time expiration set by another user. Once that expired, the IP went back and decided to add the content in. So, in my mind, it felt like the IP kept on reverting our decision to remove a table. So, the only way we could solve the problem is the protection by me. I knocked the protection down to semi protection a few hours ago, so more folks can edit the article now. Though, personally, I wish you talked to me first before you came here.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, in another section below, this user filed more complaints on other users invovled in the article mentioned and got blocked as a sockpuppet. Consider this matter closed.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)19:59, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
An FYI to anyone who's wondering about this, admins fully protect pages indefinitely, because we do not know when disputes are supposed to end. When a dispute is resolved, or has ended, you can request unprotection atWP:RFPP, or at an administrator's talk page.Nishkid64 (talk)20:31, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
I can easily do the unprotection myself, so when the dispute is over, then it can be knocked down from semiprotection to nothing. But when it will be over, not sure. I started some kind of discussion on the article talk page.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)20:39, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is currently violating consensus onHuntington Beach, California. After various attempts to plead for him to discuss it on the talk page, he has decided to attack me for using an IP rather than a user name. Please check out the article and its talk page, its a pretty clear case that he has no regard for consensus if it involves something that has to do with British spelling. I'll guarantee that half of his British to American spelling changes likely violateWP:ENGVAR. For example: [[2]], the "armour" line is part of the template and changing it has no point since nothing is in the field. There is absolutely no reason to do what he did except for his hatred of seeing British English spelling. And now the user has saidthis blatantly saying that he hates British English and will keep his articles as American English, a violation ofWP:OWN. ANd if that isn't clear enough, he says it againhere. And to make things worse, the user blatantly deletes messages off his talk page rather than archiving, likely to hide his various sock, 3RR, and NPA violations.128.227.43.4203:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I find it highly amusing to see an anon editor complaining about how another editor chooses to manage his talk page. I would nonetheless be quite interested to see a link to this so called personal attack on this anon user (although how exactly one can personally attack an IP address is beyond my understanding) so as to see the nature of the insult and the context in which it occurred.Zebulin17:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse me, I have stopped editingHuntington Beach and I created the articleSS Paris using American english and it is supposed to stay that way since that was the way it was originally written. It is true, I do not like British english and I had a problem with changing things to American english but I have stopped. The only exceptions areHuntington Beach because it is an American city but I have stopped editing on that page afterUser:Akhilleus warned me. The articleSS Paris was created by me useing American english and it is a rule that if a page is originally written in British or American spelling it should stay that way. I also I wasn't attacking you for not signing in , I just said you should sign in. You were the one that actually attacked me by saying I blank by talk page which I am allowed to do but I have stopped doing it andUser:Akhilleus pointed out that you told me this in a rude way. I did not violateWP:OWN because all I was doing was making sure the articleSS Paris is written in American english since that was the way it was created.User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
Also if you notice that when I am sent warnings I stop.User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
AlsoWP:OWN is when you do not allow anyone to edit a page and revert everything a person does to the page, which I do not. I am just making sure that the style of english used when a page was oringinally written is maintained. Also you really should make an account. Also I would like to point out that you made a comment towards me that is age discrimination [[3]], remember you said "Daniel Chiswick,you are just 16,i recommend to comedown your hormones" andUser:Driftwoodzebulin warned you about it? Infact you personally attacked me twice on that page by saying how I have been blocked before in a very rude way.User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
Also I is not against the rule to say I dislike British spelling.User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
Since the official name used by the Huntington Beach Harbour is with a U and a consensus was reached at the talk page to include that name, this is how it should be spelled in the article. We can't change the name of a place just so it can adhere to our guidelines of American vs. British spelling. Regarding the latter edit war, if the template uses British spelling, you're gonna have to use British spelling when using it.Yonatantalk03:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay good, but I already undertand this and somebody sent warning to my page so I stopped. The person that started this is overreacting and everytime I tell him that I have stopped editingHuntington Beach he keeps talking about it like I am still doing it. Also as I said, I created the articleSS Paris using American spelling and keeping it that way is not violatingWP:OWN.User:Daniel Chiswick 24 May, 2007.
There's no problem with keeping the American English but you shouldn't change the parameters of a template, as they won't work with American English...Yonatantalk04:48, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I added on the talk page citations showing the city using both "Huntington Harbour" and "Huntington Harbor" hundreds of times in their own documents, including corporate minutes, planning documents, and phone directories. Either is defensible. Harbour has the edge from Mapquest. The definitive is probably "Harbour" from the planning document. Google has tehns of thousands of sites with each spelling for the same place, so someone putting a website in a comment is not that definitive. Get a ruling from the city planner.Edison16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Another Stephen Colbert outbreak
I've noticed a sudden surge in vandalism to library, librarian, libertarianism, and similar topics: the meme is "hiding something"; Colbert must have had something Wikipedia-related on his most recent TV show. Please be on the lookout, and also for newly registered users with Colbert-related names. Sigh,Antandrus(talk)04:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was interviewed. After the episode was pre-recorded, Jimmy told us which pages we should be protecting. We'll be fine. For the record, Colbert told people to insert "Librarians are hiding something".Sean William04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Jimmy Wales was a guest on the Colbert Report this evening. Discussion of the previous "Elephants" issue came up, and Colbert threw out several other possible vandalisms, including a banner run across the screen saying "Librarians are up to something" so Jimmy couldn't see it. Einstein raising Alpacas was another off-the-cuff comment, but there were quite a few, so expect it to be a busy night aroundRecent Changes. --InkSplotch04:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Ha, yeah just saw the interview myself. Was surprised that the vandalism came so quickly. But it is being handled generally quite well.--Jersey Devil04:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We seem to be left with a change of former "oxygen is toxic" to "oxygen is poisonous" in high concentrations as the result of the Colbert program. Seems about as good a phraseology.Edison04:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nice work to everyone who got on this right away. A friend of mine mentioned the interview, and I immediately came in to find most of the articles already protected (though Einstein was locked down on "Colbert = God" for a few minutes).Tony Fox(arf!)05:40, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Limin8tor (talk·contribs) made one small constructive edit in January, then was inactive until they made apro-Colbert talk page comment and were blocked indef byDragonflySixtyseven. Then then requested an unblock which was granted byYonatan, and then undone byDragonflySixtyseven. They're requesting unblocking again. My gut feeling is that blocking indef without warning (even for suggesting a Colbert-ism) is a bit of an overreaction and a stern warning would have been sufficient. Since this approaching wheel-war territory I'd like to discuss it here. I will contact the two admins shortly.—dgiestc05:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I tend to agree - an indef block for something like that is an over-reaction. I mean, we don't immediately indef block even for really obvious vandalism to mainspace pages - and this was on a talk page. --Haemo05:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, we should take a zero tolerance stance with Colbert vandalism. That one was a sleeper. We will not negotiate with Colberrorists.—Ryūlóng (竜龍)05:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Or possibly just a fan of the show having some fun? Seems like an over-reaction to me, that's all. He didn't even vandalize in mainspace. --Haemo05:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
"Sleeper" is a bit misleading because the target was a talk page which was not even semi-protected. While Colbert may be de-facto banned, I don't think it's reasonable to assume every editor knows they may not even discuss it on a talk page.—dgiestc05:55, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Guys, remember that blocking is not meant to be a punitive measure. The question is; is the guy likely to re-offend? Judging from his talk page right now, the answer's probably no. He stepped out of line just a little and got sideswiped by the Colbert banhammer. He didn't know the gravity of the thing & now he does. His block should at least be reduced significantly. Other run-of-the-mill vandals tend to get a 24 hour block for a first offence ... -Alison☺06:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly. The guy knows he's going to get clobbered by 100 admins if he does it again. It serves no purpose at this stage, apart from alienating a potentially constructive editor -Alison☺06:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The user's comments and indication that if the idea were rejected or laughed off, he would have accepted it seem genuine. We shouldn't bebiting, unless someone asks nicely. :P They were bold, took it to the talk page but didn't receive good faith. I understand they were caught in the Colbert ban storm, but really ... calling what he did Colbert vandalism is a bit of stretch. He's been very eloquent and calm through this, and it speaks to his credit. If he commits some actual vandalism, disruption or attack, by all means block him. Given what's occurred so far, I don't think he should be blocked at all. Aren't we supposed to befriendly and helpful here?Vassyana06:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I declined the unblock request before reading knowing about this thread, but you're right. If the user promises to stop colbertizing, I'm not opposed to an unblock.Sandstein07:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I try to avoid wheel wars. I did consult with Yonatan (yes, on IRC, sigh) prior to re-blocking. I'm pretty sure that Limin8tor would have screwed around with the article had it not been protected - but okay, he didn'tactually do what he suggested doing. We'll see what, if anything, he does once his shortened block expires.DS13:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Possible wikiproject conflict brewing
Resolved
There is a wikiproject conflict brewing aboutthis article. The two issues of conflict are a) the name of the article ("list of" seems to confirm to WP:NAME and b) which wikiproject WP:OWNs the page (neither is the correct answer). While this in many ways is a editing conflict, because it is at the wikiproject level, can an admin pop over and bang some heads before we get into "my wikiproject is bigger than your wikiproject" type situation with multiple editors banging heads. A little preventation is worth a lot of cure... --Fredrick day16:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So I noticedthis unblock request. It identified an IP address that isregistered toCBS. A quick look at the originally blocked user'scontributions clearly demonstrates a pattern of spam promotoingWCBS' website. I declined the unblock, but I'm not sure what to do next. --SelketTalk16:55, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Assume good faith, perhaps, but it's obviously the same person. In any case, this user will just be blocked if he/she continues.The Evil Spartan00:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm betting most of the CBS officies and radio stations go though the same (or same set) of proxies. ---J.S(T/C/WRE)21:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Doing a Wikisearch on my username today, I came across this discussion which I had not been aware of. Although I do often post from my business PC (which happens to be located at a CBS Television Station, although not at WCBS), I assure you that I am neither a sockpuppet nor a spammer. Thank you assuming good faith, as I try to do. Cheers! --Thomprod (talk)23:21, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Redsox04
UserRedsox04 is claiming to have banned the shared IPUser:147.114.226.173 and has placed a {{Uw-block3}} on the user page, together with the following message
Hello User:147.114.226.173, Unfortunately, your recent behavior at Wikipedia was deemed detrimental to this website, therefore I am forced to block your username. Many have given constant warnings and have pointed out your violations as clear as they could but your actions continued, causing me to make a decision that is in the best interest of our site and the viewers of our site. Sorry. Redsox04 19:26, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
on the talk page.
There's no actual abuse evidenced, and Redsox doesn't seem to be an admin. Is this not, in itself, a form of abuse?
[4] This isn't the first time the user claimed he blocked someone. However the response to the action I linked to did not reference the fact that he can't impersonate an administrator.Funpika22:42, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Several times I've seen people think that a page can be protected just by placing the protection template. And it appears he has madethe same mistake. Perhaps the fellow is just unusually ill-informed about how Wikipedia works, rather than out to impersonate an admin.William Pietri01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
That was my impression as well. In the absence of any evidence of pernicious intent here,AGF would surely serve us just fine.Joe04:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello. I feel that is important that I address the situation at hand. With all do respect, I feel that many punishments here at Wikipedia seem too lenient. I feel that the "three strike rule" should be enforced. After 3 warnings regarding the same violation, a suspension, at minimum, should be in order. All I am trying to do is keep this site free from vandalism. Yes, I can be strict and a bit "rouge" but if you're strict, you get the message across much easier and keep this site as fully functional and accurate as possible. I do, although, want to apologize for my wrongdoings and hope that you'll take my requests seriously and work with them.Redsox0421:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I had requested a block on this user based on his silly contributions but it was unheeded. Now this guy has left a very "nice" message on my user page in response to my warning:[5]--Deepak D'Souza (talk •contribs)07:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I have recieved personal threats fromUser:Parsecboy as he is accusing me of sockpuppetry in conjunction with the voting on theDokdo article.[6] He has left two nasty messages on my talk page. I have explained that those edits were not mine, and clearly someone is trying to make it look like I voted and signed my own name a second time with a different account.
On his talk page, I have asked him not to message me.[7] He refused to comply leaving yet another nasty message on my talk page.[8] I have been a Wikipedia user for quite awhile and have never had a sockpuppet (nor will I ever do such a thing). I know there isn't a hell of a lot you can do, but I would appreciate it if an admin would ask him to leave me alone.Davidpdx12:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Personal threats kind of implies threats "against your person." Was there some personal threat not included in the diffs you gave? I watched this little exchange and didn't chime in because I thought I might make it worse, but I was surprised you brought it to the level of an AN/I report when it was basically just two messages accusing you of sockpuppetry with some evidence he thought made it look like you were pulling a fast one. The talk page in question has been ravaged by some people attempting to disrupt the poll, and someone by mistake signed your name on a second vote and then change the message (he thought you were likely, since it was your name).
Keep in mind also that you don't "own" pages on Wikipedia, not even your talk or user pages, so you can't really "ban" a user from posting any messages at all there. Telling another user that you'll report them (and then following through with it) if they ever post any message to your talk page again doesn't seem like it's going to promote the best relationship between editors. --Cheers,Komdori12:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
While it's true I don't own my talk page, I have the right not to be harrassed. While the threat was not implicitly against me (physically) it does constitue harassment. In terms of your bit about not promoting the best relationship about editors by reporting them to an admin, what do you think leaving nasty messages on someone's talk pages does to promote relationships? How about nothing, but nastiness. It's clear this guy was looking for someone to go off on, dispute no proof the the allegations he was pushing were true or not.
I still have a right to report harrassment and the fact that I've asked him no to post a reply on my talk page. His continued messeging is harrassment and if need be I will take any further steps to prevent him from abusing me including filing for mediation or arbitration.Davidpdx13:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In my own defence, I was never "nasty" with you, Davidpdx. Perhaps you're exaggerating a bit there. There was indeed proof enough to make the allegation that I did. One editor (created yesterday, with no other edits) signed his/her name as yours, and then changed it. You have to admit that is highly suspicious. If I was in error, I apologize, I don't want to falsely accuse anyone. But I feel I was justified at the time, with the evidence I had at that point.Parsecboy14:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Clearly you were nasty with me, I have the comments in my talk page history to prove it. As stated below, if you had at least asked me, I would have told you it wasn't me. It's easy to go around accusing everyone of being sockpuppets, but when you accuse someone who isn't doing it you make enemies. Flying off the handle does nothing but piss people off. If that's what your trying to accomplish, then you were successful. Hopefully you learned your lesson about that one. It's nice to see at least a half-hearted apology, although you certainly could do better in that department as well.Davidpdx00:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Asking for clarification about the edit would have been preferred to accusing Davidpdx of blatant sockpuppetry. I myself think it would be highly unlikely for an editor using a sockpuppet to make the mistake of cutting and pasting their own signature to the sock post. It doesn't take muchgood faith to believe that this may have simply been a confused new editor...who also received a threatening message about the block he was going to receive after his first attempt to contribute. --OnoremDil15:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I will do that in the future. I have, however, seen the same exact thing happen with a user who openly admitted using the sock puppet after being confronted.Parsecboy16:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
After I declined an unblock request, this message was left on my talk page:
Nice to meet you, JPD! Thank you for your review of and assistance with the blocking of207.81.56.49. I am not sure if I am going about this in the right way, but I would like to draw your attention to this anon. IP. I am concerned that the person behind this anon. IP may been a user called Mayor Quimby who engaged in similar disruptive behaviour and was blocked indefinitely for making legal threats. I have requested a comment on207.81.56.49 and the hypothesis that I make above atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. I would appreciate your input if you are so interested. Thank you for your time.Mumun 無文16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Mayor Quimby was indef blocked for doing nothing other than attacking other users. I don't have time to look into it further now, and possibly won't until after the (long) weekend.JPD (talk)17:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I lodged the original 'request for comment' atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Saskatchewan. Please take a look. I think that if my hypothesis is plausible to you all, we need to block this anon. IP indefinitely because he/she made legal threats againstRyūlóng (竜龍) and other editors, is highly disruptive, and firmly opposes the aims and goals of our encyclopaedia project.Mumun 無文21:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I was involved in the original MayorQuimby case and, yes, that IP address is definitely the same guy. Same articles, same edits, same POV -Alison☺00:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Isn't that a little presumptive and circumstantial. Are you attempting to silence any and all discussion that is counter to your POV ?--207.81.56.4903:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I originally got into a dispute over an edit atthis page with the userUser:Someguy0830 for removing a link that was used on one page but not removing it on another. The person claimed that wiki verifiability did not allow the link, but allowed it to be placed with a secondary link verifying it. After going back and forth, the guy game up with criteria that, when presented with, still refused to act on what he said. I left the situation, not wanting to deal with someone who didn't seem to want to deal with anything except what he already predetermined. After butting heads with the adminUser:Jossi about a similar page,Shane Ruttle Martinez, over editing conflicts pertaining toWP:BLP, this user complained about me on Jossi's talk page. When I was having a dispute over Jossi's objectivity at the Village Pump Policy forum over possible objectivity issues relating to the current BLP conflict, the user decided to take over the argument, trying to question me constantly. I told the user that unless he wanted to be a mediator between Jossi and myself, that I would not have anything to do with his questions. His questions did not stop, and Jossi and I later resolved our issue on our own.
