Last night (11/20),User:Theaveng continued to add Nielsen Media market data (under the guise that is was from the FCC) toList of television stations in North America by media market‎, after an edit war (which included this editor), the page was protected for 24 hours and the user warned not to add copyright data to pages, especially this one since it is in violation of OTRS ticket #2008091610055854, but the user continues.

Twicetonight, the user has reverted to the Nielsen data (again, copyright data) and refuses to accept that it is copyright. The user claims his data is from the FCC, when it is the same identical data from Nielsen. I bring it to you for your insight. What do I do? -NeutralHomer •Talk • November 22, 2008 @ 08:21

Incorrect. I reverted toFCC changes that I acquired from the U.S. Federal Code, which is public domain, and has nothing to do with any corporation or copyright. Oh, and my real name is "Troy". Perhaps I should have picked a better handle that sounded more friendly. ----Theaveng (Troy) (talk)08:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

For some reason, I could not find the OTRS ticket mentioned above. However, if it was anOFFICE action that trumps everything. Your data does appear to come from the FCC but if the FCC is using copyrighted material, with permission, we would still be prevented from using it. I think we need to let the office sort this out since they seem to be the source of the original take down. Clearly, the data is at the FCC site but that alone does not allow us to use it. Let the office make the call.JodyB12:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

In looking further I find two questions but I am taking it to the article talk page and moving it from here. The FCC material does not show that it belongs to Nielsen or anyone else that I can see. Aside from some OFFICE ruling to the contrary It seems sourced and available IMO.JodyB13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It wouldn't be the first time that a corporation overreached out of greed or desire for global AYB; I'm sure Nielsen actually did throw a hissy fit over the mess, that doesn't mean they had a leg to stand on. Perhaps that FCC cite is sufficient to tell them to go take a hike but that's a decision that, ultimately, only Mike (the WMG legal counsel) can make. — Coren ^(talk)15:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• User:Chrisieboy (edit |talk |history |links |watch |logs)

Following up a note atWT:CP, I've developed serious concerns about the contributions of this user, some of which have made the front page. He several times restored material toAnglia Regional Co-operative Society after it was removed, with explanation, by another user. The article does duplicate text from the identified and several other sources. I then found he had received and removed a CorenBot notice aboutLondon Pensions Fund Authority (also removing it from the listing atWikipedia:Suspected copyright violations). (It still contains duplicative text and has been blanked.) Now I find that his DYK articleTournier v National Provincial and Union Bank of England is at least in good part a direct paste from a "for purchase" student essay,here. (Internet archives confirm that they published well before we did,here.) I think his other contributions need investigation. I bring the matter here both because of its severity and because the contributor seems to think my investigation isa personal vendetta. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)13:03, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

You can addUIA (Insurance) as another cut-and-paste job by him. You're in the right here - these are obvious copyvios and I simply don't believe his wikilawyering over the precise definition of plagiarism and copyright. ➨a sweet and tender hooligan13:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I've warned the user, and will block without further warning should they persist in either restoring removed copyvios or introducing more copyvio material. Ignorance of our copyright restrictions is excusable, but quibbling over the details once they've been pointed out and removing a notice fromWP:SCV is not. Thank you for catching this.EyeSerene^talk15:16, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you both. Hopefully your input and that ofDoug Weller at my talk page will help underscore the seriousness of copyright concerns. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)16:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

It might interest people to know that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this - back in January this year he tried to get me 3RR-blocked for reverting his addition of a non-free-use image without valid rationale - seehere. More relevant would be the simultaneous discussion on Ryan Postlethwaite's talk page (here in his archives), in which Chrisieboy tries hard to Wikilawyer us into believing he's right. It's crystal-clear that Chrisieboy has learnt nothing from this, and the observable trend is concerning - we have a serious copyright violator here.20:13, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I am inclined to agree, considering thatThe Co-operative Bank seems also to have been an infringement I cannot read the source, but thecontributor who cleaned it is the one who brought the problem toWT:CP to begin with, and he has been correct with respect to other contributions, as when he cleanedDistrict Bank. The contributor attempted to restore that, too. Seehere. His response to that contributor for restoring infringement toAnglia Regional seems illuminating: "Sorry, I thought (hoped) you had disappeared." I've been working on some other copyright concerns, but hope to have time to take a deeper look at some other contributions later. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)21:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, that last message from Chrisieboy in you post is very concerning, to say the least...21:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I noticed 2 or 3 lapses into cutting and pasting by Chrisieboy, that I cleaned up one by one without disagreement. I hadn't wished to trawl through all his contributions, so after inviting Moonriddengirl's intervention, I am surprised to learn that there are so many so early in the search, and surprised that his perception of free content has lasted so long.

He is a serious contributor, and has a featured article to his name (much more than I have) and I have dealt with him cordially in the past. I notice that he has done little editing in the last two weeks, and I sincerely hope that he acts to de-escalate things, and we can look forward to more of his very useful contributions here.

Oh, by the way, I can't read the source for the possible copyvio atThe Co-operative Bank either. However, Google Scholar seems pretty certain that the text I deleted came from that 1996 article. Chrisieboy did not contest my deletion there.

--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk)22:54, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I believe you have been the very model of civility in this. :) Good contributions can balance well against a lot of concerns, but persistent copyright infringement is not among them. In my opinion, on the contrary, copyright problems are even more worrisome with a prolific and dedicated contributor, since we do run the risk that copyright violations will work their way into what should be Wikipedia's best content. I hope that this contributor has simply misunderstood the policies and laws in question and that there won't be any further infringement, but his defensiveness in response to these concerns (including in the initial article's talk page, on my talk page and in response to the issues raised by TheIslander above) and his removal of the matter fromWP:SCVdoes concern me. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)23:26, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, me too. Personally I'd like to have some kind of assurance from Chrisieboy that he now understands the issues and won't be repeating them. In the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off, I think future contributions will also need to be monitored, and to protect Wikipedia the account should be blocked at the first sign of any new problems. As Moonriddengirl has pointed out, a good contribution history often does result in the odd hiccup being overlooked, but copyright violation could have consequences for Wikipedia as a whole and we have no option but to take this very seriously. If we don't get these reassurances as to future behaviour, but editing continues, I'd suggest perhaps blocking the account until we do.EyeSerene^talk11:03, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've asked Chrisieboy to come, take a look at and comment on this thread - hopefully he will, and if so, we'll take it from there.12:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good ;)EyeSerene^talk13:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I see that he has not edited in several days, but hopefully he'll choose to participate soon.Moonriddengirl^(talk)

Some of the contributions here are way out of perspective, for instance Islander's remarks (on an entirely separate matter which occurred nearly a year ago) "that Chrisieboy is an old hand at this." I can't "get [Islander] 3RR-blocked," only he/she can do that by his/her actions, I can however, follow proper procedure and, on that occasion, Islander was not blocked or warned. Also, in response to EyeSerene's comments "in the light of what looks like attempts to cover up the copyvios and even laugh them off," I would remind you I am a volunteer here, so please remember to assume good faith. Anything I contribute to the encyclopedia is part of the public record, as my edit history reveals and my attempts "to laugh [it] off" amount to a challenge to deleting the entire page, when only one section was called into question.

