resolved for now HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

over the past few day user:74.92.49.94 (talk · contribs) has persisted in adding unsourced after repeated admonitions. before it gets out of hand, and to make sure i'm on a sure footing here, could someone please intervene? --emerson7 | Talk 21:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ummm. That is inappropriate of course but what is new about that? The section of Filmography has been unsourced since a long time as it is the case in many thousands of film articles. Just tag the section as unreferenced for now or discuss that at the talk page or you may even leave them a cool note at their talk page. I don't believe automated warnings would help in this case. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 21:49, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

i even made a precursory attempt to validate the claim myself, but couldn't find anything. we'll try more diplomacy before escalating. --emerson7 | Talk 00:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've just left them a note. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 01:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks to me like User:Relativity Priority Disputation has the same kinds of interests and opinions as permanently banned User:Licorne. Can anyone who knows more than me about checking such things look into whether they may possibly be the same or not? --Alvestrand 22:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Provide diffs to WP:SSP. WP:AN/I is for administration discussion and very urgent matters. WP:SSP is for sock reporting. Let me know if I can help with answers. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please note here: [1]

User continues to vandalize pages and make dubious edits. He changes the word Jew to Isreali when source clearly uses word Jewish. Please protect page or block this vantal, who is likely sock of AdilB, see earlier report by me.Hetoum I 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV after proper warnings issued? HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This user has been rude, sarcastic abused me on my discussion page [Discussion Page]. He has also gone so far as to accuse me of [sockpuppetry], which is completely false and he only did it to get me. I repeatedly asked him to stop messaging me in such a rude way and he continued to do so claiming I was making him "bang his head against the wall". I tried to reason to no avail and wanted the cool off time but he was still messaging me today. I will no longer edit anything here because of him. An Admin told me to go to Deletion Review and I did, I do not know who the people are that posted after my initial plea and could care less if their comments were removed because the comments part is over, BUT this does not give the Darren the right to harass me repeatedly after and poke fun at my inability to sign my posts correctly ( I am just clicking the sig link up top so I do not know what the trouble is) it worked when I copied and pasted another users sig and put my name in it so I am at a loss. He is a mean spirited, rude and sarcastic person who should be warned for his behavior. His blatent comment to WildThing that he is gonna smack indy fans down shows his true colors. Respectfully submitted, --EdWood 01:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If you're certain that Darrenhusted's claim of sockpuppetry has no merit, then just wait until the checkuser case clears your name, and leave it at that. You've already been in contact with several admins, and the situation is under control. Leebo ^T/C 02:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Again I am summoned by the call of my name....seriously though, if you truly aren't a sockpuppeter (and assuming good faith I'll believe you aren't), just wait until the checkuser case closes. Wildthing61476 02:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If I can say a few words, most of this is already at the DRV for Chuck Taylor. The editor above and myself were editing an article which had been recreated (twice now) after a very long AfD, and AfD which for any one checking my contribs will see was one of about 25 which I have undertook in the last month. I have no personal animosity towards the editor nor any of the articles I nominted, they were PROD-ed (along with hundreds of other WP:PW articles) and when PRODs were removed I AfD-ed them. The first Chuck Taylor AfD was extensively filibustered by Theperfectone who ended up making no fewer than 61 edits to the AfD, and a further 100 edits to the actual article while the AfD was on, although he had edited almost exclusively that one article since joining (which I have no problem with, but it meant he has serious ownership issues), the first AfD ended with delete. I thanked the closing admin and continued editing other articles, as I did though the whole AfD process.

Less than 24 hours later the article was recreated, a CSD G4 was applied and removed, then a second AfD started, during which time I began editing the article down again, removing unverified claims (such as "he is considered one of the fastest rising indy stars" or words to that effect which tried to imply notability), removing an image which was not fair use, removing linkspam (mainly youtube and myspace) and removing week by week results (as most wrestling bios tend to bloat up with week by week results, and WP:PW guidelines try to limit them). As I edited I explained what I was doing in the edit summaries, and then added three messages to EdWood's homepage explaining what I was doing.

However while this was going on I was also checking the criteria for a CSD G4, and once I found that this article had violated it I stopped the AfD, reposted the CSD G4 tag, contacted the closing admin from the first AfD to explain what had happened and then messaged SirFozzie, and admin with whom I have spoken an many occasions and also who is a member of the wrestling project, and so understands wrestler bio notability better than most.

I then posted comments on the users who had taken part in the second AfD to let them know what I had done, and told EdWood to speak to the closing admin about recreation, and when contacted that closing admin told him he would not recreate the article and to go to DRV.

At the DRV I noticed that four of the editors all signed "two dashes and not using the tildes, [2], [3], [4], [5], a clear case of sock puppets or a massive coincidence?" and decided to tag the accounts in question with sock tags and then start a sock puppet case when I had the time (which would have been later that day).

As for messaging EdWood, since he posted this [6] I haven't messaged him, other than to tag user pages as socks.

And so far as the "admin who works with the WP:PW and so can bitch slap any indy fans" quote which Ed keeps bringing up, this was a comment made by me to Wildthing61476 (the nominator of the second AfD) about all the editors in both Chuck Taylor AfDs, not directly about EdWood, and was obviously meant to be humorous. By "bitch slap any indy fans" I meant that he wouldn't be taken in by their filibustering or exhortations that Chuck Taylor was notable.

The check user case says the eight listed are not socks, which is fine, because I have no doubt the closing admin on the DRV will give little or no weight to the two new and one recent user who found the DRV minutes after EdWood filed it.

So to sum up, as I do not intend to post at this ANI again, did I edit the Chuck Taylor page aggresively? Yes. Did I message EdWood? Yes. Have I harrassed or made direct personal threats to him? No. Did he want to keep Chuck Taylor even after he lost the AfD (which was actually a CSD G4)? Yes. Is he using socks to filibuster the DRV? I don't know but it looks suspicious to me. Am I sick of hearing the name Chuck Taylor? Yes.