Then I decided to blow off steam and create theWarhammer 40,000 page onGraphic novels, titledGraphic Novels (Warhammer 40,000). This was named based on Graphic Novels being used as a proper title byWarhammer 40,000 as a series of their works. The name follows the conventions of the Wikiproject for Warhammer 40,000, and other such pages likeSisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) andEmperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) follow. This user came to the page, removed a lot of my edits and then moved it. This has caused me great stress, because not only did he not respect the already decided conventions by the Wiki group, he started claiming that I was owning the page by creating something already determined by my wiki project. Now, he has protected the page and furthers his campaign. Not only has he followed me to various places, he disrupted a wikiproject to harass me. This is very disturbing andUser:Jossi asked for me to place my concerns here. Thanks.SanchiTachi17:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh please - whatever other issues there are between you andUser:Someguy0830 (which frankly I don't know about and don't care about) - myhour of interaction with you shows that you have serious WP:OWN issues and a serious misunderstanding of the power and scope of wikiprojects. So in regards to your first complaint - I have idea of the validity of that, as for the second - there are straightforward concern from multiple editors about the warhammer page - so to suggest he's "disrupting a wikiproject" is bunk - because if he is, there are quite a few of us helping him. --Fredrick day17:35, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I would like to point out that user Fredrick day is not a member of either wikiprojects, according to what he said on the comics project page and is a possible sock puppet/working with Someguy to further this disruption of Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000 in order to harm me. "I'm not a member of this project, I'm not a member of any project - I'm a Wikipedia editor - that's ALL the authority I need to get involved. Neither wikiproject has any power over that page. --Fredrick day 17:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)" fromWikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics. He also shows a clear disrespect for consensus or approaching the members of a wikiproject during the creation of a new page.SanchiTachi18:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hurrah, my first AN/I note. I'll start off by being honest. I did find Sanchi's page through his contribs. I was bored and went looking for something to fix. Graphic Novels isn't a proper title, so I moved it. Then I checked the talk page to find Sanchi threatening to remove a Wikiproject banner simply because the opposing user felt graphic novels wasn't the proper term. I told him in no uncertain (and undoubtedly frank) words why such behavior is unacceptable, as well as the reason for my move. Rather than try to discuss this rationally, one need only read his contributions to see him go on a crusade against all would would threaten his page. This user simply hasownership issues and a complete misunderstanding of how Wikipedia works.
As for all those accusations, though I'm flattered by the effort he's taken against me, perhaps because I'm one of the few people willing to put up with his behavior over any length of time, Sanchi's points are falsehoods. He didn't resolve anything with Jossi. He simply left the conversation after realizing his nonsense wouldn't fly. As for the Marxist-Leninist thing, I asked him not only to provide a second source, which he only half-did, I asked him why it was relevant to the person in question. I never got an answer to that, or my request for proof with the Jossi thing for that matter. —Someguy0830 (T |C)17:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Notice the dates:
[9] 22:16, 24 May 2007 was the time of original establishment. 04:00, 25 May 2007 was the time of his moving. Note, he is not a member of the Wikiproject Warhammer 40,000, nor did he ask for consensus before a move.SanchiTachi18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Please readWP:BRD. Nobody has to ask a Wikiproject for permission to edit or move an article, nor do they need to be a member of said Wikiproject. As I said on your talkpageSanchiTachi (talk·contribs), you appear to have an incorrect understanding of exactly what a Wikiproject is.--Isotope2318:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I take it that Isotope23 no longer understands that "Consensus" means or that you should seek Consensus before moving a page? I'm pretty sure thats one of the most importan Etiquette rules.SanchiTachi19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment I have had no dealings with eitherSanchiTachi orSomeguy0830 before today (that I can recall) so I cannot comment on previous behaviour interactions but I have had a chance to observe them both in the recent incident that seems to have kicked this up a gear. The whole thing can bee seen on the talk page but it arose from my querying the name of the entry (which conflicted with general naming guidelines) and added the Comic Project header.Someguy0830 moved the page to its current location and while I would have preferred more debate about the correct name he was within his rights to do (especially as we tell people to be bold). What followed wasSanchiTachi removing material added in good faith, moving the entry back again, making wild and baseless accusations and rapidly escalating this otherwise minor problem to the point of (amongst other things) making accusations at all of the Comic Project[10] and bringing the issue here. I haven't seen anything on Wikipedia blow up out of all proportion like this and have seen enough disputes over the naming of entries and the conduct of editors to know that something this minor can almost always be resolved simple and amicably. The speed with whichSanchiTachi has made a mountain out of a molehill has been quite startlingly. Anyway that is just my perspective. As far as I can see the person who has grounds for a complaint isSomeguy0830 but I'd hope they'd take the higher moral ground and walk away or just agree to disagree and try and stay out of each other's ways. This whole thing seems awfully unnecessary and could/should have been sorted out before it became such a big issue. (Emperor18:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
What material in good faith? Actually, material was removed from the main page, and I removed the Comics project title from the page until it would be officially deemed by consensus to be part of the comics project, especially seeing as how the page didn't actually deal with comics. Furthermore, when a user, like Someguy, follows you to 5 different unrelated pages and startes responding, attacking, and editing those pages, then claims that he is doing it because he believes you have an "own" problem, then that is WikiStalking.SanchiTachi19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Editors like myself are free to add project headers where appropriate - it isn't for you to decide what is or isn't relevant to a page but, like everyone else are welcome to put forward an arguement why it might not fit. (Emperor21:46, 25 May 2007 (UTC))
When one user picks up the argument from another user, and that user is a self proclaimed "non-participant" in the group projects and has no other reason to be there, then its either a strange coincidence or sock-puppetry.SanchiTachi19:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You need to get over this Wikiproject "non-participant" thingSanchiTachi (talk·contribs).Every editor has every right to edit any articles here. Fredrick day has every reason to edit the article in questionif he so chooses. Many of the statements you've made here and atTalk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels are veering intoWP:OWN territory. I suspect you feel ganged up on, but you have to understand that Wikiprojects don't hold a monopoly on any article, even if one of their members created that article.--Isotope2319:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Nope - it's because you turned up on the wikiproject for comics with your WP:OWN claims (I don't join wikiprojects BECAUSE I feel they have OWN issues and need independent editors such as myself to keep them honest) - while I am not a member of any wikiproject, I watch quite a few of them for various reasons. It's quite laughable for you to claim that I am trying to work against consensus when I was the one to start the debate on what the article name should be and came here for admin intervention to try and prevent an edit war. --Fredrick day19:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Indeed. If Sanchi Tachi hadn't made his unkind accusation of "hijacking" on the WikiProject Comics talk page[11], many of us would have been unaware of the article. --GentlemanGhost20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
From my dealings withSanchiTachi I am also of the opinion that he hasWP:OWN issues. On many a page it is "his way or the highway" (and to be honest [and before anyone else brings it up] his attitude was the reason I quit the 40K Wikiproject group).Darkson - BANG!20:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Returning to the subject at hand (theWP:STALK accusation), following someone's contributions in good faith is not a violation of any guidelines or policy. Often times you'll find "messy" users (such as those with poor English skills or whatnot), and following them around cleaning up their messes can be very productive. WP:STALK is not an issue in this case, as it would appear that Someguy was not acting with the intent to harass (as we shouldassume). In the instances where Someguy cleaned up after (i.e. "wikistalked") Sanchi, it seems that he had a valid stance in each case. –Gunslinger4722:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A "valid" stance? You mean going over and interfering in a conversation which he didn't belong in, and then looking through my contributions and following me to a new page and moving it without placing a move tag or asking for a consensus? Really? You think those are "valid" edits? Wow, you need to rereadWP:EQ then. Thanks. Furthermore, where was his assuming good faith? Where was his looking for a consensus? Where was his unwillingness to not harass me on Public Pump Policy when he was asked kindly to stop?SanchiTachi22:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
So if I went around and interupted disputes between you every where you went, you would think that falls under proper Wiki Etiquette? Please readWP:EQ, and you will see that it does not.SanchiTachi03:40, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
WP:EQ:"If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive.If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."
Is this the only part of this page that you read? Something tells me might have glossed over a certain part of it. –Gunslinger4705:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the 3RR warning made him stop. If he reverts again, I will block, although I would not be offended if someone else blocks him before. --ReyBrujo18:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, he seems to have realized that he went to far sometime yesterday, and some other recent edits are him apologizing and sitting down to work with people politely. Given that he realized that, stopped on his own, and is behaving himself right now I'm inclined to leave it at the warning message I left on his talk page.Georgewilliamherbert20:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
If i ever get blocked...i shouldnt be blocked alone because theres an annonymous user thatUser:64.131.205.111 that was reverting my edits and doing inappropiate things which made me get angry and caused me to act the way i did...Did was my first time i ever had trouble with a user because i alwayys got along with every body until the last couple of daysEdwinCasadoBaez22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I thought that the policy was that only one screen capture can appear in each article. The articleStar_Wars_Episode_IV:_A_New_Hope, which is a featured article, has a total of 5. Each one has a fair use rationale, but that still doesn't exempt the images from the screen capture policy.Rhythmnation200420:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The wording from therules on fair use is "minimal use". There is no numerical standard. If five fair-use images have five good fair-use rationales, then it is certainly possible that five images is "minimal" in this case. (ESkog)(Talk)20:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but fair use galleries are not acceptable, and the fair use rationales have to be very, very solid, and any more than 5 would be dubious at best. Minimal fair use: Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia. That's free as in free-content, not just beer.MoreschiTalk21:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
No it doesn't in my eyes - it looks like Gay Cdn was simply nominating a lot of pictures with similar but confusing names for deletion.Ryan Postlethwaite21:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think maybe he meant that it had been moved by a vandal (I fixed it[22] and thanks to the others who just now helped clean this up).Antandrus(talk)21:15, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've indefblockedGBpacker4 7 for trolling. In addition to the recent events of recreating his autobiography and subsequently requesting others to do it, he blatantly violated ourWP:OR,WP:NPOV,WP:V, andWP:NPA policies throughout his entire contribution history[24][25][26][27]. He was warnedseveraltimes regarding this, but didn't cease his behavior.Michaelas1022:08, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
We have been trying to mediate a dispute onStephen Barrett for quite sometime now. The mediator was fed up with the incivility and felt that meidiation would not be successful given the hostile environment. The mediator made his commentshere. In an effort to move forward with more civility, I have pointed other editors to this page so they can read what our neutral mediator's take on the state of our dispute is. Ronz takes our mediator's comments as personal attacks against himself and therefore has engaged in removing my link to our mediator's comments and further engaged in talk page edit wars when I tried to revert this censorship. Overall, Ronz is behaving with gross incivility, rampant censorship and is preventing us from reaching a compromise to this dispute. --Levine2112discuss22:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Deletion?
Resolved
Hi - another editor just noticed thatthis article has had a deletion tag on it for almost a month now - despite the fact that there appears to be a clear "keep" consensus. Can an admin either close the delete, or relist it, so this can be settled? --Haemo00:07, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparently the nomination was never included in any categories, and thus was likely miscalculated by bots. Geez, what a rare case.Michaelas1000:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Violent threats
Dear Sir or Madam: There have been a number of long-standing serious disputes on theJat people and associated pages (such as theIndo-Aryan origin of Jats page) - as you can tell if you read the notes by myself and others on the Talk pages and even in the archived Talk pages.
But just today I have noticed a new and very worrying progression to threats of violence. They are not directed at me specifically - but I thought I should report them right away. Here they are:
"WE ABOUT TO FORM [[JATTISTAN COMANDO FORCE.WE DEMAND SEPRATE STATE OF HARIYANA,WESTERN UP,EASTERN RAJASTHAN ETC.PUNJABI JATS INVITE TOO.JO BHI JAT KI AULAD HAE SUPPORT US.JAT IS GREAT.JAT IS GREATER THEN ALL OF CAST OF INDIA.JO HUMSE TAKRAYEGA CHOOR-2 HO JAYEGA.JAI JATtISTAN,JAI HINDUSTAN.
===Dispute===[[maa ki ....dispute ki.no cast greater then jats.if anyone stand fingure on jats.we cut his hands."
"== NO IF NO BUT ONLY JATT ==
* If anybody have bad thought about jats.give me his addrss.i meet him personally"
Thanks very much - but the threats still stand on the main page ofJat people - they have not been reverted. Could this please be taken further? Many thanks,John Hill01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You could have reverted it yourself, but I just went back to your last edit on the 23rd, before all the random cruft and threats started.Georgewilliamherbert01:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Theyoungstunna (talk·contribs), also known as the (non-notable) rapper Magnificent, has for the past four or five days been trying to promote himself, the record label he is signed to and several colleagues/friends. See the article history ofMagnificent,Special:Undelete/DJ Yung Stylez andSpecial:Undelete/Magnificent rapper. The user has beenwarned andwarned andwarned not to use Wikipedia foradvertising or as a free webspace provider. I would like to ask an uninvolved admin to block the account for up to one week, perWikipedia:Blocking policy#Disruption: "accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, or service, in apparent violation ofConflict of interest oranti-spam policies, should be warned that such edits are against Wikipedia policy. If after the warning such edits persist, and the account continues to be used primarily or solely for the purpose of promotion, any uninvolved admin may block the account for up to one week."AecisBrievenbus01:04, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Request for more eyes on Wikipedia:Ignore all rules
Could I request some more admins watchlistWikipedia:Ignore all rules(edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)? (I suppose it is on many watchlists, but I want more, more I tell you.) Billy Ego, a banned user, has already employed three socks today, one as I was typing this message. It would be preferable if everybody could just rollback and block the further ones which are likely, as opposed to protecting the article - although that option might become necessary. Thank you.Picaroon(Talk)01:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've semiprotected for a few days. Brand-new editors are unlikely to be drawn to this page. Feel free to lift the semi if anyone cares to, especially if a checkuser can find and block the socks' IP.Newyorkbrad01:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Strangely, though, the edit that the socks keep making, although I don't care for it too much, isn't the sort of trolling I was expecting. There must be a history there I don't get.Newyorkbrad01:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
David Gerard already did, he's using some sort of something which went over my head (this being a different something than whatever he previously used.) Not sure if the IP can be blocked, and if so for what amount of time. So yeah, I think a full report listing all four would be good, and seeing if the underlying IP can be blocked. As to logging all his socks on the case page, I'm pretty sure the arbcom won't care for every single on to be listed from now on.Picaroon(Talk)01:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Without wanting tofeed Billybeans, you'd probably need a separate subpage for all the socks in no time, judging from the amount of socks he's already used.AecisBrievenbus01:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Both are on UUnet dialups, which is a HUGE chunk of net, about a /10. And those dialups could be ANYWHERE IN THE ENTIRE USA OR CANADA! yay. So it's not a close match but it sure isn't a miss. And of course he could just use a different ISP. And of courseit could all be coincidence -David Gerard01:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
For further proof that this is Billy, compare edit summaries from a known sock,here, and one of those from today,here. And then compare the usernames. Voila, socks beyond a doubt.Picaroon(Talk)02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This probably should've been posted on AIV...