The importance of this policy has been impressed upon me, but I do take exception the above character assassination. EyeSerene's warning on my talk page is one thing, but now to "suggest perhaps blocking [my] account" because I decline to participate in this discussion, is quite frankly an abuse of power.Chrisieboy (talk)14:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in. Evidence suggests that you haveblatantly pasted content from a for-pay student essay to Wikipedia which moreover was linked from our front page. In light of that and persistent copyright concerns, after notification by CorenBot and advisement by a fellow contributor, blocking your account unless you are willing to address these concerns seems quite reasonable andwithin policy. The assumption of good faith "does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of contrary evidence." A refusal to acknowledge and frankly address these concerns would certainly be contrary evidence. In fact, in the face of what seems to be an action that would have you expelled from many educational institutions foracademic dishonesty, allowing you an opportunity to continue to edit is in itself an assumption of good faith. In addition, refusal to engage in discussion about conduct concerns is listed as a form ofdisruptive editing, which can be in itself due grounds for blocking. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)15:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I must also note that I believe you have misinterpreted the characterization of your actions here. I'm sure EyeSerene will correct me if I'm wrong, but I imagine reference to laughing it off was tothis edit, which had nothing to do with the blanking of the whole page but with your restoring the single disputed sectionhere, after previously having restored ithere,here andhere. --Moonriddengirl^(talk)16:05, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be continued Wikilawyering here. His characterization of filing a 3RR report as "proper procedure" rings hollow. Filing a 3RR report is a pain in theass, and people only do it if they expect/hope action to result from it. Nobody fills out a 3RR report just because they happened to notice someone making four reverts in 24 hours -- people only fill out the report if they think the reverts were inappropriate and/or want to see action taken against the person in question. --Jaysweet (talk)16:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"I would remind you I am a volunteer here...". Oh please. I would like to remind you thatwe areall volunteers here. You're continued wikilawyering is doing you no favours - Jaysweet, above, puts it very well. The bottom line, which all editors in this thread seem to agree on, is this: you have been made clear of various policies regarding copyright, and have acknowledged this. Any single further breach of these policies by yourself will result in a block.19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, I did a stint at new page patrol, and I'm rather new to it, so I'm just trying my best. This articleSho Uchida doesn't seem to have established notability, so I've tried to tag it, but I get reverted. If someone wants to explain why I'm wrong (there is no edit summary in the reversions) or suggest the appropriate course of action, I'm all ears... or eyes, as the case may be. Thanks.ChildofMidnight (talk)06:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not an expert either, but if the contents on the page is correct the page does meet notability, seeWP:BIO "Competitors who have competed at the highest level in amateur sports.[9]", so you should not have added a notability tag, what you might question is the references, my chines is not so good and a better reference should be resonably easy to find. On the other hand, to just revert you was not really correct either, the user that removed the tag should have explained in the comment why he removed your tag. --Stefan^talk06:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thank you for explaining. I'm not really worried about the other user, I'm just trying to understand the reasoning. Does this mean that every Olympian can have an article? What about Div. 1 athletes?ChildofMidnight (talk)07:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think so. --Stefan^talk07:39, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

A discussion on this line of WP:BIO is currently happening at the talk page of the guideline.Fram (talk)08:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the input and the pointer to the relevant discussion. It's been helpful to me. I think this is resolved unless anyone else wants to weigh in...ChildofMidnight (talk)18:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

In future, why don't you ask the person undoing your edits why they did do so? It is much easier and friendlier than directly going to an noticeboard over something like that. RegardsSoWhy18:29, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• Notan appropriate use of rollback by Yellow Monkey. He reverted clearly good faith edits.^message18:14, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I havenotifiedYellowMonkey (talk ·contribs) that he is being discussed on an Administrators' noticeboard. Should you mention an editor (and especially an Administrator whose actions are being scrutinised) on a noticeboard, please take a second to issue them a notice in the interests of courtesy, and to solicit their view and/or an explanation on the matter—such is the routine discussion etiquette and procedure, really. Thanks,AGK18:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
    • I didn't know he was an administrator, as his userpage contains no such designation and he's not in the category. Either way, it was more of an aside than anything. Not worth any drama.^message18:51, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
      • ...erm, actually, he's anArb.GJC21:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I still think this is resolved. I wanted a neutral perspective and some insights, and that's what I got. Thanks to everyone involved.ChildofMidnight (talk)02:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

We are having dispute betweenuser:LAz17 anduser:Ceha about Bosnian demography maps. Because for me anduser:Future Perfect at Sunrise problem has not been very clear I have asked users to give reasons what is wrong on this maps[1]. For few short hours everything has been OK.User:LAz17 has writen about problems withuser:Ceha map and then user Ceha has writen about problems with User Laz17 maps, but after midnight user Laz17 has exploded because of Ceha arguments (maybe they are false, maybe they are OK, but for this noticeboard it is not important) and started to use words WHO IN THE WORLD ARE YOU TRYING TO FOOL, bullshit, peasants and fuck[2]. In my thinking because of that Laz17 has earned 1 little block, but maybe it will be best to block both users to calm down this situation ?--Rjecina (talk)05:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If one user becomes uncivil during a dispute we don't block both parties. If the other user is presenting their evidence in a calm and constructive manner block the party who isn't.--Crossmr (talk)08:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am very alarmed that the discussion has been purged. The link was here,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_talk:Bih_1991.jpg ... so what now? Were is all that discussion? How will the third parties decide who is right if anyone is? We need that page back. (LAz17 (talk)13:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

That was apparently done as a routine housekeeping measure by an admin not aware of the ongoing discussion. Talk pages are routinely deleted if their main page is gone. In this case, I've provisionally restored (assuming the deleting admin won't mind). We can move it somewhere else later, but at the moment we still need the discussion preserved.

About the issue itself, I'm afraid the recent postings were "tl,dr" for me. And can't you guys discuss these things without those personal accusations? It makes it really harder to follow.Fut.Perf.☼14:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

could you please allow the 1991 map to be on wikipedia until the dispute is resolved? We need that map because we agreed that it is an authentitic official one, and this maps helps prove that Cehas maps are full of laws and POV. I will try to discuss stuff with less personal accusations, but it gets hard when I see what kind of absurdity he says and how nobody at all seems to care about the problems or discussion that is going on. We need other people in the discussion, not just me and him. In every discussion that I had with croats on wikipedia, it was a third side that stepped in to help resolve them. The third side has left... we need help to resolve the problems. (LAz17 (talk)15:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)).

As called I was called in this discussion, I'll just make a few comments since its weekend and I promised Rjecina to leave the map's issue till next week. Yes, there was a problem with user Laz17. He used some inapropriate words and was heavy on personal accusations. Also by his own word's he has trouble when communicating with part of users on wikipedia. I don't know, part of the problem could be that parts of his english comprehenshion is bad? Anyways (or he is also going to be blocked for puting maps which are constanly deleted) I would like to offer link for putting images on the internet[3]. That should solve that part of the problem. --Čeha(razgovor)22:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Was warned on talk, yet continues to deliberately associate organizations with the American State. Latest target:Fox News.forestPIG^(grunt)04:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And? RanEagle made an edit atUSPS on Nov 14. Was reverted and warned about it onNovember 19th. He made one edit to Fox News Channel. He was reverted (by you), you haven't posted to his talk (which also indicates that he/she doesn't even know that he's being "talked about" here, how would you feel if reversed?) or the article talk. This isn't the first stop in dispute/content resolution. Cheers,Keeperǀ7604:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

If you check the user's contribs, you will see that their behavior only just falls short of vandalism. RanEagle has been repeatedly warned, and continues to flaunt his/her issues with the American Government by making sarcastic edits of the manner identified. An indefinite block would not be excessive, IMO.forestPIG^(grunt)23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the right forum. Warn the user and if they continue to be disruptive, take it toWP:AIV. ANI is for issues that need admin intervention right away, and can't be handled through our normal processes. —The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite01:43, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Foresticpig, an indefinite block would be beyond excessive. It's a difference of opinion on content, it's not vandalism (you say as much directly above). This editor madeone edit, you reverted him, and then you ran here with your diff to get someone to indef block him? How is that not excessive? I'm also very curious how you've come to determine that you are allowed to askother admins (according to your userpage, you are a "non-disruptive sock" or somesuch of an admin account) to do your dirty work for you. Use your own damn admin buttons and take your own damn lumps if you screw up with them. Don't demand other admins to do excessive amounts of wikilawyering on your behalf, that's bullshit. As you can tell, I'm not a huge fan of "I have this account so I can edit in sensitive areas and not tarnish my admin account." That's bollocks, and I consider this post of yours, after research, to be most disruptive and distasteful, and I've half a mind to block your sock account (the foresticpig one) so as not to have to deal with this garbage anymore. Don't tempt me.Keeperǀ7602:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think thatthis use of a sock iswhat the community has in mind. —02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting... | |02:17, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