The simple truth is Chuck Taylor's article did not state notability, not the first time, not the second time, and once the DRV finishes most likely not the third time. If Theperfectone, Matthewhack, EdWood or anyone else can prove otherwise, or if consensus is that he is notable then I am fine with the article being around, but so far the editors who want Chuck around seem to want to ignore the rules when it doesn't suit them and use them when it does.

I will not post any futher on this ANI, nor the DRV, so any issues can be brought to my talkpage. Darrenhusted 09:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Nothing he said remotely covers his rudeness, sarcasm and aggressive nature towards me. He is disrespectful with people of different opinions. And for the record his blatent attempt to smear my name has failed as the sockpuppetry issue has been found to be false and we are ALL unrelated. He should be warned or something. --EdWood 16:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

False accusation of sock is very bad. Already, I've gone through a few issues below and people do use it. Diffs and proof, not just one sided accusations and no chance for defense. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20

32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment There was obviously a massive coincidence then that four seperate users would all sign using two dashes and not the tilde, I leave it up to an admin to look through the comments. EdWood continued to add myspace and youtube links back into an article after I had pointed out they were not reliable sources, after I removed a picture which was not fair use he continued to add it back in, even when I explained why it could not be used. He keeps claiming that I kept messaging him after he asked not to, which I did not, he keeps taking a quote from another user's talkpage and quoting it as if I made physical threats to him directly, which I did not. The four signatures look suspicious, and that two brand new users would make their first post trying to game a DRV, also seemed suspicious so I tagged the pages, and those users have not posted since, ready to start a checkuser, but by that point I was too tired and another user finished the process. If anything the AfD, DRV and ANI seem to be EdWood harrassing me, as I have edited on other pages while out of Ed's last 55 edits 49 have been on pages related to these actions and my user talkpage. So I invite an admin to look at the histories and get back to me, as I don't feel that "Abuse and Harrassment" is an accurate description of what has transpired here. Darrenhusted 21:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This user's first ever edit was to my talk page: [7]. This edit s/he made was in response to me dedicating 2.5 hours of my time to fix re-directs. I replied calmly on his/her talk page, and when asked why s/he was behaving this way, responded with this edit: [8]. Later, after giving a Welcome note and encouraging him to maintain healthy relationships with other users on Wikipedia, replied by leaving vandalism on my talk page, as well as a death threat: [9]. Something needs to be done about this disruptive user, who has also left similar notices on a couple other pages, threatening other users for no particular reason. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef because of death threats and trolling of course. Happy editing. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, greatly. This was bothering me tremendously because I spent a huge amount of time making (at my count) 136 edits in a span of less than 2 hours, and only one user noticed... unfortunately, s/he failed to notice my hard work and resulted in death threats, which s/he later tried to reconcile for it by apologizing, telling me he think's I'm cool. Not a good way to begin using your editing privileges, as far as I'm concerned. But this bothered me greatly that another user could try to make me feel like my edits weren't appreciated when I spent a great amount of time on them. ––Ksy92003(talk) 08:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He made a weird edit to my talk page, commenting on an article I just barely created. Weird. I support the indef block based on his edits to your user talk page. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 08:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

A very infamous tactic of trolls. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This particular one wasn't very effective as, on further consideration, I think he might have been trying to elicit an angry response from me. However, I took it as just a weird comment and responded with that in mind. Maybe it made him mad that he couldn't tweak me. >:) ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 19:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Somebody admin needs to fix the mess Hindduking (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) just left. Corvus cornix 16:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's all fixed now. Will (aka Wimt) 16:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There is at least a possibility that the above user is a sock of community banned User:Tecmobowl, with a similar style (removing Fangraph links) and this person only started editing on the 6th of July, which is right after Tecmobowl was banned. It was brought up to my attention because I was the one who implemented the CN ban. I do not want to make the decision (I'm about to take a few days Wikibreak because of an illness) on a quick read. I think there's a strong circumstantial case. Could someone with a bit of free time investigate this? Is RfCU the best place to go? SirFozzie 18:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Diffs should be provided for a complete report. Just a suggestion. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, they both talk about the content being crappy and how nobody can concentrate on the content without bringing in other issues. Long Levi even defends Tecmo a few times without overtly naming him [10] [11]. Tecmo put in a bunch of templates for the Baseball hall of fame...and then Long Levi arrived and updated all those templates. There is also the fangraphs issue noted above. It could all be a big coincidence...but I doubt it. IrishGuy ^talk 22:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

[12]

Not to mention what amounts to vandalism, 3RR violations, and gross incivility. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty unacceptable. I've issued Cr8tiv a 3-hour block to read WP:Civility. Looking further into this. A Train^talk 19:49, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility, please. Both may be wrong, don't know. Cr8tiv should have used only the 1st half of his comments of 19:31, not the bottom half. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree, more or less. Please see my earlier comments on the talk pages of both editors. A Train^talk 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admittedly, I've only really had a glance, but Cr8tiv doesn't seem to have a history of going ballistic. I do agree with the block quite wholeheartedly, but I'm a bit confused why Haizum is being let off the hook for this rather obvious provocation. – Luna Santin (talk) 23:27, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Not really sexual harassment, either. To turn feminist discourse (which is what the article is about) towards LGBT issues (which aren't even brought up in the article) and then brazenly call for POV-pushing against the "narrow-minded" is a bit provocative in and of itself. Haizum's response was just as ridiculous and unnecessary. Both parties are at fault. MSJapan 23:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Luna. What's good for the goose is good for ...er... in this case, another goose, I suppose. Equality and all that, you know... ThuranX 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is a fair point and bears address. Both users were in the wrong here, but I adjudged Cr8tiv to be more so. Her actions were highly aggressive in tone, even before Haizum was involved (and my apologies if I'm incorrect in my pronoun choice, but the context of her edits leads me to believe that this is accurate).