Resolved
–User blocked and edits reverted.
...but I'm not sure, and this person is not editing right now and has no warnings. Yet it is clearly either page move vandalism or really odd edit tests...
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
There appears to be a mis-understanding atWP:AMA. Can someone please explain this entire thing about making it historical. I didn't see any RfC's and there is actually a discussion that is happening on one of the page and right nowuser:Aeon1006 is saying they're closing the thing. The constant need for re-directing all the pages is truly disruptive to our discussion on the board at AMA. --CyclePat02:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't be sorry. Show me the community RfC and I'll be happy. Until then I find the actions highly disruptive as we try to rebuild the AMA and work on various cases. Could an administrator please revert the changes back to something quasi functional. Thank you! --CyclePat02:20, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
A bit out of process one could argue. Nonetheless, AMA needs to be killed with fire, sooner rather than later. Dragging this closing/historical/deletion process out is only wasting time and delaying the inevitable.^demon[omg plz]02:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry guys, I didn't realise an MfD had closed today for it, I've got no objections to it being closed early - but there does seem to be a clear consensus for it's closure.Ryan Postlethwaite03:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether it'stagged as 'historical' or not, it certainly seems tobe historical. Has the AMA helped to resolve any sort of issue recently?TenOfAllTrades(talk)03:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Here's a comparative analysis... Though I don't think these things ever work as well as I would like them to. TheWP:AMA and all our subpages have actually seen a lot more activity thanWP:EA. Should WP:EA be considered historical? No... The use of each group have their use. If I want a question answered I'll go to EA... if I want someone to help me out and talk for me I go to AMA. I would like for someone to please explain how you measure the worth of a page as being considered historical, because I really don't see it in this case? --CyclePat04:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
And that is only up to date as of the last edit by the bot to it - the backlog is likely to have risen in the tme that I've taken the bot offline.Martinp2310:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, the extent of your 'activity' appears to be to hold "elections" for a "co-ordinator", rather than actually responding to the people requesting assistance and cleanup. —Centrx→talk •05:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Don't forget the constitution which they spent a long time writing, earlier up the message board...Martinp2310:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, I'm open to consensus and, if people don't like us, we're out. It's simple. But I'd like to know if it wouldn't be better to have an RfC to have people's opinion on this matter. Don't you think? I know there's people wanting me to be the coordinator and so on, but I honestly don't have any interest in leading something that simply doesn't exists and no one wants it to exist. Do you agree in doing this last and definitive step? Or am I just dreaming and it's absolutely useless? --Neigel von Teighen10:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes lets close the AMA down it did its duty but now it has become bogged down in process and red tape. I nomed if for MfD eariler (the one that was closed as invalid due to it being tagged as Historic) and I'm thinking of sending the invalid MfD up to Deletion review to have it restarted so we can end this before it becomes the circus that the EA debate became.ÆonInsanity Now!13:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to see it deprecated, I think it's counter-productive. I think the first mfd showed a pretty clear mandate for closing it down and don't really see the need for an rfc. As someone who went to hell and back over the Esperanza deletion, I don't really want to see a repeat of that, it would be better if the mistakes made there could be learnt here and we could just gently deprecate it. I admit I'm currently involved in probably the last case involving an advocate, so people will have to work out whether that biases me, but from my experience it just doesn't work.HidingTalk15:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Neigel, just because 3-4 people decide to gang rape does that make it right? Just as it is wrong to be sexually assaulted, to kill someone, or any other moral reason, it is inherently wrong to first allow it just to happen and then to think nothing more of it. (ie.: "ex-AMA") You are talking as if you have lost your membership. *(secondly that statement, when you think about it is quite paradoxal). How can you be an ex-AMA, prior to accepting this alleged faith?. Cheer up chum! AMA is as active as we use it! And right now, I'm feeling a little anxiety. 1) because our conversations at the AMA are reverted... 2) because our conversations are reverted 3) because I know there is something wrong. Trust me! --CyclePat07:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
AMA spent a week fighting an MfD (which failed) and since then has been putting its effort to correct the issues brought up there. Closing a group for being inactive at its core function because it was compelled to devote its efforts to its own persistence is the peak of disingenuity. The whole thing stinks, horribly and moreover, unwikily. The PTB want AMA out because it made it too hard to exert minority control over the project and its members. When the MFD failed, the AMA's sincere attempts to resolve the issues were instead used to close it down? Unbelievable, and unconsensual. -Keith D. Tyler¶(AMA)21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Please protect the page. People (mostly IPs) are trying there to abuse wikipedia as an instrument in a campaign of protest against a German court decision that confirmed the artist's anonymity rights. The real name of the artist has never been encyclopedically relevant, since he always kept it private, and only in the context of the inappropriate protest against the court decision as alleged censorship, common knowledge of the real name was forcibly pushed. That's stalking by the masses and Wikipedia as an encyclopedia should not become an instrument of these masses. --rtc16:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Whether German court decisions apply is irrelevant. What is relevant are our content policies, which applystrictly to biographies. The biographical content is improperly sourced, being sourced to a trademark filing where person X happens to file a trademark with the same name as this comedy figure. (Ronald McDonald has been trademarked too. Clearly, the name of a trademark holder on a trademark filing is not conclusive evidence that person X has name Y.) It's obviously controversial, too. PerWikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy, I've removed it. Any editor who wants it in can best spend their time finding areliable source that gives the real name of this person.Uncle G18:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on this topic, I know nothing about him, but a) couldn't you printwho copyrighted the name without coming out and saying it is actually his name? b) if the statement stays that he sued a newspaper after they printed his real name, then it stands to reason a good source would be whatever the newspaper printed as his name, wouldn't it? If my name is Bob and a newspaper prints Charlie, I wouldn't sue them for printing my real name since it isn't my real name. Or am I missing something here? --Cheers,Komdori19:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
My understanding is this: This German comedian, who goes (only) by the stage name Atze Schröder, is in the habit of suing anyone who publishes his real name. A Berlin court has granted an injunction prohibiting this against a newspaper; the verdict is being appealed. The name can probably be verified through reliable sources, notably the court verdict at issue. De.wiki has decided not to carry the name. This is probably something to be decided at Foundation level, but until at least a complaint is raised against the name's publication on en.wiki I fail to see why we should not carry the name.Sandstein20:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree that you could in principle find a valid source for that name, and I have no doubt that it is correct. However, this name has become known only because of a court dispute revolving around someone who disclosed the name without permission that was previously explicitly kept private. The artist has always been anonymous, and hence his name is not relevant information. There are also some remarkable differences to the Tron case. 1. Tron was dead; 2. Tron was widely known by his real name and not anonymous or strictly pseudonymous (his name was just not spelled out entirely before his death); 3. Tron also used his full real name for publishing his thesis; 4. Tron's article was about his person himself, not about a fictional character played by him. In fact I agree that Tron's full name should be mentioned, but the circumstances are completely different here! Further: Such details about the person's name dispute certainly don't belong into an article about a character played by him; they don't have anything to do at all with that character. Further, I'd like to point out that it is obviously schizophrenic to claim a name to be relevant for an encyclopedia if it became public solely by a source that was judged as an illegal invasion into the person's privacy and anonymity rights. If you exclude that source and the sources created by people who incorrectly think that this is censorship and should be protested against by civil disobedience, by pushing his real name in as many places as possible, then you don't have a relevant source left that makes an explicit connection between the character and the real name of the artist. The trademark registration mentions his name, but the connection is not explicit; by itself, it could as well have been the name of his agent. So the trademark registerby itself cannot be a source for the connection between his name and the character he plays, and we are only left with a publication of his name that has been deemed illegal and the attempts to controversy it provoked. Finally, Even if the article was a biography about the artist, which it isn't (compare it toCaptain Picard), it is clearly the desire of the artist to stay anonymous and keep his real name private, so please respectWP:NPF and "exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability". The artist is not notable for his real name, and hardly for the naming controversy, but entirely for the character he plays. Of course the naming controversy is moderately notableamong active internet users, and one could give a small note about the original court case, but that's it—please don't mention the name and please don't give hints on where it can be found. This group of internet users is really only a negligible minority compared to the number of people who know the person only by the character he plays and hence doesn't justify basing the whole article mainly about that issue. --rtc22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As I mentioned before, we could note the name of the character is copyrighted by whoever holds it, right? If the actor hadn't gone around and sued people it might not be relevant, but now isn't he starting to be known as the guy who sues when his real name is published? Perhaps paradoxically it seems that might make his name relevant to the character itself. --Cheers,Komdori22:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I understand what you are trying to say, but I think that it is clearly wrong. What becomes perhaps moderately relevant about the controversy is that he has successfully sued against the publication of his name. What has not become relevant is his name itself! Referring to the trademark registration can only have the intention of giving hints about his name to circumvent the ban on publishing his name. The information in this registration by itself does not make the connection that the trademark owner is the same person as the artist. If you cannot give the original source and the name directly in a faithful way, then please be aware that using such 'tricks' is not any better. In fact, using the original source would at least not be as dishonest by playing such tricks! As a side note, please make a difference between copyright and trademark law. They are entirely separate and independent and must not be confused. The name is trademarked, not copyrighted! --rtc22:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
In the absence ofrtc, I'd like to say that his argument is the correct one; the information is clearly contentious, and were this artist to hear about it it would make him sad. We aren't here to make people sad. I don't buy the argument that the name in this case is potentially incorrect, as it is a matter of public record, but in my view that is not what trumps the case. --Edwin Herdman05:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I like your point Edwin and it gives me pause to consider... but the problem I kind of have with the whole deal (admitidly only for a day here) is that if someone reads that he sued to protect his name (which is clearly notable), then a reader's first instinct is to want to try to find out what the name is. While I'm not a big fan of trivia based sections of wikipedia, the name of an actor portraying a character seems intensely encylcopedic, and it seems odd to send them scurrying off to another source of information because of a lack of completeness. Just a thought. --Cheers,Komdori10:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
User blocked
Rtc has been blocked indefinitely with the reasoning "Three-revert rule violation: repeated 3RR violations with no sign of stopping". The user is requesting to be unblocked. I believe the block was valid, but also that it should have a clear, finite period of time. Since this issue is already being discussed here, I welcome comments. -auburnpilottalk20:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I blocked indefinately because I see severe edit warring in his edit contributions... his recent behaviour on Atze Schröder (5 reverts in a couple days) is just one example. ALKIVAR™☢20:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Am I missing something? I don't see any 3RR violations in his (recent) contribs. Edit warring, perhaps, but no violations so an indef seems strange.Trebor 20:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC) Added to that, the change he was trying to make was arguably valid (or at least should've been open for discussion) and has now been made by Uncle G anyway. This seems odd.Trebor21:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The user is clearly edit warring (and a block would be warranted for this), but I don't believe an indefinite block for an apparently nonexistent 3RR violation is appropriate. -auburnpilottalk21:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well possibly (although it's usually harsh to block for only a couple of reverts), but the block reason is wrong and the length way too much. I'd endorse unblocking now.Trebor21:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
24 hours should be the penalty for 3RR. Then grow it if it repeats. Indefinite for what appears to be the first block in some months seems excessive.Orderinchaos21:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It just seems odd to me that a new user would be aware of another editor who was a suspected sockpuppet, but I didn't want to go straight to WP:SSP. I'd appreciate your advice and vigilance about Quebec-related articles. Thank you.Kyoko19:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Copyright status of image being disputed for two months, no resolution
In March of this year,User:Argos'Dad uploadedImage:HellenicNavy.png for use onTemplate:Hellenic Navy[28]. Subsequent to this, significant discussion ensued which can be read atTemplate talk:Hellenic Navy. At the time,User:Argos'Dad indicated the image had been published in the United States before 1923, thus clearing it of copyright concerns. I requested he provide proof of that, and gave him instructions (OTRS) for doing so (see template talk page again). It's now been two months since that discussion, and he has yet to provide any evidence of his assertion. I therefore retagged the image as a non-free logo, and tagged it as orphaned fair use since it is not used in any actual encyclopedia articles[29]. Shortly thereafter, he reverted the orphaned tag (but not the non-free logo tag) indicating this was still under discussion. The discussion ended two months ago. I left him a message on his talk page regarding this[30], and restored the orphaned fair use tag[31]. Per my statement back in March on this and per my statement left on his talk page today, I am referring this matter to WP:AN/I.
The non-derivative image is available athttp://www.hellenicnavy.gr/agen_en.asp, which has a copyright tag at the bottom of that and the rest of the site.
Another version of the image is located atImage:GEN Greece.PNG, which is also marked as a non-free image.
My position at this time is that
The image is clearly a derivative of the source work,
The uploader was informed of this, and responded that the image was published in the U.S. prior to 1923
The uploader was asked to provide evidence of this
Two months have elapsed since this request and it has not been done
The image is therefore appropriately retagged as a non-free image and marked for deletion as an orphaned image.
I'd appreciate it if an admin would review this image and make a determination regarding its status and inform the respective parties. Thank you, --Durin20:47, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
–General consensus seems to be that we shouldn't feed the troll, nothing more to see, move along...EVula//talk //☯ //02:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Er, not sure whether this belongs here, but I thought it may be worth drawing attention to the intention of Jeff Vernon Merkey to either"buy out the foundation" or "put in enough resources to move it away from the hostage situation", presumbly referring to financial resources. Does Wikipedia, or the Foundation, have any established process for handling situations where an editor professes an intent to bypass the site's normal workings by applying financial pressure? Jeff has repeatedly stated that he expects certain concessions as a "major contributor" towards the Foundation's costs - is there any chance the Foundation could make some sort of statement one way or another as to whether it intends to honour those concessions (and to what degree Mr. Merkey has actually contributed)? --YFB¿23:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just because someone is blabbering away doesn't mean we have to care. :) (seriously, though, I don't think this is an issue; if it was Bill Gates, I might be worried. Just ignore the troll.)EVula//talk //☯ //23:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The foundationseesm to be doign well enough for the moment, no one can force them to sell. I estimate that it would take multiple tens of millions of dollars to render the foundation independant of ongoing contributions, and soemhow I doubt that Merkey gives or will give anything like that much.DES(talk)23:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Considering that the conditions outlined on his userpage would make it impossible to blockanyone, there is really no chance that it will happen. Just ignore it until he does something disruptive enough to be blocked. -Amarkovmoo!23:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Does "not blocking anyone" include not blocking the trolls who stalk him, who he's often insisted (sometimes successfully) get blocked?*Dan T.*23:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it says pretty clearly that anyone must be able to edit without having to worry about being banned. -Amarkovmoo!23:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The "buying out the Foundation" thing could be construed as a veiled legal threat, but he seems to have good (yet quite misguided) intentions behind his comments.Mr.Z-mantalk¢23:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think that is streaching, the only thing he is arguably threatening to do is not give money, or not ask others to give. Abnyone is free to say "do this, and I'll give you money" and if it isn't an illegal act, that's fine. No one has to take such a payment.DES(talk)23:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
The only sort of threatening part is the fact that he wants to use money to "move it away from this hostage model"Mr.Z-mantalk¢23:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just a troll who attempts to set impossible conditions for the Wikimedia foundation to achieve before allegedly donating. Nothing to see here, move along.Michaelas1000:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a US-registered 501(c)(3) tax-deductible nonprofit charity. It is not a company that is outright "owned" and can be sold. It is held to its mandate and ran by committee.(H)14:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I know Evula closed this, but looking at the RfC, it's nice to know that trolling your own RfC gets you out of it scot-free.ThuranX15:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
He's reported me here today, might as well do the same, eh?