That's how I found out. I went to his user talk to explain to him that an indef block would be excessive only to find out that he/she is an admin him/her self. Bringing another editor here on aborderline case at best instead of simply handling things him/her self is the verydefinition of disruption, IMO. Without a logical explanation (that frankly, I'm not seeing), I don't see why the sock shouldn't be blocked. Perhaps I should create a sock, and use the sock to go toWP:AN and see if any admins would be willing to do it? Incredulous.Keeperǀ7602:24, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate administrators' feedback and advice on an ongoing situation best encapsulated bythis sequence of edits. How can this be resolved?Jayen46613:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly byinformal orformal mediation for the underlying content dispute. However, the repetition of allegations probably should be resolved by explaining aboutuser conduct RfCs - I'll leave a note on his talk page.PhilKnight (talk)13:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For better or worse, I have responded to the allegation:here. I would appreciate it if any further such allegations on WP talk pages were removed promptly as perWP:PA. If there are any outstanding concerns, I am happy to make private information available to arbcom. Cheers,Jayen46615:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This just now being acase in point.Jayen46615:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I suggest mediation, formal or informal. We need to be extra-cautious when dealing with the subject of an article who is also an editor. ·:·Will Beback·:·23:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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

Resolved

 –Yeah, this complaint is going nowhere fast. | |20:07, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AdminUser:Future Perfect at Sunrise seems incline to take the definition of admin abuse to a new level. He is the ultimate epitome of unsavory administrator conducts.

In his most recent exploit, Future Perfect at Sunrise aggressively albeit controversially pushed for the lifting of the ban ofUser:Alex contributing from L.A., who has a habit of making death threats, creating ban-evading sockpuppets, and possessing an overall lack of respect for the due process.Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive492#User:Alex_contributing_from_L.A. He controversially unblocked the ban-evading sockpuppet Alex contribution from L.A. himself after little discussion on AN/I[4] claiming that there wassince there doesn't seem to be any fundamental opposition here, I've unblocked

As a neutral editor, I noticed the AN/I thread and immediately questioned Future Perfect's judgment in this episode as well as his categorization of "fundamental opposition". Alex from L.A. was extremely hostile, but Future Perfect's continue to patronize the ban-evading sock. Future Perfect, angry at the fact that someone is questioning his judgment, became extremely defensive and was eager to shut me up by saying "let's close this discussion". He accused me of NPA against ban-evading sock Alex.[5] He then tried to exonerate Alex's pass transgression and sockpuppetry [[6]] as well as demonstrating a flawed understanding ofWP:SOCK. He then failed to assume good faithWP:AGF by accusing me ofboosting your Arbcom candidature by creating a tough-guy profile on ANI? Good lord. Go do what you must and get your "landmark case" rolling, but try to not waste the time of your more mature fellow wikipedians all too much in the process, willya?[[7]]

He then launched a relentless campaign to wiki-stalk/harass my contributions as well as censor/impede my editing. He even threatened to block me [[8]] just because I questioned his unblock of a ban-evading sock. After he stalked my contribution, an edit war occured atSalma Hayek [[9]] [[10]] [[11]] [[12]]. He continued to threaten to block me, even claiming that "conflict of interest" does not apply despite the fact that no other editor reverted me during this time except himself. [[13]] He seems to be reverting out of personal vendetta. Even my attempt to compromise by telling him to move the objectionable sentence to another part of the article was rebuffed as he continued to hurl insults in edit summary such as accusing me of being a sexist, misogynist, among other personal attacks.

I urge the community to take decisive action against this rogue admin who plays by his own rule, have little regards for the due process or wikipedia policies. I demand a formal apology and I also sincerely hope this admin can refrain from wikistalking and censoring my edits based on personal vendetta. If this desysopping is the only solution, then we have to do what we have to.--NWA.Rep (talk)19:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the Alex situation, but your behavior atSelma Hayek was quite bad. Your post here is ridiculous. If your other allegations are as sensible as what you're saying at theSelma Hayek situation, I see no reason to look into them. Wikipedia requires that editors behave like reasonable adults. If you're unable to do that, this is not the place for you.Friday(talk)19:54, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I concur with Friday. You try to force content onto aWP:BLP about someone's breasts and then scream "censorship" when removed? Sorry, not going to fly.Ronnotel (talk)19:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday, you are one of those people who can't look past my userpage and tried to censor it. Judge someone by their contributions, not by their userpage.--NWA.Rep (talk)19:57, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember that. This time around, I was looking at your contributions. Altho, now that I look.. your userpage is inappropriate. Please put this content on your own website, not on Wikipedia.Friday(talk)20:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA, I don't have the intestinal fortitude to go thru your contributions and see if all your edits are as dumb as the one atSalma Hayek, so I guess without research I can't just block you as a troll. But that's a really stupid edit, and it makes me havezero interest in whether you have anything remotely resembling a legitimate gripe here. No, that's not quite right; it makes me quite confident if I actually spent time researching it, I'd find it was groundless. Perhaps leave Wikipedia to the grownups? Or go focus on your sure-to-succeed ArbCom candidacy? Or something? I tried for over a minute to resist hitting "save page" on this, in the interests of assuming good faith and civility and treat the children with respect, etc., but I failed. Shoo. --barneca (talk)20:01, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hrrrmppphh. Not really worth commenting here, is it? If anybody besides NWA.Rep should want a comment from me, let me know. Absent that, I intend to continue upholding BLP standards of quality against people who think it is a good idea to claim of prominent Hollywood actresses such asScarlett Johannson that their notability rests wholly or entirely on the size of their breasts[14]. Have fun desysopping me.Fut.Perf.☼20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

With contributions likethis (notice the player's name and the poor format of a four digit number),this,this,this, andthis, maybe it'd be better for you if people judged you on youruserpage.Badger Drink (talk)20:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

And you tell people to go fuck yourself?User:Badger_Drink/sandbox If we are not talking about breasts, then we would not be having this discussion. Unfortunately, wikipedians are overly puritan.--NWA.Rep (talk)20:09, 21 November 2008 (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.

(Obviously a new meaning of the word "Resolved" than I was previously aware of :-) "Hi, I'm leaving Wikipedia for good, but please continue to vote for me")14:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's not really "retired", he's just an active free agent.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}18:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Any reason not to just go ahead and community ban? Apparently many are familiar with, and tired of, these antics.Friday(talk)20:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I just looked at users contribs- quite a few edits exactly the same as those to Selma Hayek- to other female celebrities' articles. While I'm not sure we're at community ban yet, a block for disruption seems to be in order.]20:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and community ban me :-)) – Seriously though, I'm not familiar enough with NWA.Rep to judge such a suggestion. Note that he has a longer history, including some Arbcom conflict, under his previous account name "Certified Gangsta".Fut.Perf.☼20:17, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

See alsoUser:Freestyle.king;User:Bonafide.hustla; other former identities of NWA.MBisanz^talk20:20, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm.. Well, I see a significant block log, and I see a fundamental lack of "getting it". If he's been around the project over 2 years and still treats Wikipedia like his personal playground, I don't see how it's reasonable to assume he'll shape up. I'm not all that familiar with him either, but in only a few minutes, I've seen enough to know what my opinion on this issue is.Friday(talk)20:23, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The inclusion of such sentences are quite common among the category of big bust models and actresses, usually with citations. I fail to see how an established editor, a rollbacker, an arbCom candidate should be community banned when he questions Future Perfect while Alex from LA is allowed to roam around as a ban-evading sock.--NWA.Rep (talk)20:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