Before Haizum even arrives on the scene, Cr8tiv makes this edit to the Herstory talk page, referring to heterosexuals as "breeders", something which cannot be mistaken for a polite term. I would have been equally shocked if an editor made a comment referring to homosexuals as "homos" or any such thing. Haizum replies on that talk page with a similarly unproductive edit for which I admonished him after I noticed it. In my opinion, the two comments made to this point in the incident cancel each other out. The problem (and the offense for which I blocked Cr8tiv) follows when Cr8tiv makes nine consecutive edits to Haizum's talk page - starting here and ending here. Many of these edits were replacing the original comment that she had left and Haizum had removed. The civility guidelines hold that a user is entitled to remove abusive comments from their talk page at their discretion; I don't personally believe in talk page sanitation, but Haizum had every right to remove the comments as he pleased.

Both editors made poor choices in their comments at the outset, but it was Cr8tiv who continued the confrontation and was more disruptive. I understand that Cr8tiv was provoked, but that does not absolve her misconduct. My action was to block Cr8tiv for 3 hours, and I left her a talk page message stating that I would immediately lift the block if she would only disengage from the matter. I do not use blocks punitively, only to stop disruptive behavior, and I almost always leave blocked editors with an opportunity to end their blocks immediately if possible. I feel that my actions were warranted and even-handed, but I welcome any criticism here or on my talk page. A Train^talk 03:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your rationale. It makes great sense to me. In reading the first edit of Cr8tiv's which you cite, though... Isn't that call for a 'queer army' a CANVASsing violation or the most egrigious and POV nature? Please warn her about pursuing that agenda. ThuranX 04:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

24.66.94.140 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) had a six month block imposed on January 11 which just expired. It looks like most of the edits made today are vandalism (a couple are too foreign to me to know and several are subtle). Can someone take a look (I need to get some RW work done) and act if necessary. -- DS1953 ^talk 23:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The two edits to Sandpit (reverted) are vandalism, the one to stylus (reverted) may just be misguided, and the two to Saskatoon are tests (self-reverted). I'm not sure about the rest: this edit to List of Chicago street gangs, two edits to Liebermann Inc., this edit to Chess Pieces (MÄR), and this edit to ÄRM. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Black Falcon, except the List of Chicago street gangs had major verifiability issues, and looks like it had a questionable history of anonymous editors adding random names. I have since blanked all redlinked gangs and asked for future additions to the list to be verifiable. (sorry, I don't mean to hijack the thread). As for the anon, if it is a shared IP, as the tag at the top of the page suggests, that could explain why there are some seemingly helpful edits and some clear vandalism. If the vandalism persists, it may be best to block again, but allow new account creation.-Andrew c ^[talk] 23:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The list of gangs page definitely needed a cleanup (the older version seemed to suggest that Chicago was full of "Almighty"s, "Cobra"s, and "Insane"s). ;) And you're definitely right about the edits being made by different people. The edits to List of Chicago street gangs and Saskatoon (tests, most likely) were made 04:19 - 04:55 UTC. Four hours later came the two edits to Liebermann Inc.. Five hours later ... two edits to articles related to MÄR. Eight hours later ... 3 unconstructive edits, including two instances of obvious vandalism. I have bookmarked the IP's contributions history and will continue to monitor it. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

These might just be vandalism along the lines of the Chris Benoit article fiasco, but I did want to bring these to someone's attention, just in case. Anyway, please check the following three diffs from User:76.171.9.67:

• [13]
• [14]
• [15]

Please note that this IP has been warned in January, May, and April of this year, which probably suggests simple vandalism, but again, some of these more recent comments from this month are a bit concerning. --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 00:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it would violate the privacy policy and what not, so I will not post the link, but Ryan Davis, 22 yr old college student from southern California, shown holding a gun, with no mention of the 12 year old, is very much alive. Not really sure what, if anything, needs to be done. - auburnpilot talk 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've given the IP a 72 hour block for vandalism. This kind of post normally goes to WP:AIV for swifter attention. Durova^Charge! 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Has no edits. The User page seems to be a page where members of a web forum can attack each other. Corvus cornix 03:10, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Page deleted per CSD U2. —Kurykh 03:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if someone could look at Masada and tell me why I've been blocked from editing when I'd added copious, reliable and irrefutable sources. More perplexing, why have all my contributions from other articles been retroactively undone by jayjg and blocked?

Every time I contributed, I cited and I also defended in the talk page. Jayjg never once attempted to communicate or question me. I see from his history that he has a disturbing pattern of this together with other editors who attacked me humus sapien and k's ghost.

Basically, every archaeologist, anthropologist, sociologist, forensics expert (all of them Israeli) since have concluded that the "Masada" dig and the claim that it revealed Masada was a fraud. If you look at the history of the article and the talk page you'll see that I've provided overwhelming sources and cites - none disputed. And they come from people like the Dean of Sociology and Anthropology at Hebrew University who painstakingly read three years of transcriptions from the initial dig to prove that it was an open fraud among the team members (again, please refer to the talk page of Masada).

Inexplicably, jayjg took out references to this dean from the article that predated my contributions. And so, now the article makes no mention of considerable scholarship that's exposed the original dig.