In all seriousness, though, I've had it with this user. To cite a recent incident as just an example, getting these user to answer a question onTalk:List of Warhammer 40,000 graphic novels is like trying to pull teeth from a cheetah. He has continually insisted that he has sources to back up his claims outlined in theName of this article discussion to reach consensus section, let is absolutely refusing to answer the question. These refusals come in the form ofrecommending the article simply be deleted (after which he would just recreate it under his title and this BS would start all over again),personal attacks, andmore personal attacks. He only gives actual sourcesonce, and the two sources have nothing to do with his claims. This is not the only problem. This user has a fundamental disregard for any type of policy, guideline, or rule that isn't shoved down his throat by the force of several other editors. Add onto that the severeWP:OWN issues he has with not only that page, but basically everything he does. See#User:Someguy0830 for people pointing this out. I'm honestly not too concerned with the method in which this behavior is dealt with, but it's disruptive and needs to be stopped. —Someguy0830 (T |C)01:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above user does not realize that he does not have to follow me from page to page. The above user has had a "problem" with the way I work in many different pages with admin present. However, the person has taken it upon himself to be the one to edit out, revert, and do all sorts of other harassing actions upon my posts in order to cause me emotional distress.
I have tried walking away from him and posting in places that he is not there, but he keeps following me. The above user is not following NPOV rules and is taking things personally. The only way this can be dealt with is if the user is forced to stay away from me and leave me alone. The user has no actual information on the topic posted above, and does not own any of the material discussed in the book. However, he wishes to pass judgment on a project that conforms to the Wiki rules.
He has even come to my own sandbox to "correct" me. If I wanted another use to adopt me and correct every single mistake, I would have gone to a wiki based around such. Last time I checked, this Wiki isn't based around that.SanchiTachi01:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above I had hoped we'd be able to resolve this withoutSomeguy0830 also reportingSanchiTachi but, as mentioned, I believe he is well within his rights too. My comments above also apply here and the rest is played out on the talk page. As it stands requests forSanchiTachi to clarify claims or address suggested solutions are being met with accusations. As a result attempts to hammer out some mutually satisfactory path forward are stalled. The entry is locked until such an answer can be reached and, as it stands, I am not confident that such a solution can be arrived at, at least not involvingSanchiTachi, and without them all that is going to happen is this situation is going to be revisited once a week or so. What could have been solved quickly and with little fuss has spiralled out of control and spread all over the place almost entirely down toSanchiTachi's actions. This all seems a pity as the entry (as it was started, by him I should) had a lot of potential. (Emperor01:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
Note that I specifically didn't want to report this here, and tried pointing out to the user that I felt he could reform (see here). His answer was toblank the entire section. I didn't want to deal with this, but by this point I feel some heavy-handedness is the only thing that brings results. —Someguy0830 (T |C)01:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh I'm not blaming you, I was hoping ti could have been fixed sooner but I have run out of ways to say the same thing. As those edits you highlight (andothers) show, it is almost impossible to actually have some kind of ongoing dialoue which is an essential foundation for arriving at a solution. There aren't actually many options left other than this. (Emperor02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC))
[32] As you can notice, Someguy felt the need to impose himself on an argument between an admin and myself. The above user, Someguy0830 feels that he personally needs to be a vigilante force upon Wikipedia. Need I remind everyone ofWP:EQ:"Forgive and forget." "Recognize your own biases and keep them in check." "If you're arguing, take a break. " Avoid reverts and deletions whenever possible, and stay within the three-revert rule except in cases of clear vandalism." "Remember the Golden Rule: "treat others as you want them to treat you.""
The above user has followed me to different threads, he has imposed his own bias against me, he did not take a break (though I did, hence I created the page which he followed me to), he felt the need to revert and delete without consensus, and I doubt he wants me to follow to each of his pages and complain about different violations whether on naming, linking, or the like.
He did not: "Try to avoid deleting things as a matter of principle. When you amend and edit, it is remarkable how you might see something useful in what was said." He decided to move and delete without even asking. He has no knowledge of the topic, yet he proclaims he knows how the topic should be written.
I have asked the above user to leave me alone many times. What does he do? Constantly follow me from page to page and try to start fights with me. If that is not aWP:HARASS violation for stalking, then Wikipedia is not protecting its members.SanchiTachi02:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I forgot a main point:
"If you know you don't get along with someone, don't interact with them more than you need to. Unnecessary conflict distracts everyone from the task of making a good encyclopedia, and is just unpleasant. Actually following someone you dislike around Wikipedia is sometimes considered stalking, and is frowned on because it can be disruptive. If you don't get along with someone, try to become more friendly. If that doesn't help the situation then it is probably best to avoid them."
Pointing out that a user is friends withUser:Someguy0830 and is not approaching the topic without POV as required is not adhominem. Calling a user stupid, making fun of religion, etc, are personal attacks. What does the above user wish to do besides point out where he had his friends criticize me on my talk page?SanchiTachi02:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I can see the concept of friends is quite foreign to you. I did not ask them to point out your faults. They feel obligated to do so on their own. To immediately assume they have ulterior motives is a lack of good faith and a personal attack. It also shows that your position is so week you must belittle the character of your accusers rather than assess the situation on its merits. On that note,user makes baseless accusations regarding me. He also apparently thinks everything I do isout of spite. —Someguy0830 (T |C)02:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Without poisoning the water, please review my recent exchange with SanchiTachi:
I watchUser talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within.
I step in, without prejudice, to support one of Someguy's edits (stripping of non-free content in a list) and try to explain why it happened.
Following the final association fallacy, I posted{{uw-npa2}} to his talk page along with a brief comment finalizing the conversation.[33] That too was deleted, repeating for the third time the attack on my objectivity in his edit summary.[34]
Geez. It is almost unimaginarily self-centered to think that other users are conspiring against you. SanchiTachi, you seriously need to step back, take a chill pill and walk away from this for a time.JuJube02:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
So Gunslinger47, who was not a part of the original page (that has only existed for one day now), just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are youreally suggesting that? Or are you ignoringthis,this,this,this,this,this,this and on and on and on. Now, I would ask you, JuJube, are you seriously implying that there was no prior relationship between Gunslinger47 and Someguy0830? Please strike your comment accordingly. Thank you.SanchiTachi03:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ooo, you caught me commenting on mundane issues. What amazing deductive skills. Now prove that my rapport with this user proves your point that I'm allying him against you in some grand scheme to spite you. I suggest you not comment unless what you type is more than heresay and conjecture. Note the previous post aas yet more proof that this user is not only incapable of assuming good faith, but resorts to taking conversations out of context in order to build a conspiracy around himself. —Someguy0830 (T |C)03:19, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"…just suddenly steps in on coincidence and operates out of good will? Are youreally suggesting that?"
My prior correspondence with Someguy0830 is only relevant in that your using it to attack my objectivity is a violation ofWP:PA. –Gunslinger4703:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Someguy0830 and Gunslinger47 appear to be friends, yeah. I'm friends with Masamage, does that mean that I'm conspiring with Masamage against everyone on Wikipedia that dislikes me? Seriously,think about what you're suggesting here.JuJube04:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There was no way he could have just coincidentally stumbled on the page. He was either brought there by another person, or was searching through the contributions of Someguy and followed him there. Either way, he was operating under biased interest, and it was proper to ask him to recuse himself from commenting on the situation.SanchiTachi04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sanchi, pay attention to what Gunslinger wrote. "I watchUser talk:Someguy0830 because the guy's omnipresent in the article sphere that I work within." It's two paragraphs above this line. You're accusing Gunslinger of things that he admits to openly. Do you think that will better your position? Because he found your conversation does not mean he commented on it to gang up on you with me. —Someguy0830 (T |C)04:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I stand by my original statement. Sanchi Tachi, you are being self-centered, and pretty much the whole community is requesting that you stop.JuJube11:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As a pattern of behavior, Sanchi has been very contentious over 40K articles. He has made the same claims, and furthermore believes that he is the sole arbiter of what is valid and relevant and what is not. He also believes his interpretations and usages supersede those of Games Workshop usages wrt 40K. No one has ever seen these sources he claims cited, and dialogue is indeed impossible. Resolution of these issues has been to either give in or let them peter out.MSJapan03:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Article, not articles. I was contentious over the changing of one section without asking for consensus. It was the main page of the Warhammer 40,000 group and I wasn't the only one who had a problem with the change. I would, however, point ou tthat MSJapan was on the opposite side of the argument. MSJapan claims that I had no sources, but if MSJapan is refering to the previous debate at Warhammer, I provided sources for all of my claims, and if MSJapan is claiming that I haven't provided sources now, it is because the person is either directly lying, or unwilling to see that I have indeed provided sources. Seeing that a company calls them "Graphic Novels", provides articles about the characters, provides miniatures released by the same publishing company for those models, providing certificates and rules for those miniatures, and then writing articles for the magazine revolving around the miniature game which discusses the rules, armies, and the rest. However, it is obvious that MSJapan is saying what they are saying now because of the previous argument where MSJapan did not have their way. Please seeWP:EQ where it says to forget the past, or to get over issues.
Furthermore, you can see that there are many contributors over at the Warhammer group who have thanked me for my work and my contributions, and that I rarely revert people unless there is clear vandalism or if its dealing with a contentious issue on the Warhammer 40,000 page.SanchiTachi03:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
MSJapan can agree with you an a particular stance while disagreeing with how you argued it. This is not a conflict. The entire reason we are here right now is not because of any particular dispute, but how you acted (win or lose) during them.
I was onWP:RPP patrol earlier (as I do :) ) when a request came in fromSomeguy0830 to move-protect theList_of_Warhammer_40,000_graphic_novels article. I reviewed it, found out that there was a move-war in progress and move-protected the article. I left a polite note on the talk page, asking the relevant editors to work towards consensus first. It was largely met with assent (apart from one person). This then led tothe following comment on my talk page. I tried to answer as best I could. Having moved on, I later found out that the article needed subsequent full-protection as the war escalated. It seems to me thatSanchiTachi is taking this whole matter way to personally -Alison☺04:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Based on your response, Alison, you feel that people who are self admitted people who don't understand the original use of graphic novels with the topic, nor had any experience with the topic, are some how better to determine where the page should have been than the naming guidelines based on the wikiproject page or the only person who contributed to the page sources and verifiable information? Furthermore, your implication of pointing out my edit history appears to be an attack upon my removal of entries on my talk page which I have every right to remove. Why would you point that out? And why would you ignore the fact that the people causing the most problems now have nothing to do with the original topic nor have any knowledge, sources, or the like on the topic? How would you feel if someone came to your pages and started saying that the labels were wrong, that you didn't provide adequate resources, etc etc, when they had not one clue about the topic? It appears that you did not, actually, examine the situation and instead protected based on the first person that came to you. An admin's job is to be unbiased and to look at the facts, not jump on the band wagon of the first person that says something. Thanks.SanchiTachi04:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you again for proving my point. Yes, you're completely overreacting here, you'reassuming bad faith on my part and your discussions seem to be descending into some sort of strange paranoia (seriously!). You've also been sanitizing your talk page - yes you have - you'renot exactly performing maintenance/housekeeping over there. It's pretty obvious, actually, as to what you're doing. However, let's leave others decide. I've been largely uninvolved in all this and have actually zero interest in your article but frankly, I'm disappointed in your accusations of bias here and your suggestion that I"did not, actually, examine the situation", etc, etc. -Alison☺04:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, and one more thing;"How would you feel if someone came to your pages" - I don't have pages on Wikipedia, though I've created hundreds of articles and edited thousands. As has been constantly pointed out to you by all and sundry, you donot have any articles. Please readWP:OWN to understand why -Alison☺04:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
As an admin, you shouldn't be reminded that AGF and ABF do not apply to dealing with criticism. I have not stated that you are intended to destroy the project. I am pointing out your mistakes. I am asking you to explain why you made those mistakes, which is within my right. You are assuming bad faith by claiming that I am not assuming good faith. If you would have examined the issue, you would have seen that there was no asking for consensus before the move, that the move was contentious and the procedure was not followed, and that user Someguy was revert warring improperly without consulting the Wikiproject on the matter. I am the one disappointed in you, because admin are expected to do research into what the situation is, not randomly attribute blocks and leave the situation as a flame war that was obvious to erupt from the first movement from the original page without consensus. I thank you for encouraging Someguy and inflaming the situation. You have provided assurance into the admin as being able to resolve issues before they become problematic.SanchiTachi04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
And Alison, when did you lack a user page or a user talk page? Oh, while you were preaching about assuming good faith, you ignored what my question was and instead tried to construe wording into a claim of rule breaking. That is a violation of good faith and etiquette. Could you strike your comments now? Or am I the only one left on Wikipedia with the courage to strike comments that are false or no longer apply to the situation?SanchiTachi04:57, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
(ec) Here's what I think; dude, you'rewaaay out of control. You need to take a break and have a cup of tea or something. You've burnt through a ton of goodwill & inflamed a large number of editors. I don't like your attitude, I don't like your baseless accusations, your wikilawyering nonsense, your passive-aggressive tone nor your complete and willful disregard for rules nor the concept of working in collaboration with others. I'm not about to strike any comments, frankly, and your final, ridiculous false dichotomy really tops it off. I don't normally speak in this manner but ... you're way out of line here. Youremo rant on my talk page earlier was your first contact with me & guess what - it was deleted by another admin with the words,"Please keep your emotional problems out of Alison's talk page, thank you". I chose to restore it and respond to you politely; give you the chance and to try to help, somehow. In retrospect the other admin was right. Silly me -Alison☺05:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
"out of control" is a personal attack. I have taken a break and the person followed me to another page. I have not burnt through good will, as most of these people have nothing to do with my wikiproject or have anything to do with the pages that I have edited. What you seem unable to understand is that most of these people are friends of the above user or have come only to join in a bandwagon. The other admin was not right. The other admin did not have the right to delete my text like that. You had the right to only because of Talk page guidelines. It seems that you, and other admin that are your friends do not seem willing to respect the rules of being an admin. This is very offensive. I have issued a serious complaint about your action, and what do you do? Say that I am out of line. Why? Because I criticized your actions as not being justified when you have yet to justify your actions appropriately? You have not given a legitimate reason for ignoring the rules of consensus and approving of a move that was not following the move guidelines. Heaven forbid someone challenge someone else of inpropriety in a forum which says at the top that you have the right to issue complaints on administrative actions. But see, you are unable to see this objectively, which is the source of the complaint. You have personally attacked me. Prove you are here for good faith and strike through your insults.SanchiTachi05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not about to strike through anything. Please. File a complaint about me, by all means. You're just so not listening here. -Alison☺05:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Saying that she thinks you are out of control and in dire need of a break isn't a personal attack. Personally, I would also say that you could use some milk and cookies and a nice nap. (That's not condescending, by the way; that's what I'll sometimes do when I'm too agitated or cranky for civilized company.) You could well have some legitimate grievance about something going on somewhere on Wikipedia, but your behavior here gives me no reason to think so. You are doing yourself no favors by declining to spend the morning on a long, long walk. Once you've done that, I'd start withWP:NAM.William Pietri05:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Edits do not require approval from a Wikiproject to be done. And edit warring isbad, period. It doesn't matter if everyone else is on your side, it doesn't even matter if you're right. Youcan not edit war. -Amarkovmoo!05:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Which is exactly why I left any page thatUser:Someguy0830 was editing under, but he decided to follow me anyway. Hence, the Wiki Stalking complaint above, which no one seems willing to respect. A major part ofWP:EQ is leaving users alone and not harassing them. You can say AGF all you want, but if Ifeel harassed, it has obviously gone beyond innocent action. This is a large project. I have proven that I have moved to another place. I only work on the Warhammer pages. I have contributed a lot to them, revamped a lot of stubs, added tons of resources and cleaned up tons of random vandalism. If you are going to claim thatI need to try and move again, where should I go? And what is to prevent Someguy and his friends from following me and doing the same? You have an obligation to protect users from other users. Unless Wikipedia wants to claim it doesn't. If thats the case, I will just go over and contribute to the Warhammer Wiki instead and abandon these pages. They are more strict on who they let in and they would keep someone like Someguy from following me around.SanchiTachi05:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just remember Sanchi. I moved the page in good faith. You edit warred because you have ownership issues. I also edit warred, and for that I apologize, but you won't listen unless your options are limited. As for your striking thing, you're the only person willing to strike comments because you're incapable ofresolving disputes. Your comments are still relevant. You just can't admit when you have no position to argue from. —Someguy0830 (T |C)05:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I can't speak for anyone else, but with all these accusations and constant cross-posting you've done, I didn't evensee that complaint. I'll have to see if it's justified. -Amarkovmoo!05:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since Sanchi's behaviour is the focus of this thread I'd like to post a diff to my talkpagehere where he just admonished me regarding my post at the Village Pump. I've never encountered this editor before, and almost feel like the term "browbeating" might apply; I really think Sanchi needs to ease up on the throttle a bit.DocTropics04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
It is proper to ask people to stay on topics and to remove off topic material from discussion pages and talk pages. Your comments to me at Village Pump Policy were off topic and did not seek to answer the question that I asked.SanchiTachi04:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Since I was hauled into this debate by a post on my talk page which fits the profile of the "browbeating" Doc Tropics received, I will also comment that I am disturbed that SanchiTachi posted a message at theVillage Pumpwithout context and actually admonished people for attempting to provide context. We are trying to get a handle on what's going on so we can help you; telling us that attempts to illustrate the character and nature of what looks like a run-of-the-mill personality conflicts was "inappropriate" indicates to me that you consider yourself able to own discussions. That is not so.