One point; the celebrities and actresses whose articles you have edited with respect to shape, size, naturalness (or otherwise) of their breasts, are not notable for that fact - as they are not for the shapeliness of their legs, the colour and styling of their hair, or the occurrence of freckles upon their skin - but for their body of work and the recognition by the public and their industry for their abilities. In this one matter you are consistently at fault, and no pointing toward other peoples perceived infractions should divert anyone from it. As for your "qualifications"; being around a long time without being banned (although blocked, and under different usernames) is no indication of legitimacy, anyone with the relevant number of edits over the qualifying period can run for arbcom (and you are not really among the favourites to gain a seat, it should be said), and being provided with Rollback is yet another indication on how low the standards are in being granted that tool. In truth, I do not support a community ban because you are not worth the effort of the discussion - sooner or later you are going to do something crass enough to get yourself indef blocked... and no-one is going to be concerned enough to unblock you. You do need to seriously consider whether you are able to contribute usefully on this project, and perhaps decide to direct your energies elsewhere.LessHeard vanU (talk)20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Given these fiveunsourced edits to BLPs[15][16][17][18][19], I've blockedUser:NWA.Rep 1 week for disruption andpointy editing.Gwen Gale (talk)20:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

While I generally agree with the block, not sure his talk page should have been locked down so quickly... |20:40, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

He edit warred over the block notice. I'm willing to re-enable his talk page editing in a couple of hours but I'm going out to dinner now. His email still works. Meantime, I'm ok if someone re-enables it, if need be.Gwen Gale (talk)20:43, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.Rep is a candidate for Arbcom and feel if he is allowed to contest he should be allowed to use his talk page and also be allowed to reply to questions put up. Through do not think Jimbo Wales who maintains high standards will nominate someone blocked or those with recent blocks to Arbcom even in the unlikely event of the candidate winning.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk)21:46, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I havere-enabled Nwa.Rep's ability to edit his talkpage. Gwen, there was no need to restore the block notice when he'd removed it, perWP:USER (Users may only be prevented from removing declined unblock requests) - Nwa was within his rights to remove it, and should not be prevented from editing the talkpage except in the usual circumstances of abusing the unblock processFritzpoll (talk)22:11, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't even done writing the block notice and adding the diffs (see the history) when he removed it. Never had that happen before. Edit warring with a blocking admin straight off after the block is only another sign of disruption. As for NWA.Rep being a candidate for arbcom, so much the worse was his flurry of disruption and pointy editing.Gwen Gale (talk)22:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

(shrugs) He's allowed to remove whatever warnings he likes from his talkpage, except declined unblock noticesFritzpoll (talk)22:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

That wasn't a warning. I've been editing here for years and I've never seen a block notice removed like that, without someone putting it back. As late as last March,the policy had nothing at all to say about any kind of block/unblock notice. Now I know and won't give it a second thought if it happens again.Gwen Gale (talk)23:05, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said on your talk, I didn't assume it was malicious on your part. I was also checking that I hadn't missed something blatant! :)Fritzpoll (talk)23:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I never took it that you thought I'd been untowards. Out of the thousands of block notices I've seen, that may have been the first time I ever saw one reverted so quick and I can't remember ever having seen onenot restored.Gwen Gale (talk)23:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As a procedural note, I should add that as perWP:BLANKING, the only kinds of talk page messages that editors maynot remove from their own talk pages are declined unblock requests (but only while blocks are still in effect), confirmed sockpuppet notices, or IP header templates (for unregistered editors) ... and these exceptions only exist in order to keep a user from potentially gaming the system. --Kralizec! (talk)15:30, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The NWA guy's aggressiveness and vulgarity atWikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, over the mundane subject of baseball player templates, raises questions about his fitness for anything with authority attached to it. That's above and beyond today's 1-week block for edit warring, and his apparent abuse of the rollback privilege. I don't know how the ArbCom works. Would they seriously consider admitting this guy to that committee, given the type of behavior we're seeing?Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}23:48, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes we answer ourselves by asking, Bugs.Gwen Gale (talk)00:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, between this stuff today, and his previous failure in seeking adminship, he seems to be working his way downhill here, and it just reminded me ofFrank Nelson in one particular bit withJack Benny. Nelson, as a floorwalker in a department store, was giving Benny a hard time, as usual. At one point, it came out that Nelson was related to the store owner, or something. Benny asked him, "Are you working your way up the company ladder?" Nelson answered, "Not exactly. I started as a Vice President!"Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}00:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's written a "poor little me" editorial on his talk page. One of the typical behaviors from someone who's just been blocked. But the block was only for a week. Maybe he'll come back in a week with a bit of perspective and decide that wikipedia is still worthwhile. (I understand, as I've been there too).Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}05:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have attempted to remove some of his personal attacks on various groups and people on histalk page. He has reverted them. I won't revert back since this will turn out into another edit war. So I'm wondering someone can do something about it =/Dengero (talk)06:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

One admin locked his user page, and another showed good faith by unlocking it. NWA has now trashed the second admin's good faith. The talk page is riddled with personal attacks towards you and others, and should be both cleared and locked by an admin, at least for the duration of the 1-week block.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}06:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as part of the reason he was blocked was for edit warring, should we remove his rollback access? I'm not sure how to tell by edit summaries if an edit used rollback, but it seems like maybe we should.]23:18, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Friday already took it away from him.Gwen Gale (talk)23:27, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

An undid edit summary will sayUndid revision "number" by "User". A rolled-back reversion will beReverted edits by "user" to last version by "user".23:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I dunno if there's an accepted practice on this or not, but I would say for future casesany edit warring is a good justification for taking away rollback.Friday(talk)23:38, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've found a few rollbacks like these[20][21][22] which are not reverts of what consensus callsvandalism. That last one reverts a good faith edit back to an edit by one of his own accounts.Gwen Gale (talk)23:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

If we are discussing policy re future cases, then regardless of what happened this time. surely a user who doesn't misuse Rollback should be treated differently to one who uses Rollback in an edit war?ϢereSpielChequers00:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Blocked. Is there any way we can start a push to stop indexing user pages? I've seen several cases of what I think are attempts to use userpages for publicity or as articles in the past couple of weeks.dougweller (talk)06:36, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The blocked user, allegedly having "retired", is in fact using his talk page for personal attacks. He has twice reverted the attempts of other users to weed out his personal attacks and leave the rest of his editorial in place.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}07:53, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Those reverting the user on his own talk page were wrong. Criticism, even if incorrect, is not necessarily a personal attack. SeeWP:WOLF. I recommend letting the user have their rant. Hopefully they will calm down and return later.Jehochman^Talk10:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

While selective editing of someone else's talk page is certainly a questionable tactic, taking verbal shots at others while under a block oneself (including, ironically, an empty threat of blocking someone else), is normally not allowed. You're in a generous mood today.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}10:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bugs, what you say is true, but outpourings like this are very likely to happen after an eager user who doesn't seem to understand Wikipedia has been blocked for a meaningful length of time. As for what he has to say, my only answer is that he hasn't brought up why he was blocked: It had nothing to do with anything he's talking about (I didn't even know he was running for arbcom). It had only to do with putting the same shoddily sourced/unsourced text about breasts into a string of at least 5 BLPs, then edit warring over it and bringing it himself under the baleful gazes at ANI.Gwen Gale (talk)11:11, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but your statement seems to apply moreso to new editors than an editor who's been here since 2006 (with a rather lengthy block log already established, at that). If he doesn't understand Wikipedia by now, and if he's not somehow used to getting blockbucketed by now, I think it's safe to say there's a definite problem here.Badger Drink (talk)19:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I quit drinking caffeine about six months ago. I've been getting mellower and mellower.Jehochman^Talk11:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no reason to remove his self-appraisals. But accusing various users and groups things, and even those that are completely inaccurate (eg. He still insists his "breast" edits were good, and I'm in WP:CHINA when I'm not). While I extend my condolences and refrain from aggravating him anymore, I believe those partial edits are considerable. Of course, that is open to debate and I happily accept any consensus of the community.Dengero (talk)11:15, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Gwen Gale's initial instinct was to lock his talk page, and that was obviously the correct instinct. When a guy is blocked he's supposed to be either requesting unblocks in a civil way or possibly writing civil comments, not attacking others. I don't see why this guy is allowed to get away with it... unless it's on purpose, to leave something visible, to further scotch his chances of getting on the ArbCom, which is an interesting approach that has some merit.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}11:20, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm ok it was unblocked though (and said this could be done if need be). Meanwhile he didn't answer my offer to unblock if he'd acknowledge he understood why his edits were taken as disruptive and say he wouldn't do anything like that again. As for his claims about IRC, the last time I logged into IRC was when that longish outage happened about a month ago (?) and even then I couldn't log in to the admin board (didn't bother to ask for help because I was finding out what I wanted on the main one). Moreover, I didn't exchange emails or any other kind of contact with anyone about this.Gwen Gale (talk)11:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He apparently sent an e-mail to someone else, who locked his page with all the personal attacks and verbal shots in place.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}11:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Someone else? Yes, that's right. You can see in the page history who protected the page: me. Or, well, Bishzilla. I agree with Jehochman on this issue.Bishonen |talk11:41, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