I see this as part of a disturbing pattern of partisan editing and blocking that ignoring well-cited contributions when the subject is in anyway unflattering to Israel. The result is an absurd article, like Masada, that makes no mention of a fact that every schoolchild in Israel knows: Masada is a myth with no basis in scholarship. Truth-evenifithurts 03:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Without judging the merits of your claims, they would be more convincing if you were not a likely sockpuppet. MastCell ^Talk 05:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note the parallel thread at User talk:Jimbo Wales. Shalom ^Hello 05:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Rtkat3 continues to use no edit summaries for his edits. People have told him this numerous times on his talk page. I told him about edit summaries recently as well and he ignored it once again. I see no final warning for not using edit summaries, so I'm not sure what else to do. He seems to speak english, so there is no language barrier. Admin intervention is needed I think. He should be using edit summaries at least sometimes. RobJ1981 21:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Using edit summaries is polite and helpful, but it's not specifically required as far as I know. If you've asked him to and he refuses, best thing is probably just to drop it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:52, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

From what I can tell, he never (or rarely) even posts on talk pages. Why should a person that refuses to use summaries, just be ignored? I don't see him as a vandal: but who actually knows that for sure? With no summaries, people don't even know what he is adding or removing from articles. In my view, it's a bit of bad faith he refuses to even say why he wont use summaries. It seems to be important from the sounds of this: Template:Summary2. A little bit from it: Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. A simple thing like summaries shouldn't be a big issue. It takes a small amount of time. RobJ1981 04:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've emailed him, so if he doesn't reply... I will be under the understanding that he just wants to do what he wants, without listening to others. Edit summaries are indeed important, and people shouldn't just ignore putting them. RobJ1981 22:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As one last update (since no one seems to care about this issue, which is a bit wrong), he emailed me back and didn't even give a reason for not using edit summaries. This is simply bad faith in my opinion. RobJ1981 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Nowadays, with the comments line being auto-filled with such information as the section header, it clearly requires intent not to leave a comment. From reading his talk page, it appears that the only time he ever communicates with another Wikipedian is when he is caught in an autoblock -- despite numerous questions about his edits. (A check with Kate's Tool shows that out of over 17,000 edits, he has only made 80 edits to all categories of Talk pages.) Clearly a taciturn person -- but he's also clearly pushing the envelope in the opposite direction.

I'm adding to this thread -- when RobJ1981 has already said everything I could say on the matter -- because I recently encountered a similar user who likewise refused to discuss his edits, & had no idea how to force the person into a conversation. (Unlike Rtkat3, this editor did not have an email address listed.) Well, short of an indef block until he was willing to talk -- a solution I wouldn't want to try because it is a tactic identical to using a sledgehammer to kill a mosquito. This taciturn mindset (almost passive-aggressive) baffles me: why edit Wikipedia in good faith if you don't want to discuss your edits with other people? AFAIK, writers always enjoy talking or writing about their writing. -- llywrch 17:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Mariam83 has decided to launch a new campaign of harassment and disruption of her favourite articles and enemy editors and admins via her multiple dynamic IP socks hailing from both Houston, TX, USA and China.

• Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83 -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 07:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• 68.89.170.59 (talk · contribs) one more. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 07:42, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
• Accumulating at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83. --Ezeu 08:19, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is getting out of hand. A range block of that Texas IP is in order. --Ezeu 07:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Anything we can do to prevent the individual behind Mariam83 from editing Wikipedia is warranted.Proabivouac 07:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:RBI. One day she will get tired. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 08:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I just found three more of her IPs (on the same page even), but it looks like you guys have tagged them already. Good work! -- Hux 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Plus the daily few emails she is using to harass and blackmail me! I am doing some investigations to see if the user had had any prior involvment in wikipedia because i suspect she/he has gone through this before a year ago though it concerned another set of articles. I'll try to bring updates here. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text left on various pages by Xratedguy (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I gave him a uw-vandal2 warning, but don't have time to monitor his activities.

Roland Rance has studied this for years and has discovered that Trotskyite feces tastes better than the alternatives [16]

It's SPAM and vandalism rolled into one. I have reverted his 8 or so identical contributions. Please watch out for this guy.--Otheus 08:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This is yet another sockpuppet of Runtshit, who has so far created over 200 false IDs and defaced nearly 200 articles in his obsessive stalking of me. See this list. S/he is almost certainly llinked to the Truthprofessor and Zuminous serial vandals. It appears that we are powerless to stop this character, and can only go around clearing up after him/her. RolandR 08:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please add Quadratics (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to the RolandR stalkers. Thank you. Otheus 09:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting question for the Wikipedia community: Does posting a link on a member’s Talk page to a YouTube video of yourself firing a weapon constitute threatening behavior?

Background: In the article about San Francisco Supervisor Chris Daly, I have been debating BillyTFried about whether the article should include information about Daly’s support of a 2006 gun control ballot initiative, Proposition H. I said it shouldn’t because Daly was only one of four sponsors of the initiative, and the initiative wasn’t especially controversial in SF (it won with 58% of the vote). However, because the initiative was controversial in the eyes of many pro-gun groups, it made national headlines with Daly’s name featured in newspaper articles, etc., BillyTFried thought Proposition H should be included in the Chris Daly article.

YouTube video: Yesterday night, BillyTFried posted some words on my Talk page along with a link to a YouTube video of himself firing what looks like a semi-automatic weapon. (In case the video gets taken down, it is 1:43 minutes long and shows BillyTFried firing weapons at a shooting range while thrash music plays. BillyTFried occasionally leers at the camera. The video is titled “Shoot Em' Up!”.)

Last night when I read his post, I thought it was just plain weird and creepy, but I didn’t feel threatened. This morning, however, I mentioned it to my wife, who was horrified. She pointed out that BillyTFried lives in the same town as me (he told me the cross streets where he lives) and that his post on my Talk page with the video link was made in the context of a gun control debate. She thought he was threatening me.

I did not take up this matter with BillyTFried because, frankly, after watching his video, I don't want anything to do with him. I’m just curious what the community thinks of this and whether some action should be taken against BillyTFried. Griot 16:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(statement from non-admin and completely uninvolved party Pfagerburg, who happened to notice this thread as I was checking to see if the vandal came back.)