All this fuss from SanchiTachi has, incidentally, been extremely at cross-purposes to his intended goals, since I have been occupied with responding to apparent misconceptions of Wikipedia policy, and unable to review the actions leading to this complaint. I would attempt to parse the questions at the Village Pump, but the basic truth of hypothetical questions is that they often do not contain enough information to make a good judgement.
In short, if you must ask questions about basic Wikipedia policies regarding harassment, it would be wise to ask yourself whether you have the breadth of knowledge to be criticizing others' understanding of policy. --Edwin Herdman04:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I must point out that you are complaining because I asked you to stay on question about a topic, then accused me of all sorts of violations in a very inappropriate place.SanchiTachi05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Look particularly at his own edits of his Talk page and you see that he has deleted several messages from several Wikipedians (myself included) who asked him (some rather stridently) to modify his uncivil and disruptive behavior. But even if one looks only at the messages that he has not deleted from his Talk page (at least as of the last time I checked), he has attracted a remarkable number of disagreements with his conduct in the one month that he has been active on Wikipedia. Also examinehis contributions, especially on all types of Talk pages, and you will see for yourself whySanchiTachi's behavior has drawn the reactions it has. His conduct here also does not reflect an appreciation ofWP:OWN.SanchiTachi's responses to others, including his edit summaries, accuse his critics (including admins) of conspiring against him, of trolling, edit warring, of being unqualified to participate on HIS projects and pages, and of violating such WP policies asWP:CIVIL,WP:NPA,WP:POV, etc., which are precisely the Wikipedia values that his own conduct ignores. His behavior rejects and ignores other Wikipedians who disagree with him on edits, policies, or his own conduct. I considered initiating anWP:RFC about his behavior; however, given the amount of feedback that he has already received and ignored, I concluded that an RfC would be futile. I hope something can be done to changeSanchiTachi's behavior on Wikipedia so that he can become a productive member of this community. Frankly, I cannot imagine how his participation on Wikipedia up to now, with so many others criticizing and blocking his actions, can be bringing him satisfaction.Finell(Talk)05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The above user, Finell, edited my user page. I removed it. He complained. I asked him to cease editing my user page. He complained to an admin that I removed his text from my user and user talk pages. He claimed I broke rules. As you can see above, I have the right to delete items at will on my talk page. It is obvious that Finell is attacking me.SanchiTachi05:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Someone file an RfC - let's see what the community, as a whole, has to say about the behavior by the involved users here. Maybe a resounding affirmation of one side or another will finally be a wake up call to settle this. --Haemo05:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
No, unfortunately, it won't. SanchiTachi has not been persuaded by the comments that many editors, including admins, posted on his own Talk page, on project and article Talk pages, the responses to his posts on other editors' and admins' talk pages, and the overwhelming expression of opinion here. Perhaps if enough admins reason with him here, it will get through. More likely, that will not persuade him either. I sincerely hope that he proves me wrong about this. Will you, SanchiTachi, for your own good as well as for the good of the community?Finell(Talk)06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Swatjester has offered to straighten Sanchi out. As Swat's voice is perhaps the only one capable of reaching Sanchi, let's hope he can do what all of us have failed miserably at. —Someguy0830 (T |C)06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Enough of this personal attack absurdity. SanchiTachi, please calm down. No one is attacking you. Please stop treating us as if the world has a vendetta against you. —Kurykh06:02, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Yes and no. It was prompted by that, but I've dealt with this user several times before and encountered the same. From one simple move, several pages of complete refusal to cooperate in the least with other editors, threatening to isolate his page from any project that would dare question his will, and finally an ignorant obsession with having facts yet stonewalling anyone who asks for them, we come here. The length to which behavior is tolerable has to end somewhere, and after a 3RR and an ANI report on me by this user which achieved nothing, I filed a report I was hping would make this user realize just how little his behavior is accepted. Sadly, that hasn't happened. —Someguy0830 (T |C)05:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it sounds like what you have to do is clear; file a Request for Comment, outlining where and what happened, and allowing him to reply. I also think that everyone just chilling out and working to try and solve the underlying content disputes might allay the extraneous conflicts which arose around them. --Haemo05:58, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The move was part of how Someguy0830 was exacting a campaign to follow me to pages that I edit and further harass me. The impropriety of Alison's protection without seeking a consensus on the name and unwillingness to prevent a problematic situation, even though it was clearly mentioned on her talk page, is what created the situation that you currently see. Please see the above complaint about Someguy0830 for more details. There is no way to "chill out". The page was created by myself to "chill out." I didn't expect it to be moved and edited by the guy who was previously causing me complaints just mere hours after being put up.SanchiTachi06:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Okay, here is a way to chill out -
Alison doesn't need a consensus to protect a page; she's a admin, that's her job. Protecting a page does not endorse the current version - all it does is stop a move war. That's all.
No one, not even Someguy0830 is trying to cause problems for you. All that has happened is that he edits in a similar part of the encyclopedia, and appears to have slightly different views.
I'd echo Haemo's comments, but wanted to add something else. In the paragraph I'm responding to, you blame the current situation on everybody but yourself. First, seeking blame is rarely particularly productive. Second, focusing on others' faults exclusively puts them on the defensive. And third, it takes two to tango. So after you have found some actual calm (hint: you won't do that while continually reloading and editing this thread) consider starting out by a) acknowledging the ways you have contributed to this foofaraw and b) suggesting some ways forward that you think might work for all involved. Good luck,William Pietri06:14, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Let me preface this by saying that I've had a fair amount of experience with SanchiTachi. He's an enthusiastic editor who has a genuine desire to edit and improve Wikipedia. In his enthusiasm he makes mistakes, but I've never yet seen one that I could say was not in good faith. Sanchi Tachi has often come to my talk page to get help with editing disputes: he's also taken my advice when I don't feel that a dispute would likely go in his favor. For instance, he had an editing dispute on a topic that shortly after, received an OTRS complaint. SanchiTachi was not likely familiar with OTRS, so I told him that it would be a good idea to leave the article alone for a month, and he did so. Sanchi Tachi is hot headed, and can take things personally. Show me an editor who has not done so. Hell, I could show you a dozen administrators who do so. So let me mentor Sanchi Tachi. I'm already helping him out already, and I will fairly and impartially help him become a better editor. If you get into an editing dispute with him, instead of needing to go through the trouble and stress of an RFC, or an AN/I complaint, just let me know on the talk page. If SanchiTachi is in the wrong, I'll help him realize what he did wrong and how to fix it, or if extreme case, I"ll take the appropriate admin actions.
If you are serious about the offer to mentor, I think it should be seriously considered. Swatjester does a lot of good work and has a good rep; he might be able to help.DocTropics06:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Saves me from figuring out the RfC. I do expect something to come of it, though, as this whole charade would make any other editor say to themselves, "Wow, maybe I really did screw up." You don't get this many complaints and think nothing's amiss. Specifically, I expect him to actually address the questions he's asked, and not to fall back on quoting policy all the time. If anything, he shouldn't be allowed to quote it at all. —Someguy0830 (T |C)06:17, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've already moved a bit towards helping SanchiTachi understand the policies better; you can see my last contributionhere. While I've been congratulated on this writing, it seems that it rubbed SanchiTachi the wrong way, and he has proceeded to ignore me. This might be helpful in making comments that help move the process along (which is why I'm posting this, not because I feel neglected). --Edwin Herdman06:20, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Also, Someguy0830, when you say "shouldn't be allowed" you are coming dangerously close to proposing that there is a "correct interpretation" of events. It just ain't so. I think comments like that and a few other arguable snipes have helped this situation reach critical mass and forced SanchiTachi to grope for some policy to back him up. While all of us may agree that there were some issues, I certainly don't agree with some of the comments that have been directed at SanchiTachi. In fact, if I had been more thoughtful I would have mentioned straight off my final comment on the logical process that I link in my above paragraph, as without it the reader is left wondering how I could reach the conclusion I did. --Edwin Herdman06:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
You're right, that is going a bit too far. However, he likes to fall back on it when his assertions fail, which is why I want him trying to actually discuss things. As others have pointed out, he has a "my way or the highway" mentality in a lot of cases and that needs to be discouraged. —Someguy0830 (T |C)06:26, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Incorrect assertions are not going to illustrate to SanchiTachi what is appropriate. A classic case of "two wrongs don't make a right," if I ever saw one. Some law needs to be laid down - don't make redundant badgering comments on other editors' discussion pages when you repeat those claims on the overall discussion page - but they need to be dealt with individually. --Edwin Herdman06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Last comment for the night here (I hope). I've a lot of respect for SwatJester and appreciate his mediation here. I was about halfway through filing an RfC here but will hold off if you think this will work. My position on this is that I want the guy to have resolved whatever is going on here, to de-escalate this situation and to be a happy and productive editor. That's all. I've no doubt that he's a good editor. If you think mentoring/mediation will work, then let's give it a go -Alison☺06:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I may be new but with Shane Ruttle article, I think there should be some boundaries or given to him. He is completely bent having his way with the article no matter what discussion happens.--CmrdMariategui15:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The anonymous IP 207.81.56.49 who may or may not be Mayor Quimby
207.81.56.49 (talk·contribs) from earlier (see thread above) is calling loudly for yet another unblock review. I've already declined one but he's still at it. Can someone new pop over there and re-review his block again, please? -Alison☺05:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Reviewed. Appears to be a sock/meatpuppet, judging from a few factors I'd rather keep private, in case they show up again (email me, if you really must know). Nothing too exotic, but it smells ofbeans. –Luna Santin (talk)10:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat blocked
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
And me once. I endorse his block for edit warring, disruption and failure to assume good faith, per my initial warning (which was not heeded) and endorsement atUser talk:CyclePat. Given he continues to spam his ban request on his talk page, I'm thinking protection would be nice, as he shows no inclination to appeal (but rather continue todisrupt to prove a point).Daniel08:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
CyclePat does little aside from being disruptive. His efforts to support Cplot via AMA even long after it was made obvious Cplot was a troll, shouldn't be overlooked either.--MONGO08:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps not, Ryulong, however, there is a pattern here and it deserves mention. Otherwise, your 72 hour block would have been a bit excessive, I believe.--MONGO08:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I seem to be running out of excuses for Pat. I think he is not evil but suffers form an excess of enthusiasm, however it's hard to escape the fact that his contributions in recent months have been a net drain on resources.Guy(Help!)08:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
SinceWP:AMA was supposed to help people in dispute, from Pat's attempted enforced merge ofWP:EA intoWP:AMA, to this current episode, it appears to actually be far better at escalating dispute and disruption. Perhaps the block will help things cool off. --pgk08:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Oh, btw, page protection in place for his talk page due to spamming of same materials he got blocked over and the blanking of the entire page after the block.User:Zscout370(Return Fire)09:10, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I'm reverting his edits, as he's uploading copyrighted material without a source, and orphaning fair use images we already have. Big no no's. -N11:39, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
In addition to have certain problems with images - see his talk page (and my logs, damnit), this user also seems to have problem with refraining from personal attacks - seethis, which was pretty bad. Extra eyes needed on this one, I think, and the way he's going he'll get blocked.MoreschiTalk14:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, for that edit a block is needed, which I have now provided. User's second block for personal attacks, so it's 72 hours.Sandstein16:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Screech123 (talk·contribs) uploadedImage:Ravenp20070508155551.jpg and placed a PD-SELF tag on it, although he/she also clearly added that it was taken fromhere. I tagged it as a copyvio and removed it fromAndrew Turner (director). I also warned Screech123 about putting false copyright claims on images he/she uploads. He/she then removed my copyvio tag, removed the PD-SELF tag (thus leaving it with no copyright tag at all), and re-added the image to the article.Corvus cornix17:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
These sock puppets have not been blocked. I went to the sock puppet board and followed directions and policies noted there for having sock puppets of banned users blocked. One user, not an administrator, responded with an extraneous issue showing he/she had not bothered to read what was going on and did not know Wikipedia sock puppetry policy. If this is the wrong place to post, please tell me where to post and I will change the WP:sock puppet board to alert other users. Brya's sock puppets waste the time of the few botanical editors en.Wiki has by forced us to devote resources and time to reverting his/her edits. Please simply block the Brya sock puppets. If Wikipedia policy has changed and Brya is allowed to use sock puppets to circumvent his/her block, then please let me and all other banned and blocked users know this, so this too can be changed on the sock board. Thanks.KP Botany17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
OLD
User:Brya is so busy on Wikipedia Commons reformatting everything to his/her desire, I would think that en.wiki could simply be left alone. Still, the same italicizing of taxa higher than orders and hidden by edit histories that claim the edit is something else.[39] Exactly what caused the discussion about a community ban in the first place. Please block this sock puppet. Block history, there is also a lengthy RFA somewhere and reems of commentary on this editor.[40] Thank you.KP Botany22:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Also please block theUser:Clyb Brya sock which we let slide last year on AGF, but has begun, with the other two, to revert to Brya styles, which the community has jointly and repeatedly decided against.[41]KP Botany22:47, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything in theWP:MOS against his format? I dont know to much about the area, but this looks like an editing dispute, not blockable offenses. -Mask?05:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the Edit was proper, You can block me if it is appropriate. But, I know what I am writing. I am ready to be killed. I know you all are wise. I am re-editingBalanceRestored07:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You say, in that edit, that this is a criticism - well, where is a source backing up the fact that people criticize it on that basis? --Haemo07:36, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
It is clear to me that the user has been warned sufficiently and had no interest in abiding byWP:CONSENSUS. As such he has been blocked for 31 hours for continued edit warring after several warnings.--Jersey Devil07:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the block. I think it is more than just an English issue. I am accustomed to working with quite a few Indian editors for whom English is a second language, and this is more than stumbling for words. :)Buddhipriya07:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Just to correct a bit, I did not issue any formal warning, but I answered a{{helpme}} request on his talk page. I tried to explain ourWP:NPOV andWP:V policies to him, but it seems he did not understand it in the end... Maybe the block will set things straight. --lucasbfrtalk08:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Why is it that all these users with names that imply they are here to Right Great Wrongs turn out to be problematic? No, wait, I think I know the answer to that.Guy(Help!)08:44, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
For those who may not be familiar with the edit wars that take place on Indian articles, please note that a major effort to recruit sock and meat puppets has been underway for some time, and these clone warriors are now the subject ofWikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar_2. This article is one of the battlegrounds where the socks and puppets operate. It is part of a much larger problem.Buddhipriya00:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
uncalled for, but a lot of this was provocation. He was clearly nonplussed by using impersonal templates (as most wikipedians are) and instead of putting a personal message telling him to cut out the personal attacks, you slapped more generic templates on his page. Thats goading and baiting a clearly upset user who got more upset each time you ignored his requests to cut it out with the templates. Shame. -Mask?06:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I just pulled that entire section off of his talk page. Both of you can cut it out and give it a rest for a while. To paraphrase a well used Wikipedia philosophy, if a user makes you annoyed or depressed, ignore them. -Mask?16:36, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Ok, you've left me confused. I was using the correct templates which were specifically designed to warn other users of such behavior. If I am the one who is going to get blamed for that users bad behavior for using these templates correctly, then what is the purpose of those templates, they might as well be deleted. --Leon Sword19:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The templates are optional. Most editors will tell you that a handwritten message is much more effective. In this case, the user told you he rather disliked these, they made you seem like a bot, etc, and you put more on his page. He became even more dismayed, so you put more templates on his page. At no time did you try to solve the dispute but seemed to bait him on. This doesn't mean the personal attacks were appropriate, they clearly weren't, but you had ample opportunity to diffuse the situation, yet clearly made it worse. Think when using templates. If they work, they work. They dont always work. In this case they even made things worse. Dont adhere to something just because, make sure it's doing what it's supposed to, and if its not, try something else. -Mask?21:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Can an objective administrator please review the above-referenced page. It is massively POV, written in the first person and an advocacy piece originally created by a student from his/her own thesis. I fixed as much as I could but it remains subject to revert warring. Thanks!!216.194.0.7612:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppet or not, that articledoes need a neutrality check -- just not necessarily from an administrator. I read the article before I looked at the diffs and the user's contribs, and the exact same sentence that I am now very tempted to excise was the one that the IP took out: "Rather than isolation, the Irish Emergency represents a bold celebration of coming-out of Plato’s cave and of walking independently among the men and women that cast their shadows against the wall, casting Ireland own shadow against the wall of history alongside them." Thatis pretty darn POV, and putting a neutrality-check tag on it is less anti-Irish and more pro-WP:NPOV. I find one silly edit on April 7th, but the rest of the IP's contribs seem to be good.