So do I, which is to say, I'm more or less neutral as to what happens to his talk page now.Gwen Gale (talk)11:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's good that his venom is locked in place, as it gives the ArbCom a good chance to read it and consider the appropriateness of giving that guy expanded power.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}11:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Bish* almost never agrees with me. There you go. Thread resolved.Jehochman^Talk11:48, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

But on that point, how would one feel if they were accused of baiting, sockpuppeteering, having a harassment campaign, having a double standard in policy enforcement, initiating personal attacks and having personal vendetta? Hmmm but I guess we can only leave him now.Dengero (talk)11:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

AS one of the prople mentioned on his talk page I don't give a flying whatever if a user contests a block he made months (years) ago when he makes whatever kind of attacks - its so common from users who have given up in disgust after their particular view of WP morality has been rejected that I am immune (oh and of course, like his recent - most of my blocks are 1 second blocks to apologise for making a mistake" claim, the claim, his claim that I missapply policy in deference to certain parties is demonstrably false.Viridae^Talk13:25, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Please don't archive this thread for another day or so (dear bot). I'd like to review the present block, and I'm busy and it's complicated.Bishonen |talk16:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

If at all possible, please let's avoid blocking ArbCom candidates. I have known NWA.Rep (a k a Certified.Gangsta and a few other account names) for some years. In fact you'll see him mention me, if you've read far enough on his talkpage. He's certainly a problematic editor, but I think him well-meaning. In my experience, he responds better to trust and AGF than to threats and contemptuousness. NWA.Rep obviously isn't likely to get the votes to get into ArbCom, but that's not the point: his candidacy is serious, and is no kind of attempt to game the system.
Unblock and topic ban. In order to leave the man some dignity, I intend to unblock him, unless Gwen strongly objects, and to remove the shaming—though well-intentioned—block notice on his election questions page. To replace these measures while I further review the thread above (oh man.. it's so long !), I will topic-ban him from all pagesexcept those directly to do with the election, and also excepting this ANI thread. (If in doubt about what's included in this page ban, just ask me before you edit, CG, you hear me?)Bishonen |talk18:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

I didn't even know he was running for arbcom, though I don't think that should sway a thing. Let's wait and see what others have to say.Gwen Gale (talk)18:55, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Why on earth would we decide to unblock himsolely to give him a public soapbox for ranting about Wikipedia? That doesn't strike me as sensible. Running for ArbCom doesn't – or shouldn't – get a candidate a free pass on Wikipedia's user conduct policies. If he wants to preserve his dignity, I would support allowing him to withdraw his candidacy, followed by a courtesy blanking of the ArbCom election pages. Bending over backwards to allow him to continue to participate in what's supposed to be a serious process related to Wikipedia governance strikes me as a way to waste both his time and the community's.TenOfAllTrades(talk)

Sorry Bishonen, but I too disagree here. Keep him blocked. He was blocked for all-out disruption on multiple fronts, one of them being this very report here. (If I were to start enumerating how many plain untruths are contained in his initial complaint above ...) Do you really think letting him back into this thread would lead to anything constructive? And I don't see how his (self-appointed) "status" as an Arbcom candidate changes anything. Calling oneself an Arbcom candidate doesn't give one a free pass; plus, this particular candidacy comes from a person who at the same time claims he doesn't want to remain on Wikipedia anyway, so yes, it is in fact in a very real sense not a serious candidacy any longer, he just wants it to remain listed to make a political point. I don't think we need to bend over backwards just in order to allow him to continue playing that game. (As for what kinds of communication he is likely to respond more or less well to, honestly, in the encounters I've seen him in over the last few days, he hasn't been responding well to anything.)Fut.Perf.☼19:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Running for ArbCom doesn't give you a free pass. If anything, the community has indicated that running makes you atarget of criticism and abuse.--Tznkai (talk)19:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, Bish, this is an awful idea. Running for ArbCom does not give a person a free pass to edit war and act utterly imbalanced and incivil. He has not been blocked indefinitely, and will still be able to participate in the ArbCom elections when his block expires. What also makes me nervous is the overtures ofcronyism that accompany such a proposed unblock. While I'm assuming good faith (that is to say, I don't believe your actions were proposed with an evil, mustachioed grin), the fact that NWA.Rep was so vocal regarding IRC and a handful of Giano Affairs™ makes it very hard to consider you a completely unbiased, uninvolved admin in this instance. I don't consider you "involved" to the point where I would automatically disregard any argument you had regarding his unblocking due to your said "involvement" (whew, try parsingthat sentence), but Ido consider you "involved" enough to the point where I would prefer somebody else perform the unblock, if such an unblockhad to occur (and I'm in favor of itnot occuring).Badger Drink (talk)19:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Cronyism? All right. But you must admit it's funny how the phrase "with all due respect" generally turns out to mean that no respect is due. As I mentioned, Badger Drink, I've known the user for someyears, i. e. since long before the IRC case. I strongly doubt that the rather ignorant newbie Freestyle King, as he was when I started to communicate with him and treat him (for my crony-collecting purposes) like a human being, had ever heard of me or Giano. (Fuck, is no thread complete without Giano?).Bishonen |talk20:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC).

The reason for the phrase is to state that, despite how the following might sound, it is not uttered with hate in the heart. I need a mention of Daniel Brandt or a link toWP:AGF for bingo.Badger Drink (talk)20:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least now he has owned up to the reason for his peculiarly sympathetic view toward that character. If someone with the attitude of NWA.Rep gets a power position, then wikipedia will have abandoned its supposed principles.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}19:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unblocking him because he's an ArbCom candidate? What a joke. Reminds me of a line fromThe Blues Brothers: "[Jake] is on parole! You can't go calling the cops on him!"Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}19:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh come on, Bugs, this is not constructive.Fut.Perf.☼19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Like tolerating his behavior somehowis constructive? Fine. Delete my immoral comments. You have my permission.Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}19:52, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• I essentially agree with Bish* here: the proposal to supersede the block with a topic ban seems amicable to me. Indeed, this new proposal from Bishhonen essentially makes the block itself moot in that NWA is now unable to contribute to the handful of pages he finds himself unable of not edit warring on. With the idea in mind that keeping the block in place would either be purely penal or purely aPOINTy action (made to make an example of NWA: being a candidate is not a free pass to not being blocked), I offer a tentative support to the unblock, with a caveat that any failure to adhere to the topic ban by NWA after this lifting of this block will most probably result in it being immediately restored and reset.

  Tznkai and others make a good point, however. Being a candidate to the ArbCom should not be a pass for edit warring or unhelpful conduct across the project, under any circumstances. If I may play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, however, I wish to observe that if NWA wasnot a candidate this year, it is highly likely that a proposal from a competent administrator (Bishonen does, of course, fall into that category) to remove a block on he, a long-term contributor, in favour of a respective topic ban would pass rather uncontroversially. Just as being a candidate should not be a free pass to ignoring the Community's standards for conduct, so to should it not be a rationale to hold that candidate to higher standards of conduct: such is the remit of the electorate on voting day—the community can give its opinion through a resound rejection there of an unfit candidate, but not through unfairly withholding an unblock.