Check the date the video was uploaded - early January of this year, not yesterday. Lots of people take videos of themselves, family members, or friends firing weapons at the range. BillyTFried was trying to make a point that there are some gun-owners living in SF. He made it poorly, and clumsily, but I don't see it as a threat. To be a threat, the video would have to be linked with the text "you're next" or "stay out of this debate or else." Or your name would have to be involved somehow, like "warning to Griot - don't try to take my guns!" That would be a criminal threat for which the threatener ought to be prosecuted. Possibly WP:NPA or WP:CIVIL, but nothing criminal. Pfagerburg 16:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that YouTube is full of videos of people at shooting ranges and people blasting away at bottles and cans in the great outdoors. But this video was presented to me in the context of gun control. BillyTFried understands my dislike of guns but he posted the video link anyway on my Talk page. If I was a vegetarian and he posted a video link to slaughterhouse video, would that be okay? Griot 18:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

(An additionally totally univolved editor User:Rocksanddirt) I would find that the context of the video being put on a Griot's user page as threatening or at least an attempt to intimidate the debate. If billyt had put it on his own page, that would be a totally different scenario. --Rocksanddirt 18:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've issued a warning to the editor. At best it was just really poor judgment and as Rocksanddirt said, at worst it has the appearance of an attempt to intimidate.--Isotope23 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it (vegetarian and the slaughterhouse video) wouldn't be OK. It would be boorish. And uncivil. The same applies to the gun video. And in the days of Columbine and Virginia Tech, it borders on just plain stupid. It's a good way to get the police interested in speaking with you, but in the end, the police and the DA would probably conclude it was not criminal.

I'm not trying to defend BillyTFried's actions, but rather present what I feel is the middle ground, the two extremes being "quit whining" and "OMG! Call the cops!" He probably owes you an apology, but I don't think he threatened you, either in the WP sense or in the criminal sense. My opinion (that and 50 cents will buy you a coke) is that he ought not to be blocked, but it wouldn't hurt for the admins to have a chat with him. Pfagerburg 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Isotope23, I saw your edit after I saved mine. Rocksanddirt has a valid point as well. Let's hope the warning has the desired effect. Pfagerburg 18:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WHAT A JOKE!!! Christ you couldn't win a debate against me where you tried to censor valid information on the Chris Daly page and TALK page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Daly#Gun_control, so instead to accuse me of threatening you simply because after you insinuated that everyone was anti-gun in "Liberal SF" I replied that I was in fact MYSELF a San Francisco resident and avid gun owner, and posted a video of myself enjoying my hobby, legally, and safely, as visual proof of it. Your assertion that it was somehow a threat is just more hysterics from a person who has already shown ridiculously bizarre behavior by trying to censor valid information on Wikipedia, despite protest from everyone else involved. It's also very interesting that you DELETED all my comments on your talk page EXCEPT that one. If anyone want to see the whole conversation it is reproduced on MY TALK PAGE --BillyTFried 19:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy, you don't seem to get it. Posting a video of yourself shooting a weapon on another editors talk page when you know full well they are a gun control advocate was very poor judgment and not in any way WP:CIVIL and it isn't hard to see how someone could take that as an attempt at an intimidation tactic on your part. As I said on your talk page, I expect this will not happen again; future incidents like this will likely result in a block.--Isotope23 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Then the proper way to point out that not everybody in SF is anti-gun would have been to write "but I live in SF and I am not anti-gun." If Griot had challenged your residence or position, then the cross streets and the video might have been appropriate.

HE DID ASK IF I "REALLY" LIVED IN SF! BUT HE DELETED THAT SECTION WHICH IS STILL VIEWABLE ON MY TALK PAGE! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:BillyTFried#Chris_Daly --BillyTFried 19:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that he did question your residence, after I posted the comment above. I struck the comment, and apologized. You probably started to edit and put in your reply before I was able to save my strike-out. Pfagerburg 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think your video was at all a threat, but in today's "it doesn't matter what you meant, it's what the other person perceived" environment (you normally hear this in sexual harassment cases), you really need to be more careful what you say and how you say it.

I've been to SF, and I've never felt more un-safe anywhere else in the country. That city's gun-control measures have made sure that only the criminals are armed. But if you don't calmly refute the argument with facts, and instead start yelling about it, you hand them the victory. Pfagerburg 19:17, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh I won't take any risks with hysterical paranoid people again, but I do not apologize and I reject the assertion that it was meant as intimidation as it WAS NOT AT ALL, and was simply meant to REFUTE his assertion that everyone in SF was anti-gun, as it was a nice video of my enjoying my hobby, shooting at a local SF Bay Area shooting range, both legally and safely. There was nothing at all uncivil or criminal in what I did in any way. The reaction to is is just pure hysterics. And attempting to and even threatening to have me blocked from Wikipedia over it is simply outrageous! --BillyTFried 19:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

<Text Dump removed. please see content at User talk:BillyTFried#Chris Daly>

If you're going to discuss content, then it belongs on the relevant talk page. If you're going to sling mud at each other (Daly vs. Newsom style), then do it on your own blogs or something. Neither are welcome on this board, and the latter not welcome on Wikipedia. And I say this as both a Wikipedia admin and a resident of San Francisco. —Kurykh 19:32, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the text dump above.--Isotope23 19:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Billy, what you did was incivil and the reaction here is not "pure hysterics" as you've put it. If you can't see the obvious overtones of linking a video of youself shooting a gun on another editors' userpage when you are in a dispute with them over gun control then perhaps there is a problem here. I'm in no way a gun control advocate, but it's plain as day how another editor could take that linking as a veiled threat.--Isotope23 19:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. The reaction was "pure hysterics." Use of the video was rude and not very smart, but the "ZOMG, did he threaten me?!?!" attitude gets us, e.g.

• Aqua Teen Hunger Force Mooninite sign fiasco in Boston
• Muslims removed from a plane because they prayed before a flight
• A cartoonist fired from his job over a discussion with a friend of what sort of gun he would like to buy for target practice

You are a duck. There is water on your back. Quack and swim on.