I'm not sure about the sockpuppet patterns of that particular puppetmaster, but the message, if not the messenger, seems to be legit here. I wouldassume good faith until I see true signs of maliciousness ... though the immediate resort to ANI after a grand total of seven edits, six of them today and one of them here, would make me watch this editor carefully.--Dynaflowbabble16:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
How do we know for sure s/he's a banned editor? I see no evidence of sockpuppet warfare on either the article the anon legitimately tagged for an NPOV check or the NN housing project s/he prodded for deletion, so it can't be a return to familiar articles that's tipping the hand of a puppetmaster. Familiarity with process and an IP in the same rather huge range that saw past manifestations of puppetry aren't surefire enough proof of sockpuppetry to revert every one of an anon contributor's contribs, as seems to have been done. How does this fit a pattern, is what I'm asking.--Dynaflowbabble16:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
According ARIN, 216.194.0.0 - 216.194.63.255 belong to MetTel in New York City. An IP editor in that range taking an interest in Irish articles shouldn't strike anyone as suspicious -- do you know how many Irish people live in New York?--Dynaflowbabble17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
If you had experience of dealing with this editor, you would know that a 216.194 prefixed IP, making edits such as that to Irish related articles, and immediately making ANI posts about articles are three red flags.One Night In Hackney30317:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've had that article bookmarked for a while and have considered nominating it for deletion. The primary article author says on the talk page that it originated as a college essay, and it doesn't even comeclose to meeting the requirements ofWP:NPOV.*** Crotalus ***17:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Just saw this discussion. I have always agreed that the tone was POV. However, the content is strict NPOV. As it stands, I believe that all it lacks is "retoning" to remove the argumenative style as perHow To, specifically the section on undergraduate essays: "Articles that are not written in an encyclopedic style should be rewritten that way, or at least tagged {{cleanup-tone}}." While I only tagged it with clean-up today, I posted to the talk page agreeing that tone was a problem.
In response to Kurykh, I never said that the article doesn't even come "close" to meeting the requirements of NPOV. What I said was that the tone does not. These are very different concepts. --sony-youthpléigh19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Obviously, I've read those article - you hardly believe that I would comment on the merits of content that I know nothing about? Who would do that? In any case, I believe this to be a matter for relevant editors to resolve rather than an administrator issue. I'm sure you agree. If you are proposing a merger or a deletion of the article, it should go through proper process.
Okay, "delete" it is. I'll restore it, place the appropriate tags, add it to AfD and notify the relevant communities of editors (contributors, History of Ireland/Republic of Ireland, The Emergency, Irish Neutrality, WP:IE etc.) --sony-youthpléigh21:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
This user is at it again[57]. I have undone their last move and warned them again, but I think administrative intervention will be necessary here. --VirtualDelight21:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There's onlyone user doing all the trolling and filibustering; I've blocked him since he's a clear SPA and more than likely a sockpuppet of the user responsible for the SPA flood on the Linda Christas AFDs. --Coredesat21:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Little vandalism "gang"?
this odd little unblock message led to toUser talk:Kfusion, which seems to be a chat page for vandals and socks accounts. I'm not sure how many of them there are, I'm tempted to block pretty much everyone who has chatted there (not, obviously, placers of legit warnings.) Thoughts?Dina17:53, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Without looking carefully through the contribs yet, on the talk page there are certainly at least a couple of clear-cut blocks that could be laid down for sock-puppetry.Pastordavid17:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I've indef blockedUser:Kfusion (about to look atUser:RockRNC), given he has made various junk articles, had warnings for that and other vandalism, was blocked on 10 May and since return has continued to make absolute nonsense edits (at best garbage at worst libelous) and then proceeded to add some of them to BJAODN, I think it's pretty clear that building the encyclopedia is the last thing he's doing. --pgk19:37, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I gave him a warning. Hit my talkpage if it continues. I don't see that as a legitimate death threat so much as just a kid talking smack. Regardless it is not acceptable.--Isotope2300:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Hipocrite wants to out other users. Acceptable?
Resolved
User:Hipocrite is demanding personal info from other users in order to edit his talk page in a way that strikes me as trying to out the identity of other users. This is not acceptable as wikipedia standards do not demand that we reveal our identities in order to post at the pages of other (as it happens anonymous) wikipedia users, indeed it allows us to protect anonymity,SqueakBox00:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
(Not an admin, but a user who tries to understand Hipocrite's sometimes coded language) Isthis the diff you're talking about? I see it as typical Hipocritabolic sarcasm and nothing else. I don't think he's demanding anything really, except perhaps not to defend a particular website on his talk page. ---Sluzzelintalk01:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Kittybrewster(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) seems to be a bit of a problem. I have no issue with his contributions overall, other than his apparent desire to use Wikipedia as a personal family genealogy site, but he dismissed as "assinine" a note not to strike other editors' comments on an AfD for an article he himself wrote, and it seems to me long past time to correct his behaviour. I have given him a short block, as a pause for thought. So: modifyng others' comments, apparently having been asked before not to do so, andrudely dismissing requests not to repeat this (the actual problem - this seems in fact to be part of a continuing pattern of rudely dismissing any kind of criticism. It really is time he understood that he is not immune to criticism.Guy(Help!)10:17, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are also strong concerns brought by Doc glasgow and Giano, among others, that the family history which Kittybrewster has used to source his articles is thoroughly unreliable.Mackensen(talk)10:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hmm. Well, if the family history in question is written by one of the family (is it?) that wouldn't pass the "independant" bit required byWP:N. This Arbuthnot saga is one miserable mess.MoreschiTalk10:56, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Checking some Arbuthnot pages, if Mackensen is referring toMemories of the Arbuthnots, that is written by one of the family, so hardly relevant to notability.MoreschiTalk11:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There remains a problem ofWP:COI and the fact that we seem to have more articles on the Arbuthnots than on the Kennedys or theSaxe-Coburg Gothas Windsors.Guy(Help!)11:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There are three seperate but interconnected issues 1) the notability of the Arbuthnots - that is a matter for the use of AFDs and the like and letting those processes take their course - I don't see anything in particular there that requires admin intervention. 2) The COI - that should be strongly discouraged. 3) Incivility and altering other comments - that is an admin matter and the "get a clue"/block button has been used correctly in this case to try and bring this editor in line. --Fredrick day11:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I think one of the problems here is that a small number of editors (including me) have been reviewing the Arbuthnott mess and nominating various articles for deletion. Since Kittybrewster is so personallyattached to those articles (and has an obviousWP:COI) the dispute has tended to look personal - and he's been less that cooperative. Don't get me wrong, some of the subjects do merit inclusion - its just that he indiscriminately writes stubs without proper sourcing, and they often tend to be more interested in genealogical considerations that anything encyclopedic - and some of the 'claims to notability' really don't stack up under investigation. What would be useful is if those of us who have been fairly involved with this back off a little, and let others review the remaining Arbuthnott empire a little more dispassionately. But beware, everything may not be as it seems on a quick read. You'll find them all in the ridiculousCategory:Arbuthnot family (which is ridiculous because it is really a category for people with the same surname - related or not). Any volunteers to take this up?--Docg11:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
*checks cat* - Blimey - I don't have the time to take on that challenge - we need atask force to take a look at that (not so) little lot and see what needs to be nuked from space. --Fredrick day11:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Apart from Arbuthnott-related edits, does KittyBrewster do anything else? I wonder if this problem could be ameliorated by encouraging his work in other areas, or asking him to consider doing so if he hasn't already. Another solution might be to ask him to prepare his Arbuthnott articles in his user space and invite others to review them prior to publication. The conflict of interest problem, and the related elevation of trivia to article status, are a problem for the encyclopedia, but it seems to me that they arise from what Kittybrewster had been working on the encyclopedia, and if he starts working on something else the problem will go away. --Tony Sidaway11:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that approach ever works - SPAs generally only see wikipedia as a useful venue for talking about *their* interests. I don't think I've ever seen a SPA develop into a successful general editor. --Fredrick day11:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Kittybrewster has also been a meat-puppet ofUser:Astrotrain in a bunch of IRA AfDs a while ago, and a rather obnoxious one, at that. In particular, see the AfDs for Martin McCaughey and Raymond Gilmour.Αργυριου(talk)22:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
As the one who originally madethe AfD nomination that started the latest round of this sorry mess can I jump in here. Looking over my history, I've actually !voted keep more often than delete on Arbuthnot, but I'm starting to come to theVintagekits position that this has got out of hand. I've no problem necessarily with our having so many Arbuthnots - however they get here, if they're valid articles, they should be kept. (We have more articles on British than Chinese schools even though China has a hundred times as many - that doesn't mean British schools are more important, just that we have more people who've bothered to add them.) However, Kittybrewster's repeated blanking of any faintly critical comments from his talk page, apparent unwillingness to take advice fromanyone regarding even the most non-notable Arbuthnots, apparent unwillingness to find reliable sources for any articles (his pages generally cite a book by a family member, plus two websites containing information cut-and-pasted from that book, as the "multiple sources") as well as the the history of personal attacks (it's not long since he added "This user is a member of the Irish Republican Cabal" to the userpage of everyone who disagreed with him) make me think something needs to be done about this whole saga as it will continue indefinitely. Maybe a final arbcom ruling on whether "Memories of the Arbuthnots" is or isn't a reliable source? —iridescenti(talk to me!)11:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I've been watching this situation from the sidelines for a bit and I generally agree with whatUser:Iridescenti said. The problem isn't having articles on Arbuthnots... the problem isKittybrewster's insistence on creating poorly sourced articles and then arguing with everyone who points this out rather than trying to source the articles.--Isotope2313:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I suppose this will all end in a messy Arb case - it would be nice if it could be avoided but I don't see how. Half of the problem is not just Kittybrewster churning out these non-notable and flawed pages but also his friends who will argue that black is white rather then see even the most obvious error. They will do nothing to improve a page once they have created it, even for the more notable pages where the internet is crawling with information. They prefer to sit and scream at those who disagree with them. Here is a good example[59] the page concerned is a stub on AFD - it is probably notable and easily saveable but rather than improve it and save it, the authors sit about calling those who vote to delete "suspects" I have also seen them called far worse, including - members of terrorist organizations - it is ridiculous and it needs to be stopped, and stopped hard and fast. Personally I think all Kittybrewster pages should be deleted without exception unless they have been taken way beyond the stub stage by other editors - then I would trust them - at the moment I suspect they may have quite a bit of erroneous or exaggerated information in them. Initially, I tried to help Kittybrewster - improve pages, recommending he take some into user space and generally giving the advice of a largely main-space editor of three years experience. He does not take advice. I also began to find a worryingly large number of errors and inconsistencies within his pages. I privately informed a couple of highly reputable admins of my concerns, and, after some initial understandable doubts, their own sifting through his edits largely confirmed my thoughts.
I realise though deleting all his pages, however desirable, in such a way is not going to happen - so we need to find a solution. I think, we need a panel to be set up consisting of some highly reputable admins with a knowledge of the peerage and history. If they are masochists they may find their work easier, to go through with delegated and final powers to delete as required. Beyond that I don't see how we can trust these pages - there have been too many exaggerations and mistakes in the many which have already been deleted. I do not say Kittybrewster has done this deliberately but his sources and/or research is badly flawed. The other problem is that we know who Kittybrewster is in real life, we know he has a brother who is conservative member of Parliament currently serving. There is already a warning on Jimbo's page aboutPrivate Eye and another matter, we don't want the "Curse of Gnome" descending here too or worse still on the unsuspecting and undeserving brother. So let's weigh all these factors and find a solution.Giano15:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I got involved with this during theCOI on his autobiography. While there was a lot of agreement among respondents Kittybrewster refused to explicitly agree to stop the behavior that had caused concern. (I believe he may have tacitly agreed, but since he won't say one way or another it's hard to tell.) He consistenly fails to give notice of his involvement or interest in topics that come up, whether AfD on his articles or guideline proposals. For example, he proposed an MOS change that would've directly affected his brother's biography but he never disclosed that relationship.[60] I think this editor has followed the principles of COI, both in terms of adding links to his own website and in terms of editing article where he has a conflict of interest. Worse, he won't engage in useful conversations about that problem. See alsoWikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Arbuthnots and circular referencing. I hope that when Kittybrewster returns he'll be more willing to listen to the community on these issues. ·:·Will Beback·:·20:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
There is a background to this issue which almost all contributors to this discussion seem to be unaware of, and has been previously summarised by mehere. In summary, in response to various AfDs nominating members of the IRA, certain editors have been taking a close retaliatory interest inWikiProject Baronetcies, a situation which I have previously drawn attention tohere. OnceKittybrewster's identity became obvious from a (probably) maliciousAfD, a trawl has uncovered his interest in his own family ancestry. It seems to me:
There is obviously nothing wrong, per se, with editing articles about which one is familiar or in which one has an interest; and,
The issue as to whether the articles are properly sourced or 'light' is separate to the issue of authorship.
The argument about having some 'conflict of interest' seems spurious to me, because it could be extended to anyone of us who has an interest in a particular subject. The whole basis of Wikipedia is that those with specific interests share that knowledge.--Major Bonkers(talk)16:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
We all have real life names and personalities we can either guard them, be careless with them or openly reveal them. Kittybrewster has made no secret of his identity - so let us not have any of this reticence and pretence now. If he wishes to retreat back into anonymity he can easily create a new account and do so - perhaps he already has. That he has "an interest in his own family ancestry" is fine no problem - good for him. That he chooses to write articles for wikipedia about non-notable members of that family is a problem. A further problem is his reaction and and that of his friends when those non-notable members are nominated for deletion. That in a nutshell is the basis of the problem we are discussing here. In short he can conform to wikipedia standards or he can not. The choice is his but it no use complaining when others object to his choice if it is against the established practices of the encyclopedia.Giano20:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm afraid that your comment that Kittybrewster was somehow 'careless' of his identity is quite wrong; it became apparent during theAfD. I'd urge you to have a look at that page, because it is apparent that certain editors are targeting him. I am concerned that you might be inadvertently exacerbating the situation. I'd also point out that pages such asthis andthis, which you appear to be relying on, are hardly objective: check the 'history' pages! --Major Bonkers(talk)08:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
No you are mistaken, I have used neither of thosw two pages as references. I am totally unconnected with the Irish problems, and indeed have little interest in them. If an editor wants anonymity that is fine. Identities can only be revealed if someone is either careless with them or reveals them on purpose. Writing copious pages on non-notable members of one family is always a bit if a clue and could be described as careless. Kitybrewster as a name is a further clue. The fact that he has not created a new account intimates he is not that bothered by it either.Giano10:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't mean to be rude, Giano, but I think you are becoming part of the problem. The individual concerned, who I know, is mature, a well-regarded editor, and suffers from Parkinson's disease. Fairly obviously he's onWikibreak (it's a Bank Holiday weekend, after all). You have been posting across various forums on this subject (on one occasion despite being asked not[61]). Whether you realise it or not, you are advancing someone-else's agenda. Harrying other editors in this way is neither necessary or desirable. Pleasecalm down a bit.--Major Bonkers(talk)11:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I think we're all aware of the dispute between Kittybrewster and the IRA-related editors. It may have helped trigger the investigation into Kittybrewster's other activities, but otherwise they're not related. While Kitttybrewster has appeared reluctant to clearly state his relationship to the Arbuthnots at appropriate times, his identity was known long before the AfD mentionedAfD. The creation of that article, an autobiography, is central to the COI problems we're addressing. Kittybrewster was told in January 2006[62] that it's inappropriate to add links to one's own website, but he's ignored that guideline dozens of times. There's nothing spurious about having a conflict of interest regarding oneself or one's immediate family. The problem of adding links to one's own website as a source (without even mentioning the connection) isn't spurious either. There are other Wikipedia guidelines that this user has ignored, in particularWP:NOT. None of that has anything to do with the IRA-related disputes. ·:·Will Beback·:·21:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Doc Glasgow is now trying to redirect the Sir William Arbuthnot article without even trying to gain consensus,SqueakBox22:25, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Consensus is being sought here[63]. The redirect would give the subject the anonymity he requires, especially as there is nothing of note beyond holding a fairly recent baronetcy to report.