  Just my two pence, but accurate ones, I think.AGK20:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

His actions are immature, tragic and daft, but is this statement part of his attempt at poetry/rap whatever, or the lyrics from a song, and/or also a suicide threat? "Despite all this, now, I must turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it. Put it to my brain and scream "die Bonafide hustla" and pop it "StickyParkin20:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

It is an uncredited reference to "When I'm Gone": "I turn around, find a gun on the ground, cock it / Put it to my brain and scream 'Die Shady!' and pop it." --Moonriddengirl^(talk)20:40, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing, nothing in the world, that pushes my "urge to violence" button like people who quote Eminem. Oh, wait--unless it's wasted potential. A moment ofWP:OR, if you please: There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia. In the Venn diagram for the two groups--"true gangsta/hustla" and "Wikipedia editor"--the intersection is the null set. The amalgam of the two does not exist. Either/or, not both/and. The dawg in question? Does not hunt.(/OR). What's sadder, to me, is that just leafing through his edit summaries, this user reminds me a lot of myself: one foot in each of two very, very incompatible worlds. Maybe at my age I've hit the point of realization--you gotta pick a side, and (sad but true) the dividends of being on the "boring" side are much more palatable than those of the "edgy" side, to say nothing of the "mammary-fixated rapper-in-waiting" side. Hey,NWA--there's a very intelligent user in there somewhere, maybe even a future admin/arb. Do yourself, and Wikipedia, a favor--let THAT guy run the show for a while. Leave the fixation with hawt actresses for your...erm, quiet time; edit the way you've shown you can edit. This doesn't mean you have to entirely QUIT stirring the sh*t--sh*t needs stirring, sometimes--but once you leave behind the side of your personality that edits like a teenage boy and pisses people off, you'll find that when you DO stir up sh*t, your words will be viewed with more respect. (There. I'm done.)GJC22:12, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

"There is not a "certified gangsta", a "bonafide hustla" or any of their ilk who would not laugh themselves into an embolism at the sheer THOUGHT of sitting at a computer editing Wikipedia." -I just mentioned this elsewhere. This "Growing up in Compton, California, I choose usernames such as “Bonafide.hustla”, “Certified.Gangsta”, and “NWA.Rep” despite significant ridicules from the community. Being one of the few Wikipedians with any sort of street credibility, I often find it frustrating to blend in to the mainstream." made me giggle inside. (Involuntary?) comic genius.:)StickyParkin22:32, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The persona he's made for himself here is amusing, sure. But his disruptive behavior is not amusing. It's time to show this kid the door. His behavior is not compatible with being a productive editor. I don't care about his "dignity" at all- his own actions have removed whatever of that he ever had.Friday(talk)22:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See, I DO care about his dignity. And I'm not amused by his persona--actually, it makes me sad. It sucks to feel like you SHOULD fit in somewhere, but for whatever reasons, you just....don't. I can't think of too much that sucks more, and I'm an adult--can you imagine what it feels like to someone younger??? I think there's a very smart person in there, and just from the little I've seen, I think THAT person would be a very good editor. But--for whatever reason--he's putting his "street cred" ahead of his maturity. I'm not going to play amateur psychoanalyst here (esp. since if I was going down the Freud route, I'd probably run headlong into a wall of surgically-augmented boobage before long) but from what I'm seeing, the minute he realized that his street cred means zero here, and his words and work mean everything, THAT's the moment we gain (I suspect) one hell of a Wikipedian. So yeah--I believe we should treat him with dignity; under similar circumstances, you'd want the same, wouldn't you?GJC23:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

So kinda like a cross betweenCurtis Wilkins andAdrian Mole, then?Badger Drink (talk)06:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

No, we need to hold compassion at some point. Care about dignity whilst showing him the door, sure—but remember it's a real person behind NWA's persona, however laughable you think it may be. The second we stop caring about our fellow editors' feelings is the day our community will truly lose the ability to write a collaborative encyclopedia. That's a self-evident truth, in my mind, and one I'm not inclined to forget whilst contributing here.AGK23:10, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

A block isn't a personal attack. If the wording of the block notice wasn't wholly neutral, please let me know.Gwen Gale (talk)00:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

NWA.rep's statement is over 400, which brings up some issues, that I brought uphere.--Tznkai (talk)00:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally, my experience with this user had been very unpleasant. The fight between the legitimacy between ROC and PRC has just subsided and NWA.Rep comes in on a third side about ETHNIC taiwanese. Except he doesn't even know what they are by definition. Vandals are easy to deal with, but editor who obviously have the wrong views yet know a bit of wikipedia policies are the hardest to deal with (the amount of technical jargon he threw at me-phew). I can dutifully say I solve most problem talking over the table, but his aggressive attitude towards editing was just tiring in the 4 or so days dealing with him. He can revert twice, wait 24 hours and revert again. It was like an endless hounding until you give up. And whileWP:USER does not restrict editors from blanking their userpage, his preference to delete the comments that portrays him in a negative view while keeping the positive ones just ticks me off. Plus reconciliation with him after he came back provedfruitless. So to be honest, I think a one week block is very appropriate and hopefully during that time, he can find his mistakes in this cyber world, and perhaps act more accordingly in his real life also.Dengero (talk)02:26, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry all, I have been busy and have to rush out the door to do chores. Reviewing civility and RR issues with the recent block issue onGender of God(again). I'd do all the diffs etc. now but I really have to run. I will do the diffs later, but if anyone looks over it in the mean time and feels all is as it should be then so be it. I am not impartial so as why I am asking for imaprtial eyes. Cheers,Casliber (talk·contribs)22:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Quick glance suggests that Alastair Haines reverted twice on the article within a week. That is a breach of the arbcom finding and the block is perfectly justified. Presumabaly Arbcom restricted the user for a reason so breaching a formal restriction is only asking for trouble.Spartaz^Humbug!23:43, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Original blocking admin here. Here are the diffs of his edit warring violation:1,2.]23:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

See also:Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Request_to_amend_prior_case:_Alastair_Haines.]05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

User:I am Mario has indicated that he is going forward with an "anti-defamation move" on Jimbo's user talk page. Due to severely limiting connectivity issues, I'm not able to post the dif, but it's under a subsection entitled " response to mr. wales" if I'm not mistaken. Seems like a fairly straightforward legal threat to me, and the account should be indef blocked.--00:32, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This, for example:[23]Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?}00:39, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

defamation isn't necessarily a legal term. one simple meaning is "an abusive attack on a person's character or good name". Unless his threat of an anti-defamation move means he's going to be suing and not just cleaning up articles I'm not sure how this is a legal threat. He doesn't really say what that is in the provided diff.--Crossmr (talk)01:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

He was going on about pulling in theAnti-Defamation League and the media the other day on there, if one looks further up to the top of the page for the previous commentary on that. It's not really a legal threat, more like an attempt at achilling effect by invoking some outside forces. Still annoying, though.Tony Fox(arf!)02:18, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. It's certainly an attempt at a chilling effect, but legal action is certainly implied. He's been quite careful not to use the word "lawsuit", but his intent seems clear. Regardless, I'll certainly ask him to clarify what he means by an "anti-defamation move".04:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This just isn't credible. He claims that we're defaming Albert Einstein and unnamed Holocaust survivors by calling their testimonies "POV". I doubt one can sue for defamation on a non-minor's behalf, and a dead person like Einstein can't be defamed. That's why it's the policy on biographies ofliving people.--chaser -t04:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

As one of the administrators Mario is planning on report, I suggest following Jimbo's advicehere and just ignoring him. The same articles keep seeing a variety of "new" users who ask the same things, war the same ways, and then get themselves blocked the same way. However, Mario's second commenthere indicates to me that he has little interest in anything else other than POV-warring. Frankly, I'm getting tired of insults by various users like this. --Ricky81682 (talk)05:20, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

This user has had three edits, two of which are vandalism, and one of which is their user page. I believe a block might in order. --—Cliffb (talk)04:37, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Warn him using thetemplates and then list him atWP:AIV. He's stopped editing since his final warning. --Ricky81682 (talk)05:27, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Jayhawk of Justice (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log)

Now, I brought this user up here once before because I was unsure him/her, and due to sleep issues, notifying him/her of the discussion slipped my mind.