If someone makes an actual threat, report it to the police instead of whinging on Wikipedia. Admins will get involved when the police ask for the logs. Pfagerburg 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a bit of apples and oranges Pfagerburg. The recipient felt threatened and reported it here, I'm not so sure I would characterize that as hysterics. Now Boston getting totally owned by the Moon... that was hysterics (and amusing ones at that).--Isotope23 20:41, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WE WERE NOT DEBATING GUN CONTROL AT ALL! We were debating whether on not a failed gun control bill belongs on the Chris Daly page as he was the main name attached to that bill whenever it turned up in the media, but Griot has continually deleted the valid and sourced information I posted. He asked me "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" and I replied with my cross streets and the video proving that I was s SF resident and gun owner. This has been totally blown out of proportion and is just ridiculous! --BillyTFried 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And when you were just discussing about including references to a gun control ballot measure, you found it necessary to post a video of you brandishing a gun (or whatever) on his talk page. How appropriate. Cough —Kurykh 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. It was completely unnecessary to post that video on his talkpage and this in no way is being blown out of proportion. Assuming good faith, you didn't mean any harm, though the fact that you seem unwilling or unable to understand why this was a bad idea isn't exactly encouraging. Regardless, you've been warned and I expect you will show better judgment in your future contact with other editors.--Isotope23 19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

“

That's cute, Billy. Do you really live in SF? Griot 04:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

”

“

You live at Pacific and Laguna. Tough neighborhood. I see why you own a gun. <chuckle> Griot 08:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

”

CHUCKLE??? Yeah right, that sure sounds like a really intimdated threatened person doesn't! Jeez! --BillyTFried 19:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

You still have not addressed any of our points, instead resorting to answering to some nonexistent question. Please get back on topic. —Kurykh 20:06, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

What "points" do I need to answer??? --BillyTFried 20:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here:

:And when you were just discussing about including references to a gun control ballot measure, you found it necessary to post a video of you brandishing a gun (or whatever) on his talk page. How appropriate. Cough —Kurykh 19:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

—Kurykh 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Here:

He asked me "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" and I replied with my cross streets and the video proving that I was s SF resident and gun owner. This has been totally blown out of proportion and is just ridiculous! --BillyTFried 19:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

--BillyTFried 20:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

This has not been blown out of proportion. It was a reasonable interpretation of your actions. —Kurykh 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

He ask me, "Billy. Do you really live in SF? If you did, you would know that Proposition H was no big deal in the City" because it was not an issue for anyone in what he called "Liberal SF", and I responded by saying YES, IN FACT I DO LIVE IN SF, and am a gun owner who saw lots of commotion over the gun ban (whether or not he saw it), and heres my cross streets and a video of me to prove that people like me DO EXIST here in "Liberal SF". next thing you know, I'm being accused of threatening him!!! --BillyTFried 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes this has been totally blown out of proportion, and not every here agrees with your assertion that it has not. See above comments about Aqua Teen Hunger Force and Muslims removed from planes for praying. It's all plane old fashioned hyterics. --BillyTFried 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

So as to be clear.... Is anyone here actually taking the position what I posted was meant as a THREAT rather than what I said my intention was, and if so what exactly was the threat that you believe I was making? --BillyTFried 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Look we've been over this. Whether you intended this to be a threat or not (and I believe you didn't), it was still grossly incivil and it is blindingly easy to see how someone could interpret this as an attempt to chill the debate by posting this on their talkpage. Whether you intended it to be such or not is impossible to say, I have no idea what your actual intent was, but I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. At this point, you are not being blocked for this and you are simply being warned not to do that again; try and take some time to think how something like that will be perceived by other editors before you hit that submit button. As all that is happening at this point is a warning, I would suggest that the prudent thing for you to do is drop this and move on to editing articles.--Isotope23 20:35, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Yeah, whatever. I do not apologize and reject any assertion that I threatened anyone. In fact I didnt't even engage in name calling as Grito has. Maybe I should lodge my own complaint about his continued use of the offesnive slur "Gun Nut". Hmmm. --BillyTFried 20:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

• Nobody asked you to apologize (and calling out that you "don't apologize" comes off as a bit juvenile I might add... I don't think anyone was going to mistake anything you've said here for an apology), as I said above, the prudent thing to do here would be to quit while you are ahead.--Isotope23 20:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I suggested that he owed Griot an apology. But that was just my opinion, which carries very little weight here. Pfagerburg 20:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I must have missed that post of yours... and your opinion carries as much weight as mine or anyone elses' Pfagerburg.--Isotope23 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

“

He probably owes you an apology, but I don't think he threatened you. Pfagerburg 18:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

”

Oops, you beat me to it! --BillyTFried 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If anything Griot owes me an apology for his unjusitfied continual deletion of my valid and cited material on the Chris Daly page, as well as insulting me with his constant use of the slur Gun Nut, and my having to address all this noise over nothing. --BillyTFried 21:05, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I move to close this discussion thread. All appropriate Admin actions have been taken, & the subsequent exchanges are no longer relevant to WP:AN/I, if they were in the first place. -- llywrch 17:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I thought my comments were fairly reasonable. I left a comment on Jimbo's talk page asking for his help on something. The comment was reverted by User:SqueakBox a few seconds later [17], [18]. Now I know I'm an anon user, but I believe Jimbo should be the one deciding whether I'm a troll or not. I left my justifications for my comment on SqueakBox's talk page, but that also got deleted without an answer [19]. Now if I'm an anon user and I want to contact Jimbo, don't I have the right to do so? Please do something about this, at least let Jimbo see my comment. --81.177.20.215 22:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo were to be the judge of every wikipedia troll he'd be working o0n that alone fopr 168 hours a week, SqueakBox 23:44, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That reasoning still doesn't justify you removing my comments. --81.177.20.215 23:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