It is though now almost impossible to pass comment without becoming the victim of a personal attack
I urge any arbitrators to view fully the comments made byUser:Giano II and others on numerous Talk Pages before commenting on things posted here out of context. It seems a small group of editors feel they can slag off others, in the most uncivil manner, indeed in the most provocative manner, and when other editors, such as myself, respond accordingly it is we who are being uncivil and told we are making "personal attacks" when the essence of what we are saying is commenting upon comment. There is a very obvious and clear vendetta againstUser:Kittybrewster which is a disgrace to Wikipedia. Naturally those of us who see injustice are going to remark upon it. We should not be banned for doing so, especially by those making the provocative remarks to which we responded.David Lauder14:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Comment:Giano - Sympathy is limited. The contentious nature of the page in question was twice pointed out to you by me and I also requested that you calm down; there's no need to post the same thoughts across 3 different forums. Nobody appointed you Arbuthnot-finder General and, like it or not, Wikipedia works by consensus not on the basis of who shouts the loudest. You should also, perhaps, review how you have described members of Kittybrewster's family before complaining about personal attacks made against you. ONiH - As you know, both you and Vintagekits, have been asked not to post on Kittybrewster's talk page. It is perfectly acceptable under those circumstances to remove comments: see[68] Aatomic1 - Am I missing something? What is your link supposed to demonstrate?--Major Bonkers(talk)14:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
If I am falsely accused and attacked on that talk page, I am well within my rights to post on that talk page to insist on a withdrawal. My comments were not uncivil, and I suggest you withdraw your accusation.One Night In Hackney30314:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Actually, according to your own posts yesterday, you are not entitled to post anything on someone else's 'Talk Page' having been warned off it: seehere and[69].--Major Bonkers(talk)16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Key words -their own talk pages - perhaps if you stopped pointing at policies and looked at who made what edits you would realise the futility of your last comment.One Night In Hackney30316:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Major Bonkers I believe he has modified acomment I have made by reinstaing the valid striking out of proven sockpuppet.Aatomic115:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Well, it's a bit obscure but my apologies for not grasping it and thank you for filling me in. The diff in question relates to his User page and an editor has a greater degree of ownership on such pages than in the main encyclopedia. As I see it, he is within his rights to alter it. See the discussionhere.--Major Bonkers(talk)16:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details
I have renamed this section from "Fundamentalist ashamed of idolatry, blanks out details" for obvious reasons.Picaroon(Talk)02:16, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Thisuser is currently facing ArbCom. Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert warhere to blank out details.
Meanwhile, the user has begun another revert warhere inserting links from fundamentalist portals andhere with his POV. Phew!Anwar19:35, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
I think the confusion has arisen because of the words used. This user strongly believes idolatry is a negtaive word and iconography is a positive word. This is nonsense. These words are not synonymous. While iconography deals with two-dimensional objects like the Russian Orthodox customs, idolatry includes iconography and also includes three dimensional objects of worship. It is common to see devout Hindus prostrate beforeliving creatures (like cows, buffaloes, elephants, snakes,...) and seek blessings. Clearly, this is outside the scope of iconography. There is no question of malice in the choice of words.I have restored the title so as not to reinforce stereotypes about the negative connotations of idolatryAnwar13:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no need to discuss. There was already a consensus to use iconoclasm rather than idolatry onTalk:Hinduism. Idolatry is not even used in the context of Hinduism, seeHindu_iconography. In factIdolatry begins with "Idolatry is considered a sin". The implication anwar wants to give is that Hindus are sinners. I'm merely taking the same line of action with this user thatBlnguyen (talk·contribs) andNobleeagle (talk·contribs) did in the recent past.Bakaman19:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, in a brief search, I couldn’t a discussion of “iconoclasm” on theTalk:Hinduism page, much less a consensus determination on its use in favor of “idolatry”. In fact, I would be surprised to find such a consensus, since the term “iconoclasm” is nothing like a synonym for “idolatry.” I believe the word you’re seeking is “iconolatry”. Perhaps both of you should consider taking this term back toTalk:Hinduism as a candidate neutral (and more correct) term than “idolatry”, which is a pejorative term assigned from an “outside perspective,” as the first stage of the dispute resolutionDmcdevit has wisely suggested.Askari Mark(Talk)01:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the links,Bakasuprman; I was searching on the word "iconoclasm", as you suggested, and could find no usage of the word on the talk page or in the archives. In any case, as I andProabivouac (below) have noted, neither "iconoclasm" nor "idolatry" are appropriately used. And again, this is a content issue, not something that the admins here can resolve – at least not until the issue has duly made the rounds of Wikipedia'sconflict resolution processes. If a consensus for "iconolatry" could be achieved onTalk:Hinduism, this would have the desired effect without going through more formal layers of mediation and arbitration. If you would prefer for me to propose it as an uninvolved and neutral editor, I will be happy to do so.Askari Mark(Talk)03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
For starters,Iconoclasm is thedestruction of icons, not the use thereof. Anicon isn't an idol, but a picture. Whether that term is appropriate to Hindu art and religious objects, I don't know. However, the use ofidolatry is pure POV - in this case, Islamic POV which here equates Hinduism with the (purportedly) idol-worshipping Meccan pagans. WhenUser:Anwar saadat writes, "Now he seems embarassed of idolatry. So he has begun a revert war to blank out details," I gather that he wants to tell the worldthe awful truth' about Hinduism: exactly the kind of edit we don't need.Proabivouac02:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Throttle it down? Sure, what speed should it run at? It currently has a 4 edits/min. In order to complete 1500 edits the bot would spend 6.25 hours as of its current speed. --Catchi?19:52, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page. Or you could just not run it at all, since it really serves no useful prupose.Corvus cornix20:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Unable to comply, "anything so that it doesn't fill up the Recent changes page" is not a valid speed/rate parameter. --Catchi?20:23, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Cat, forgive my ignorance on this matter. I don't know much about bots. But, is it possible to both increaseand decrease the rate? That is, it's currently doing 4 in a minute, every minute, right? Is it possible to do, say, 16 edits withinvery quick succession, but then no other edits for the next four minutes? So that the bot's edits would appear as easily-ignored blocks?Bladestorm20:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi, due to the mounting complaints here I decided to turn the bot off for now. As for your comment. I have not seen such an option on the bots configuration. It only tells me how many seconds should it wait between edits. --Catchi?20:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Once the bot is approved, it'll get a bot flag, meaning that it won't flood RC (if you ignore the bot edits). This is effectively a non-issue, as it is only a problem in the interim between now and its approval.EVula//talk //☯ //20:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
People have done this before after a username change, though usually if there was a real name involved. Is there any particular reason, Cat, that you wanted to change all of these links? If not, since your old name redirects anyway, it hardly seems worth the trouble. But perhaps there's an issue we're all missing?Chick Bowen23:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
There are many reasons.
I prefer to keep a consistent sig. When you look at an archive you can easily identify me this way. A lot of people would not know who "Cool Cat" supposed to be in about say a year. It helps people better identify me. I feel this is the responsible thing to do.
In the past I had fancier sigs including sigs which displays all the barnstars I earned and stuff. I had been meaning to solve that issue for quite some time.
Is this entire thing critical? No. But it was never a requirement that bots are to be used for critical tasks only. I am letting a bot take care of a task I am allowed to handle manually to save myself time.
The bots edit rate upset a number of people watching the RC feed. I have since adjusted the edit rate to compensate.
I believe PGKbot posts admin edits though with lesser detail since admins are expected not to vandalize. At least that was the logic I followed when I came up with the algorithm which PGK adapted to his bot. I am unsure if it was changed since. I have not been involved with IRC bots over a year. --Catchi?11:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Anyone reading, it should be noted that this bot is NOT approved, it was given a trial, to ensure that it was working well. The trial is long over, the bot has been denied due to policy concerns and concerns expressed by the community, and any further edits towards this task are being made by an unapproved bot. --ST47Talk17:27, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Reference Desk Archival bot is eating data and not archiving it
Resolved
–The bot operators said they intend to fix this, and I agree this is not a matter for urgent admin attention.nadav (talk)10:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
The bot is just removing the data instead of storing in an archive like it has always done. The links to the supposedly archived ref desk questions are red.nadav (talk)06:51, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User covering up bad behavior by deleting warning messages
User:HanzoHattori has a tendency to upload images of questionable copyright status and as a result has a lot of warnings posted to his talk page. He recently deleted all those warnings inthis edit. Then when he was asked why he did this his response was to simplydelete the question. It seems very much like he's trying to cover up the fact that he's been warned about copyright issues repeatedly. Is this considered kosher?81.20.21.6709:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
By removing them, he has demonstrated he has seen them, if he continues he can't plead ignorance of the copyright problems. --pgk09:42, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Software piracy links
Not sure if this is the best place to post it, butUser:203.113.159.24 inthis edit added links to a file sharing site toAdobe Photoshop to pirate the software. I reverted, but I'm not sure if totally wiping them out of the history is good, and what sort of clever ways admins have of preventing this in the future.DreamGuy10:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Reporting the files as illegal to rapidshare might be a good option, as they will then be able to remove them from their servers. (See directionshere.) --tjstrftalk10:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Persistent vandalism at Friedrich Nietzsche
Over the last few days, an anonymous editor using six different IP addresses has persistently added an unsourced quotation in an inappropriate way to the entry onFriedrich Nietzsche. The edit seems to be an attempt to push some kind of pro-Polish anti-German barrow. The edit is identical each time, and the IP addresses have not been used for any other editing. Warnings have been posted on the talk pages, seeUser talk:83.22.79.54,User talk:83.30.49.70,User talk:83.30.30.35,User talk:83.22.69.61,User talk:83.30.44.30, andUser talk:83.22.82.2. However, the anonymous editor has ignored these warnings, most recentlyhere. This editor has now made clear their intention to continue vandalising this entry, and I believe a block of these six IP addresses is now warranted. Any assistance would be appreciated.FNMF10:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
... specifically a fight with me, but I'm not really in the mood. I askedSumple(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) to remove a personal attack from his userpage, after the target of the attack had complained to me.[72] In place of replying, Sumple blanked my request[73] and addedthis gracious note to his talkpage, about me being "persona non grata" on it. (I believe the roots of this personal resentment must be in our respective input of evidence in the Certified.Gangsta/Ideogram RFAR). I removed the attack on the userpage myself, warning him that I'd protect if he revert warred[74]; he restored it[75]; I removed it again and protected the page.
The situation is resolved, I suppose, and I'm by no means going to insist on him removing any of the silliness about me on his talkpage. (I see a bit about my number of braincells has been added now[76]—I don't care—surely fishcakes [sic] have at least five of them?) But it's not a very satisfactory resolution. I guess he needed to vent, and I'm not crazy about "winning" over an established user purely by using power answers and admin tools. But neither am I up for trying to talk with someone who blanks what I say withour reply. Anybody tactful out there, who would like to go have a chat? Feel free to unprotect the userpage if it seems the right thing to do. He seems to be trying to get blocked as a martyr for the cause of Telling the Truth about Bishonen, but please don't oblige him, I don't think it's necessary.Bishonen |talk11:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC).
I have nothing to say in this matter, save that User:Bishonen's comment: "fishcakes [sic]" typifies that user's arrogant mindset and refusal to let ignorance get in the way of power and control. Please readFishcake for your own benefit. --Sumple (Talk)11:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure where you're going with thefishcake thing but I notice that your talk page now says thatUser:Bishonen ispersona non grata on your talkpage now, and that you'll revert her where allowed. It's obvious that you have it in for both of these editors. -Alison☺11:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I do have it in for both of these users.User:Certified.Gangsta because of his frequent vandalism on articles that I also edited, andUser:Bishonen for two things: 1) unprincipled support for User:Certified.Gangsta, especially during User:Certified.Gangsta's RFAr, and 2) her subsequent active campaign to impede my editing, especially during my last involvement here on WP:ANI.
However, what I personally think about either of these usersper se is irrelevant to the present topic.
User:Bishonen protected my user page. Given that I'm pretty much the only person who edits it, that amounts to specifically banning me from my own user page.
The apparent justification was that this link "crazy people" is a "personal attack".
I've readWP:USER. Show me where those policies justify removal of this link and protection of the user page.
I point especially to the "Removal of inappropriate content" section, where it talks about removal of content on community concensus, and latitude to established editors.
User:Certified.Gangsta has been allowed to get away with a UI spoofing banner on his user page despite numerous requests to remove it.
User:Bishonen seems to think, however, that I should not be allowed to "get away" with my link ("crazy people") when only she has complained about it.
Is myediting record somehow worse than User:Certified.Gangsta's? Please be honest. If that's what the "community" thinks, and it damn well looks like that's what it thinks, then I won't be staying around, thank you very much. --Sumple (Talk)12:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
You were asked to stop piping CG's userpage into "crazy people" via wikilink, and you wouldn't...now you come here and do it again? It's simply best to not link editors like that. This should be obvious.--MONGO12:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'd say the bit ofWP:USER which applies is;"using userpages to attack people or campaign for or against anything or anyone is abad idea [...] Wikipedia is not a soapbox is usually interpreted as applying to user space as well as the encyclopedia itself. You do have more latitude in user space than elsewhere, but remember:don't be a dick about it.". The header of this thread, "User:Sumple wants a fight", would appear to be correct, largely from your own admission and it's obvious that the three of you have a history. I'm not passing any judgements on your edit record or anyone else's, I'm just focussing on this one incident, as I responded to theWP:RPP request, is all ... -Alison☺12:15, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Of course, I have no problem with that. I accept that it's best not to pipe other users like this. But many users have expressions of personal opinion on their user pages which border onWP:SOAP andWP:CIVIL violations, and I thought the practice in these cases is that if many people complain, they get removed.
Here'sUser:Bishonen, deeply involved inUser:Certified.Gangsta's numerous disputes with other, contributing editors, acting on her own judgment as if that was community concensus. If the community develops a concensus that what I have there is not only "best not done" or "should not be done", but "must not be done", I will gladly remove it.
I don't see such a concensus though, and there certainly wasn't one when User:Bishonen just went ahead and "protected" my page after one revert.
Funny how my one revert is "edit-warring" to User:Bishonen, but User:Certified.Gangsta's thousands and thousands of reverts aren't a problem to her?
Do I want a fight? Now I do. I didn't when I deleted User:Bishonen's note.