My original concern with thisnew user wasthis edit to Jimbo's user talk page, which is basically an attack/rant/monologue abouthow his time at WP was running out, he would be replaced, etc.

So far, this user has beenrude to various IP users, who, as we all know, are users too. Even if the content of the IP's edit was vandalism, there is a reason that have standardized warning messages.Hereare some more,rather rudewarnings that the user hasleft on others' talk pages.

What made me bring this to AN/I again, however, wasthis edit to my own talk page, as noted in the edit summery, and in the message, this user is telling me to quit wikipedia because of a small mistake involving common courtesy. Not only that, but... well. No, I'll let all of you read the message for yourself. Something needs to be done here, as this user does not seem to understand how Wikipedia operates. I would suggest mentorship.—Dædαlus^Contribs /_Improve10:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this guy's trolling. A misguided user doesn't write a long, elegant rant citing bizarre historical precedents in response to a minor error - i really get the feeling he's just after a reaction. ~mazca^t|c13:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:AGF,WP:CIVIL,WP:SOAPBOX...Gwen Gale (talk)13:10, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I left a warning.Gwen Gale (talk)13:25, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

It is probably only fitting that I address all of your concerns in a salient and forthright manner. I would not want anyone to be led astray by the machinations of one Daedalus. As you know, I have already called for his or her resignation. Notice first the inability of Daedalus to confine his or her report to the truth. He or she accuses me of saying time was running out on Jimbo Wales and that he would be replaced. Sadly, neither of these statements are to be found. Given that Daedalus either deliberately misrepresented these facts or lacks the mental ability requisite for the recitation of factual information, asking for his or resignation is appropriate. Nothing short of resignation can remedy the stain of incompetence for which such indifference towards the truth can thrust upon the fact-laden, digital pages of an encyclopedia.

Note also that Daedalus admits to making poor ethical choices while editing due to sleep deprivation. This is an admission of guilt. The integrity of Wikipedia should not be compromised because of the poor decision making of one editor. His or her resignation is in deed appropriate.

Finally, as it pertains to Daedalus, he or she recommends mentorship. I do like this recommendation. Given the significant amount of knowledge I have that I could pass on to others, I do believe I could mentor other people to be excellent contributors to this great project. Unfortunately, I do not possess the time to engage in such mentorship. Hopefully, I can merely lead by example. Perhaps such a compromise would be to everyone’s liking.

Next, I will address Mazca. I thank Mazca for recognizing me as speaking in “elegant” fashion as well as having mastery of “historical precedents.” No doubt such ability and knowledge is valuable to such a project as Wikipedia. Thank you for your words, Mazca.

Regrettably, I come now to address the unfortunate comments of Gwen Gale. This user directed a savage and vile warning at me, for which there was no merit or validity. This user charged me with failing to assume good faith. Note that such an outlandish claim is both unwarranted and unsupported. When I rightly called for the resignation of Daedalus, I specifically said, “If you want the best for Wikipedia, as I believe you do…” Not only did I assume good faith, I assumed the very best of faith on the part of Daedalus. Thus, I have judicially and gracefully decided to dismiss the warning on the part of Gwen Gale.

To my dismay, this ill-conceived venture by Gwen Gale appears to have strengthened the resolve of Daedalus. That editor previously appeared content to resign. Now, buoyed by the misguided reassurances of another editor, Daedalus has renewed confidence. That confidence will likely be manifest in edits that continue to degrade the quality of Wikipedia.

As a final matter, I turn my attention to Grsz11. This editor is guilty of a crime most foul. He or she has engaged in edits so reckless that the very metaphorical fabric of justice has been torn. This user has removed numerous of edits. These edits were designed to prevent the continued destruction of Wikipedia by vandals. These vandals seek to harm Wikipedia by leaving scurrilous epithets, frivolous comments, and otherwise unbecoming intellectual products on the digital pages of Wikipedia. Grsz11 has abrogated the justice due these hooligans. As the people of Mississippi denied justice to Emmett Till, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Adolf Hitler denied Anne Frank justice, so too has Grsz11 denied the justice that should have been rendered. As Pontius Pilate denied Jesus Christ Justice, so too has Grsz11 crucified me for my righteousness and honored the evil of the wicked. Grsz11, there is no place for your kind of disdain towards the ethical realm on Wikipedia. Atone for your sins, Grsz11, and resign. In one final act of selflessness, resolve to make Wikipedia a better place. Resign.

Thank you.Jayhawk of Justice (talk)14:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

And thankyou for the most gratuitous violations ofWP:NPA (and even some wikilawyering) that I have seen in awhile. You had to make 4 or 5 edits to this page, just so that you could slip in some inflammatory commentary (possibly even equating actions to racism). Wow. My applause shall have no end.Gigli was more enjoyable than that rant.14:47, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first, for any reviewing, even though it may be blatantly obvious, I never said I was going to resign, or that I planned to, and, although I mentioned the diff the first time I was here about this user, I'll mention it again:the user telling Jimbo that, basically,his time is running out. I shall also note this diff above in the starting paragraph of my report.—Dædαlus^Contribs /_Improve23:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Given I'd already warned this editor, I've blocked 48 hours for personal attacks.Gwen Gale (talk)16:26, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow. Just...wow. Words fail me. That's an awful lot of words for no purpose at all. I second Gwen's actions.Dayewalker (talk)23:23, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone else getting the feeling that this user isn't that new to wikipedia? Also, I've gone and reverted his inappropriate warnings, as Grz had done(I got what he missed).—Dædαlus^Contribs /_Improve23:59, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Just as a small note, it had been about two days passed after I notified this user of this thread before he replied, either he doesn't edit wikipedia often, or there is some other reason, my point being, that if it is the former, he might not even notice he was blocked. He needs to be watched.—Dædαlus^Contribs /_Improve07:30, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

We got some potential problems at this article and its talk page.

User RedPenOfDoom is the victim of personal attacks by the IP address 166.102.104.62 who calls him an "anal douche bag."

User Pizza With Cheesy Crust is accusing RedPen of "bullying" Wikipedia users by constantly reverting articles (mainly the South Park episodes) because "he doesn't believe one thing."

He also is accusing RedPen of violating the 3-revert rule. (which is debatable-see RedPen's User Contributions)

I didn't post anything in that argument because I didn't want to cause trouble, so I posted it here.

Thanks.--Greg D. Barnes (talk)09:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I left warnings on the IP's talk page and onUser:Pizza With Cheesy Crust's talkpage, as some of the comments that they made were clearly over the line. As far as I can seeUser:RedPenOfDoom has done nothing to warrant sanction at this time.Lankiveil^{(speak to me)}10:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

I left warnings on a couple editors' talk pages about the edit warring, and also removed some unsourcedWP:OR from the article and tagged the article.Cirt (talk)10:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

In the article aboutPrincess Royal Barracks, Deepcut there is a section discussin the deaths of four trainees over the course of a number of years, each trainee has a small section representing the conclusions of various studies into the establishment. The father of one of the individuals has removed the section and requested that it not be re-instated,here.

I suppose I'm more looking for opinions about how to deal with this, at the moment the deaths cover a disproportionate amount of the article content. I'm sensitive to the wishes of Mr James that the material about his daughter be removed, but for the sake of proportionality and weight would tend to also remove the other three sets of details. That said, the investigations into Deepcut played a significant part in the ongoing effort to professionalise the service police organisations of all three armed services as well as the selection and training of instructirs and how trainees are delivered and managed. the topic does deserve to be covered.

I'd be grateful for some opinions on the most appropriate approach.

ALR (talk)13:03, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I thinkthis edit (or part of this edit) needs to be oversighted as the user has clearly revealed their home telephone number.D.M.N. (talk)13:07, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

as I read the material, this it is not quite what it seems.They do not object to the inclusion of material, but rather they want to have the material suggest that it was homicide not suicide, as they are of the opinion that the Army is covering up the circumstances. They might prefer to have nothing rather than material giving what they think the wrong impression but this is totally destructive to NPOV, I do not see how we can do other than report what is in published sources, though we can perhaps look for sources other than the government report.