That isnt the reasoning I used to justify my deletion, my justification is that you were trolling. Persoanlly I think you are still trolling, SqueakBox 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree with that, either. It is your personal opinion, and as I said, it should be up to Jimbo to decide whether I was trolling or not. Therefore, my comment should be left on his talk page, since it is not vandalism. --81.177.20.215 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I strongly disagree, Jimbo doesnt have the time which is why people like me watch his page and remove stuff that isnt appropriate for him, a bit like a secretary weeding out the unnecessary stuff. You could try the office but there you will get some low level type like myself and would have to persuade them before comments were FAO Jimbo Wales, SqueakBox 16:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion needs some context, so I looked to see what the anon's comment was about. It can be summarized in three words -- a complaint about Ghirlandajo, which is considered by many Wikipedians as a textbook example of WP:DEADHORSE, if not its synonym. To the Anon: I don't know any of the specifics of this incident, or its merits, but if you so desperately need to tell Jimbo about it, his talk page is probably a bad medium to use. Do it in email, & you don't have to worry about what the rest of us think or do about your message. But be warned: I know from personal experience that it can take over a month for him to respond to an email, & thats if it involves someone he wants to talk with. If he doesn't respond at all, accept his silence & move on. -- llywrch 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Jersyko has a dispute with Feddhicks. He has listed me on a RFCU. User:Jimbo Wales unblocked me after Jersyko blocked me. I have removed my name from the RFCU. There is precedent for name self removal. Jersyko has done that before on himself, I believe.

I offered to informally mediate which he refused and I said that's ok, I only try to facilitate, not force a solution. In retaliation, Jersyko is running a RFCU.

Action requested: stop harrassment by Jersyko.

Diff: [[20]] proving that Jimbo Wales has determined that I am not Dereks1x. The RFCU Dereks1x versus me. Jimbo Wales received private information to establish my identity and other proof. VK35 00:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that this might be your chance to shut Jersyko up with a Checkuser. Anyway, you're over-inflating Jimbo's stature in this dispute; he's just acting like any other administrator. I really don't care if you're a sock or not, but these are my thoughts. —Kurykh 00:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I added VK35 to the checkuser request because (1) a checkuser (dmcdevit) confirmed to me weeks ago that VK35 was editing from the same IP range as Dereks1x and (2) VK35 made a unique, odd offer to "mediate" between me and the sock of a banned user I had just indef blocked. Coincidentally, the sock I blocked just so happened to be a sock of the same banned user that VK35 is known to share an IP range with. My carefully worded addition to the RFCU is here. I meant no offense; Kurykh is right that this is the best possible chance to shut me up about it. · jersyko talk 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Will you, Jersyko, agree to be banned if you are wrong and I am right?VK35 00:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed this comment in the fray. No, I won't "agree to be banned." I will agree, however, to "shut up" and "leave you alone". · jersyko talk 00:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was a bit too direct. —Kurykh 00:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. You're right, and I agree with you. · jersyko talk 00:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The offer to informally mediate is not odd. I have done it for Gibraltar, Missouri, some list of developed countries, and helped out in AFD fights. (Don't be surprised if Bobblehead and Tvoz comment, they usually comment in support of Jersyko and each other) VK35 00:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Informal mediation isn't odd at all. Informal mediation when one of the parties is a sock of a banned user who is already blocked before the mediation is even started, that's odd. · jersyko talk 00:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yup, because we are sockpuppets of each other, after all.[21] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 00:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a distraction in my attempt to reach 5,000 quality mainspace edits this year, 900+ so far, 47 new articles. Will you stop this harrassment and let me get back to editing. Harrassment grinds editing to a halt. VK35 01:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Why is this a distraction? If you've truly done nothing wrong, the checkuser will come back negative and you don't need to care about it. -Amarkov moo! 01:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Checkuser isn't magic pixie dust. Whether VK35 is a Dereks1x sock ultimately depends on the similarity of their edits; we already know that they've used similar IP ranges in the past. We also know that VK35 has been blocked as Dereks1x's sock before, and that several editors (including me) thought that the block was appropriate; Jimbo disagreed and unblocked VK35. I thought that was a mistake then, and still do now. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
    • I know very well that checkuser isn't magic pixie dust, and I assure you I trust it much less than you do. What I was saying is that being involved in the checkuser case by itself shouldn't be concerning. He can be blocked as a sock otherwise, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he is included in the checkuser case. -Amarkov moo! 01:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
      • Sorry, I was trying to point out that since a negative checkuser result is not necessarily decisive, it may not end the suspicion that VK35 is a sock, and thus, he may continue to feel "harassed". --Akhilleus (talk) 02:03, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You shouldn't over emphasize this as a "dispute between Jersyko and Jimbo" to try and get people on your side. As another user stated, Jimbo simply acted as any other third party admin would upon getting such information.--Jersey Devil 02:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And unfortunately Jimbo may not have been in possession of all of the facts. As Akhilleus said, it was a mistake then and now. I find it curious, and disturbing, that VK35 removed himself from the latest Dereks1x checkuser request, if he had nothing to worry about. Tvoz |talk 03:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And Grandmasterka reinstated his name in the RFCU and VK35 removed it again, as well as removing another sock from the list which is suspicious. Both names are back on the RFCU now, and I think we should let the process take its course. Tvoz |talk 15:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See [[22]]. There is precedent for name self-removal at RFCU. See Jersyko/Tvox 4/30/07 RFCU (accused to be meat/socks, they wipe their names off) VK35 16:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not precedent for this, that was retaliatory RFCU, if I recall correctly. Go on with your editing - if you have nothing to worry about, you have nothing to worry about. Let the process proceed. Tvoz |talk 16:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)]

RFCU completed. VK35 18:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And here's a link to the result of the RFCU.[23] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Which was clarified here - adding this for the record, in the event that this subject is revisited. Tvoz |talk 23:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not certain that this is the proper venue and if not will appreciate any information that will point me in the proper direction. For the past six weeks or so I've been dealing with a situation that I consider to be unacceptable and against Wikipedia policy.

I apologize in advance for the length of this discussion but am attempting to make sure that all relevant information is presented.

• On May 29, 2007 User:69.158.170.135 started the AfD process on an article. My response was Keep and I expressed surprise that a non-registered user was able to technically start an AfD. Based on the conversations during the AfD it appears that User:64.231.248.87 and User:64.231.248.87 are the same anonymous user as the AfD nominator.