Does User:Bishonen want a fight? She knows what I think of her, especially in relation to User:Certified.Gangsta. For her to not only edit my user talk but my user page itself is highly provocative. So who wanted a fight first? --Sumple (Talk)12:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Other people behaviour is never an excuse for your own. Two wrongs don't make a right etc. Surely everyone got told that as children? Community consensus is embodied in the policy and guidelines on userpages. --pgk12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Given the time stamps involved, it seems that Sumple has been warned repeatedly, has decided that hereally wants to fight a couple of users, and that he need not behave politely unless someone can present a specific link to a specific prohibition, and he's convinced that he is right and should go ahead with his quarrels. It isn't significant disruption, but it surely does seem (barring any calming/cooling...which I'm not seeing) that a short block to prevent further warring would be called for.Geogre12:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
What the hell are you talking about? What "warned repeatedly?" You can't just make this stuff up... --Sumple (Talk)12:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Whatsall this discussion about? The pipe linked is removed, you replace it, then after it is removed again, and your userpage is protected, you ask to have the page reedited to include the attack...sure, that's likely to happen.--MONGO12:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Linking anyone's name into an unflattering reference, such asidiot orretarded is obviously a personal attack on that user, and is clearly prohibited under the guidelines foruser pages. --12:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Umm, discussion can cease now. Sumple has indicated to me via private communications that he has left the project for good, by changing the password to something random and removing his email. A pity it had to come to this. Regards,enochlau (talk)13:04, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User page vandalism
Resolved
Sonicrules2 vandalised my user page by replacing it with [a threat]. Since it was a threat, I'm listing it at Incidents rather than Vandalism. I hope this is the right place.Lurker14:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
User:Evercloser has been adding information to theBrock University Students' Union article that is defamatory towards former members of the executive of the students' union.[78][79][80] and[81]. Since the final warning has been posted to his talk page, I have received an email from the user that I feel harassed and threatened by.
Mr. Saunders,
I have no choice but to include your name amongst the other names of those who conspire to keep the fraudulent activities of BUSU from being known. Wikipedia is not a credible source for information, this is knowledge you should know. I will begin the process of mediation as well as ensuring that when the fraudulent information is publish publically, I have no choice but to name you as a participant in protecting BUSU from litigation.
Allow yourself to become well acquainted with the St. Catharines Standard, I hope your are a subscriber.
I am not quite sure how to react to this email that I have received; I have therefore posted this case to the Administrators' Noticeboard for hopeful resolution.
Potentially serious BLP concerns. User blocked, page fully protected. A delete and restore less his/her edits may be in order.Marskell17:24, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Moved to semi-protection to allow you and others to edit, Andy. On the e-mail, it strikes me as a person on some sort of crusade but not of the truly unhinged sort. Keep any comments impersonal and process oriented as you've done on their talk already. Hopefully, it will blow over.Marskell18:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
A devoted Elvis fan (see his user page) such as Wilkes, Northmeister repeatedly deleted well sourced material fromElvis Presley (see[83],[84],[85]),Graceland (see[86],[87],[88]) andMemphis Mafia (see[89]) that was not in line with his personal view of the megastar Elvis Presley. Similar material was frequently removed by Wilkes in former edit wars.
Northmeister has copied from old talk pages blocks of material which had already been discussed exhaustively two years ago and placed it in the current Elvis talk page in order to harass user Onefortyone alias IP 80.141.etc. See[90]. This is exactly the same material that multiple hard-banned user Ted Wilkes aliasUser:DW alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202 frequently removed from talk and article pages in the past. See[91],[92]. Query: why should Northmeister be so interested in this old stuff if he was not deeply involved in the edit wars at that time?
Northmeister falsely claims that user Onefortyone is identical with another user who edited under the IP 129.241.134.241 and was also part of edit wars with Wilkes. See[93].
The expression "Elvis Mafia" mentioned by Northmeisterhere, was only used once by me inthis edit of 24 April 2005 in the course of a heated dispute with Ted Wilkes's IPs! Query: how should Northmeister, who, according to his contribution history, first visited Wikipedia on 5 February 2006, know that I posted such an expression more than two years ago, if he was not involved in the dispute at that time? It should be noted that the said edit of 2005 was immediately deleted by IP 66.61.69.65 alias Ted Wilkes. See[94]. This means that Northmeister must be identical with multiple hard-banned user Wilkes aliasUser:DW and his IPs and other sockpuppets.
Northmeister reappeared removing Elvis-related topics at exactly the same time when the many sockpuppets of user Joey Joe Joe Junior Shabadoo were revealed as edit warring with user Onefortyone on the same topics. See[95].
More significantly, Northmeister addressed Onefortyone inthis heading on the Elvis talk page as a user from Duesburg. The only other user doing so was Ted Wilkes with his IPs and his sockpuppet,User:Duisburg Dude, a user identity that was only created in order to harass me and also repeatedly deleted my contributions (see[96],[97],[98],[99],[100],[101],[102]). Consequently Duisburg Dude was banned from Wikipedia on 6 August 2006.
To conclude: Northmeister'srecent edit certainly proves that this user must be identical with hardbanned user Ted Wilkes alias Duisburg Dude aliasUser:DW alias alias IP 66.61.69.65 alias IP 24.165.212.202.
As DW was an editor hardbanned by Jimbo Wales himself, maybe it would be better for administrators to deal with this directly. —MichaelLinnear04:20, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
... I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed toWP:SSP for thorough investigation.Jehochman☎ /✔05:30, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
It should be further added that Onefortyone alias IP 80.141 was on heavy fire by Ted Wilkes and his sockpuppets from 2005 on, and it was Wilkes who requestedthis arbitration in 2005. However, there were subsequent arbcom cases concerning the same matter (seethis case of December 2005 andthis newer arbcom decision) which proved that Onefortyone's edits are O.K. Consequently, Wilkes was banned from the topics in question. For instance, in thecase of 2006 the arbcom said that Ted Wilkes has "repeatedly insisted on an unrealistic standard with respect to negative information regarding celebrities that is current in popular culture, gossip and rumor." Therefore, according to the arbcom, Wilkes was "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality," and he was placed indefinitely on Wikipedia:Probation. If Northmeister is identical with Ted Wilkes, who was banned from Wikipedia for one year, he has clearly violated his probation. The third, more recentarbcom case concerning the Elvis Presley article confirmed that my "editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content." Furthermore, the arbcom said that my opponent Lochdale, who, to my mind, is also somehow related to Ted Wilkes, "has removed large blocks of sourced material from Elvis Presley" and that he "shows evidence of misunderstanding of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view." Therefore, Lochdale was "banned indefinitely from editing articles which concern Elvis Presley."
IP 209.247.5.139 also seems to be identical with Northmeister and Ted Wilkes. Wilkes repeatedly claimed in the past that my edits were "outright fabrications" and that I am a liar, etc. IP 209.247.5.139 is also talking about "outright hateful fiction" and "lies" about Elvis. See[117]. Like Wilkes, IP 209.247.5.139 denigrates sources he doesn't like (see[118],[119]) and applauds Northmeister's deleting tactics. See[120]. Like Wilkes, he attacks user Onefortyone: "It's clear what his intent is, (smear) and it shouldn't be tolerated in Elvis Presley's page or anybody else's"[121]
Northmeister now continues to whitewash Elvis-related topics removing well-sourced material from the Memphis Mafia article. See[153]. Similar material was frequently removed from older versions of the article by Ted Wilkes. See, for instance,[154],[155],[156],[157]. Northmeister even removed the same external links that Ted Wilkes repeatedly deleted in the past in favor of two websites of Joe Esposito and Jerry Scheff. See[158],[159],[160]. Significantly, Northmeister now put exactly the same two external links in first place that Ted Wilkes preferred. See[161] and[162].
Northmeister put material about Bush's and Koizumi's visit to Graceland in first place onGraceland which was formerly included by banned user Lochdale (alias IPs 192.136.45.2 and 200.30.130.19), who also frequently removed contributions by Onefortyone from Elvis-related topics. See[163] and[164],[165],[166],[167],[168].
Other users criticize that important and well-sourced paragraphs I have written have now been deleted from the Elvis article. See[169].
This edit shows more than a thousand words which kind of trivial information Northmeister wishes to have included in the Elvis article.
All this is certainly not a coincidence. To my mind, there can be no doubt that Northmeister and presumably some other IPs and sockpuppets are identical with Ted Wilkes alias multiple-hardbannedUser:DW. Northmeister, as a sockpuppet of Wilkes, clearly placed material related to Elvis Presley'a alleged homo- or bisexuality inTalk:Elvis Presley (see[170] and removed a well-sourced quote dealing with Natalie Wood's remark that Presley and the Memphis Mafia members might be homosexual (see[171]). This means that he has clearly violated Ted Wilkes's probation. The arbcom says that Wilkes is "banned from making any edit related to a person's alleged homosexuality or bisexuality". See[172]. May I ask some administrators to put a stop to the disruptive behavior of this user.80.141.228.15717:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that while Wilkes used to edit from Memphis, checkuser shows that Northmeister is editing from somewhere else in the US (per IRC chat with Dmcdevit). Obviously Wilkes could have moved, or found another way to access Wikipedia, so the determination should be made by behavior, not technical evidence. Unfortunately I will be largely inactive until Monday so I can't do much to investigate this myself at this time.Thatcher13118:17, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Ted Wilkes alias DW has used many different IPs in the past. Therefore, it is quite clear that he must have found several ways to access Wikipedia. To my mind, he has also created many more sockpuppets he can easily use when some others are blocked. This would also explain why my edits are frequently deleted by new sockpuppets.80.141.211.4511:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Suspected sock puppetry by the person filing this complaint
The anonymous IPs seem to be sock puppets ofOnefortyone(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log). An indication bad faith by this complainant, I am quoted out of context above: my concern is that the person filingthis report is the one doing the trolling. This complaint seems to have been filed byOnefortyone(talk·contribs·deleted contribs·logs·filter log·block user·block log) a/k/a Anon 80.141.et al. See alsoWikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Onefortyone, andUser:Duisburg Dude. Oddly, the above IP resolves to Germany, the same general location as Duisburg. Onefortyone was topic banned fromElvis Presley on April 27, 2007 for two months, but the ban was lifted because of sockpuppetry by one of the users requesting the ban. I am deeply suspicious that we are being trolled here, and suggest that this material be removed toWP:SSP for thorough investigation.To me, it seems that the puppet master may be setting up multiple identities to argue and dispute each other, to create havoc and waste our time. This same disruptive complaint has been cross posted to other boards.[173]Jehochman☎ /✔13:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Anything is possible. This could be one person operating multiple socks, or several people in collusion, or maybe several independent puppetmasters. I think this needs to be investigated, and if Onefortyone is indeed venue shopping, filing bogus reports, and operating multiple socks to disrupt Wikipedia, then that user needs to be banned.JehochmanTalk22:22, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
You must be joking, Jehochman. It is well known that 80.141 is the dynamic IP of Onefortyone. I have used this dynamic IP in order to avoid that my opponents harass me, as they frequently do when I am using my user's name. Would you please stick close to the facts given above. There are several big questions to be answered, like: are other users allowed to remove large blocks of well sourced material from article pages simply becaue this material is not in line with their personal opinion? Are users allowed to include hyperlinks to fan sites in Wikipedia articles? Are other users allowed to use different sockpuppets in order to harass others and to avoid the 3RR and remove well-sourced material they do not like? I don't think so, but this is what my opponent(s) frequently do(es).
Just one example. Northmeister first removedthis passage fromGraceland claiming that the commentary was "not appropriate for opening" in order to substitutethis one concerning trivia about Bush and Koizumi's visit in its stead. If the first commentary is "not appropriate for opening", then the other one he included is? I don't think so. Therefore, I have moved this material to another section of the article. I even created a new section entitled "National Historic Landmark". What happened? Northmeister repeatedly reverted the article to the version he prefers. See[174],[175]. He even says in the edit summary, "revert second reversion by user onefortyone ... without discussion." For the discussion, see[176]. It should also be noted that Northmeister mangled some direct quotes by removingthese passages from the article. This is not O.K., and it is certainly no coincidence that the same deleting tactics were used over and over again by Ted Wilkes in former edit wars.80.141.211.4511:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Could it even be thatUser:Rikstar is identical with Northmeister? I hope not, but what looks very suspicious to me are some edits of 22 May 2007 concerning theElvis Presley article.This edit by Rikstar included double content. Therefore, it was immediately removed by Northmeister inthe very next edit three minutes later, as if Rikstar corrected himself by unintentionally using another user account. Significantly, all subsequent edits were again by Rikstar a few minutes later, except for an edit byUser:Steve Pastor, who also seems to be somehow related to Northmeister (see above). Northmeister did only one or two other edits that day, one of them removing, as usual, sourced content from the Elvis page. See[177]. Interestingly, some hours after Northmeister had posted hisnegative statement about Onefortyone on 19 May, Rikstar also took the opportunity to formally register his "own dissatisfaction with Onefortyone" on the Elvis talk page, thereby (?unintentionally) removing the name Onefortyone from an edit by IP 209.247.5.139 against Onefortyone, as if he wanted to add some further details to this edit of IP 209.247.5.139, but changed his mind in order to put a comment by Rikstar in its stead. See[178] and[179]. All this looks very suspicious, because all these users are now very active rearranging content and removing critical material from the Elvis page and attacking Onefortyone, simply because the latter would like to include some well-sourced material in the Elvis article that is not in line with the opinion of the fans.80.141.252.20417:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
The following commentary by Rikstar only seems to confirm the suspicion that they endeavor to prevent me from doing further edits that are supported by reliable sources: "As for 141... I'm amazed he's been allowed to wreak such havoc. I foresee only problems resulting from any involvement on his part. ... if he ever tries to justify the inclusion of any patently inappropriate material by protesting 'But it comes from reliable source so it should be included!!!', or accuses the rest of the world of denying unsavoury truths, I'll probably scream and will see about taking the matter further." See[180].80.141.244.7022:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Onefortyone, if your "enemies" wikistalk you, there are plenty of "neutrals" who will stop them if we believe you are acting in good faith. Unfortunately, I think you have lost the assumption of good faith by:
Filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues.
Making excessively long, incomprehensible arguments, instead of following that directions that require succinct posts. I suggest you start with your very best evidence and see if anyone sees the logic in what you are saying, then follow up.
Using a blizzard of IP addresses instead of your main identity. I wish you would always post under your user name. In my view your use of multiple IPs, makes it difficult for us to track all your cross postings and complaints.
Thank you for your response. As you can see, I have not contributed to tbe articles in question for more than a week, although my opponents continue to delete well-sourced material I have written. I am now only collecting material in order to prove that I am still the target of my old opponent Wilkes and his new sockpuppets. See alsothis older statement by administrator Redwolf24 who said that Wilkes and Wyss were harassing me, "and I've seen them go out of their way to revert him." The arbcom was of the same opinion. To my mind, it is no coincidence that the same deleting tactics concerning the same topics now continue. The arbcom clearly says that "Onefortyone's editing has substantially improved from that in the earlier arbitration cases. A sampling of edits shows reference to reliable sources without overstating of their content. To a greater extent he allows the reader to draw their own conclusions." See[181]. So why are my edits frequently removed by one or two other users? The problem is that there seems to be no administrator who is willing to take the trouble to carefully investigate all the diffs I have given above and all the sources I have used, as this certainly will take a lot of time. The other message I put on the administrators' noticeboard some days ago has been removed. Nothing happened. This means that there are not plenty of 'neutrals' who will stop my opponents. That's the reason for "filing the same complaint repeatedly in different venues." I am using several independent sources for my contributions, among them standard biographies, books on the rock 'n' roll era, publications by eyewitnesses, modern university studies, journal articles etc. etc. (see[182]), but my contributions are frequently deleted. Instead, the other editors are including hyperlinks to fan sites in the article. Do you think that this is O.K.? I am at a loss what to do.80.141.248.22318:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Apparentlyuser:Northmeister wasn't informed of this matter so I've posted a note on his talk page. I've known of Northmeister since he first started editing. I also had some familiarity with Wilkes. While I haven't reviewed this Elvis Presley material, I don't see any other behavior in common. ·:·Will Beback·:·05:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
Resolved
![[29]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%253AHellenicNavy.png%26amp%3bdiff%3d133493020%26amp%3boldid%3d129953756){kind=link}
![[31]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=https%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fw%2findex.php%3ftitle%3dImage%3aHellenicNavy.png%26amp%3bdiff%3dnext%26amp%3boldid%3d133494611){kind=link}