Despite the pain to the family, the material must be included as it is a matter of general public interest. BLP does not apply. Once we start applying BLP-like considerations to the feelings of survivors, where does it stop? This was 5 years ago, not last week. When would we finally be able to write objectively about the incident? If one resents damage to the reputation of ones parent or child, thee would be no history for the 20th as well as the 21st century. However, we should be able to find a more tactful way of wording things.DGG (talk)16:39, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The article does not read very well particularly when one of the soliders has been removed and she first gets a mention in a summary. The deaths and subsequent review could really be trimmed down to remove a lot of the details and in an article about the barracks it looks like it has undue weight when the article has no mention about the history of the site or the physical barracks themselves. It may be better to create a separate article about the deaths and review which may make for a better constructed and neutral article without any unreferenced opinion and create a better balance with sourced material.MilborneOne (talk)17:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I think this one is a pretty obvious case of reinstating the information, despite the sympathy we might feel for the family. We can only reflect what the reliable sources say and, obviously, most will report what a coroner reports. Yes we have a systematic bias towards Official Sources, but that is simply the nature of the beast. An icky situation, to be sure, but yes, revert the info back in. It is relevent and cited. --Narson ~Talk •21:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

On the one hand, I don't think that removing sourced material merely because it is distressing to someone (even though I have great sympathy for the James family on this one) is a good idea, on the other hand, the article does go into rather a lot of detail on these cases, and I think it's a borderline case ofWP:UNDUE. That said, I think if we're going to cover one of these cases, we ought to cover them all.Lankiveil^{(speak to me)}03:15, 23 November 2008 (UTC).

Thanks for the views everyone. I agree the point that we could do with more substance around the barracks, it's been in existence a long time, although most of what's there is what I managed to scrape together a couple of years ago when I first ran across it. The initial article was mainly a rant about the deaths and went into an excessive amount of detail, as well as being unbalanced.

The main issue I see it is that the outcomes of the Blake review were very far reaching, although I don't think there is much in the public domain about that.

ALR (talk)12:55, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Resolved

 –I jumped through all the hoops of group MFD creation, and then Gwen Gale speedied it.—Kww(talk)05:04, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what to do with this.Angels Live (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log) has devoted his entire editing career to creating a very intricate hoax album on his user page. I'm used to kids making up little infoboxes about themselves, but this is an entire fake album with tour histories and extended singles releases for a third party, Jake Glyllenhall.—Kww(talk)16:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

At least two similar pages exist:User:Messager Live12 andUser:Devils Live. The three editors are editing each others pages, so there is a possibility of puppetry.-- |16:31, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

PossiblyBatterWow (talk ·contribs ·deleted contribs ·logs ·filter log ·block user ·block log), who seems to be the only editor outside of these three that is editing. He has a lot of involvement withHard Candy (Madonna album), and that is the actual target of many of these links.—Kww(talk)17:35, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Good catch.

PerWikipedia:USER#What_to_do_if_you_find_someone_else.27s_user_page_being_used_inappropriately, it looks like theUser:Angels Live,User:Messager Live12 andUser:Devils Live pages should all be nominated for deletion atWP:MFD. Not sure what to do about the BatterWow issue. A warning at a minimum, for sure.-- |18:09, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree, all three pages need to be MFD-ed.Nsk92 (talk)22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• MFD atWikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/DevilAngel.—Kww(talk)22:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• Additional comment: out of idle curiosity, I checked this editor's edits, and noticed that although they started in February of this year, the talk page archives date back to October 2007--and the archives from that month to February were, in fact,User:BatterWow'svery first edits. Checking backwards from the posts in them, it seems that the archives are copied from that of a user namedBatterBean (talk ·contribs), who wasindefinitely blocked in March forsimilar tomfoolery. It appears to be simple block-evasion. --CalendarWatcher (talk)13:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

After looking at the contrib histories I've blocked allthree four accounts.Gwen Gale (talk)14:12, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

BlockUser:Ward3001 indefinitely. This person is bothering me and messing with my talk page. He's also a racist.—Precedingunsigned comment added byPandyu (talk •contribs)19:16, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

He's racist? How about what you saidhere?19:29, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I can't see anything on your talk page that justifies a block of Ward3001. If anything, the incivility has been on your side. Perhaps a few deep breaths are in order?-- |19:33, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(e/c) I'm not even sure it's a pot-kettle thing; I haven't reviewed everything and have to leave now, so please don't consider this authoritative (more admin review needed here I think), but I can't, on the face of it, find anything wrong with Ward3000's recent edits. Pandyu appears, on first glance, to be resisting requests for reliable sources, and is doing most of the name calling here. A data point only, not a decision, as I'm getting called away but thought I'd mentino what I've seen so far. --barneca (talk)19:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I have actually re-added the contested category. When an actress wins a number of BET awards for her lead work in black family comedies, I'm pretty sure you don't need to source the fact that she's an African American actress. I have also noted this on Ward3001's talkpage - he was a little overly pushy about the obvious on this one, I believe.19:37, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge Bwilkins' good faith, but I disagree that I was pushy. I don't believe there is an exception inWP:V for ethnicity or ethnic identification.Ward3001 (talk)19:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Although this is not the place for content disputes, I was wondering which part of "Black", "Entertainment" or "Television" Awards you were contesting and causes you an issue in this matter?20:00, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Please allow me to further add (simply by reading the External links on that page):

• presenter, NAACP awards
• articles in Ebony and Jet magazines
• presenter, BET Awards.

I know, it could be a stretch on my part.20:17, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not believe receiving or presenting an award, or being featured in a magazine, justifies an exception to the requirements ofWP:V, acore Wikipedia policy. I believe you are acting in good faith, but I will ask you to please stopedit warring.Ward3001 (talk)20:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I've never edit-warred in my life :) I restored a valid category. My next edit removed a bad external link to youtube, and reinstated a category AFTER placing information on the Talkpage for the article. I would ask anyone else watching this discussion to give him a 3RR warning if he decides to continue playing (I won't do it because I got involved). I won't be dealing with logic issues here.20:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I will not violate 3RR (and I'm not anywhere close to doing so), and I do not appreciate your suggestion for a pre-emptive 3RR warning and your suggestion that I am "playing with" the article. I again thank you for your civility, but I disagree with both your overlookingWP:V and your reverting the article before consensus was reached on the talk page.Ward3001 (talk)20:27, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Quickly, please glance at the external links. One of them (when referring to the actress in question) refers to Contemporary Black Biography, Volume 8, 1994, Volume 42, Gale Group, 2004. This is a little too bizarre.20:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I have placed a 12 hour block onPandyu's account: comments such asthis one ("you white fuck.") are not acceptable. Ward, I would encourage you to refrain in the future from all interactions with Pandyu. Also note that I have advised Pandyu that any future misbehaviour—especially, but not limited to, that of a racist nature—will receive a swift indefinite block. This may make this matter{{Resolved}} insofar as the project's Administrators are concerned: I see no more we can do for the time being.AGK20:34, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and I agree with your advice to avoid Pandyu, which I will do unless he decides to intrude on my talk page or any of my edits that are unrelated to him.Ward3001 (talk)20:42, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Pandyu has sincerely apologized to me, and I have accepted his apology. I also resolved the problem of reliable sourcing by adding a sourced statement that backs up the category in question. I request that this issue be marked as "Resolved". Thanks.Ward3001 (talk)17:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I believeYorkshirian (talk ·contribs) is back in hisGennarous (talk ·contribs) /Tigris the Majestic (talk ·contribs) guise.Immense sense (talk ·contribs) has as first and second edits blanked large sections of theSicily article (a haunt ofUser:Gennarous)[24],[25] and both templated me[26] --a sign of an experienced user, in my opinion -- when I warned him about it and then accused of me of Islamocentrism[27], a classic Gennarous tactic. This seems to be a reaction to my reporting his activity last week on the theHouse of Plantagenet article.[28],[29]. Link to confirmation ofUser:Gennarous asUser:Yorkshirian :[30]. Can someone please put an end to this?Kafka Liz (talk)01:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)