• On June 6, 2007 this same anonymous user then started leaving messages on my Talk page as User:64.231.250.116 and User:64.231.250.169. In these messages the user stated that "he" was considering nominating two articles that I've worked on for deletion.

"Yes it's me, the anon user who nominated Brian Crecente for deletion. I was debating on nominating her (Jennifer Ann Crecente) article as well, but I figured since you added alot to it, I would run it by you first. I feel neither her article or the charity are really notable so I've been thinking about a possible merge of her article and the charity based on her, what are your thoughts? I know you are probably angry about the comments I made in the Brian Crecente afd, so I don't expect your words to be sugar coated. Please speak your mind.64.231.250.116 10:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)"

• And then on June 12, 2007:

" ... I am still consulting with a few other users about the pages we are questioning, we are currently looking for sources. Going to give it another week or two and then a possible rewrite or afd will be dealt."

• On June 20, 2007 User:TexasAndroid did a "speedy delete" of the Jennifer Ann Crecente article that I'd been threatened with being deleted. His comment was: "(Version deleted from mainspace as a recreation)." There was a great deal of information that was added to the article prior to re-creation as can be seen here. Two important additions are two new laws that have passed the Texas House and Senate and have been signed into law by Governor Perry of Texas. Both of these laws include the murder of Jennifer Ann Crecente as impetus for their creation. This information is fully cited in the article.

• On June 26, 2007 I requested a [deletion review] and received comments like "G4 shouldn't be used when the article is markedly different, DelRev shouldn't need to be involved." The deletion was overturned and the article instead moved to AfD where the consensus was Keep.

Now that I have gone through all of the steps necessary to get the article back to its proper status I would like some assistance in resolving what I believe is an abuse by having this article "speedy deleted" in the first place. I feel that it is likely not a coincidence that I was threatened with this deletion by an anonymous user eight days before User:TexasAndroid followed through with a deletion.

At this point I am concerned that future disagreements (regardless of the civility) will result in having articles that I've created either vandalized or deleted. Any assistance or advice is appreciated.

Drew30319 01:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Apart from the failure to assume good faith here, why would he wait for more than a week to carry through this "threat" (which isn't actually a threat of deletion, just a threat of discussing it)? -Amarkov moo! 01:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

On June 12, 2007 the anonymous user stated that there would be "another week or two" before action was taken. The action that was taken eight days later was that User:TexasAndroid did a "speedy delete" that was considered by myself and others to be inappropriate. This article had been sitting there for four months without any problems or questions regarding its legitimacy.

While it might be proper policy for me to assume that this was a coincidence I would appreciate other eyeballs looking at this situation to gain further insight. Drew30319 02:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the current article history doesn't display the nomination for speedy, if there was one. Perhaps the anon user waited 8 days then nominated for speedy, and that last revision simply wasn't restored. Maybe that's not what happened, but an admin can check that very easily. Someguy1221 03:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Isn't it wonderful when people try to work out disagreements with each other before dragging themselves into public? Oh, wait. That did not happen. Well, isn't it great when someone gets notified that there has been a complaint lodged against them? Oh wait. That did not happen either. I had to stumble across this here to find out about it.

And the funny thing is, when I did speedy the article, I took the time to give Drew a notice right on his talk page, letting him know what had happened, and pointing him directly to DRV. I have since watched the DRV overturn me, sending the page back to AFD, and the second AFD result in a Keep. So be it. My action was in enforcement of the first AFD, which was IMHO still in effect at the time of the recreation. DRV saw otherwise, and that is why DRV exists. We admins do not make descisions in a vacuum, we are subject to review. And sometimes we get overturned. So be it. It happens. We are human, and not perfect. But IMHO, the 2nd AFD should have been the end of things.

But, now we get this report here. And I have to justify my actions. Sigh. So be it. Let's begin.

First off, I have nothing to do with the mentioned IPs. I have never edited from an IP address. Not before I registered, and not afterwards. I had never interacted with Drew30319 before the speedy deletion.

Second, to explain how I did find the article. I'm a Wikignome, of the Category Gnome subvariety. I do a lot of work on categories, cleaning them up, etc. At the time, I was doing work on articles in various major cities in Texas, mostly working to clear out the main city categories, and push as many articles as possible down into sub-categories. Buildings go into the building and structure sub-cats. People go into the people sub-cats, etc. The fact that I was doing this work on Texas articles is easily verifiable by anyone who wants to look at my history for that time period. When I got to Austin, and was working on clearing out Category:Austin, Texas, there was the Jennifer Ann Crecente article. My first instinct was that it was a borderline A7 speedy candidate. Except maybe for the legislation, there was IMHO nothing notable about her. When I hit the initial delete button, I saw that the article had been previously deleted, and by AFD at that. That, IMHO, made it a recreation, and subject to G4 speedy, which was the more appropriate criteria for an article still under the enforcement of an AFD.

DRV overturned me. As I have said, so be it. OTOH, I still think that proper procedure for the article's creator would have been to get the AFD overturned for the new article before it was returned to article space. Moving the article back to article space while there is still a valid AFD against is not the right way to do things. It really would also have been very nice if Drew30319 had made some attempt to resolve his problems with me on my talk page before he took them public. He has never before heard my explanation for how I came across the article, in good part because he never bothered to ask. He just lobbed these accusations out of the blue, here in public first. And then does not bother to even let me know that my actions are being debated. Quite annoying, all-together. - TexasAndroid 15:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• The following was left on my talk page but I would prefer to have this conversation intact:

I have responded to your accusations of abuse at WP:ANI. It would have been really nice if you had bothered to try to resolve these issues with me personally before you drug this all out to WP:ANI. It would have been nice if you had bothered to inform me that you had lodged a complaint against me, instead of leaving me to randomly stumble over it. But it's there now, and I have responded there. - TexasAndroid 17:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To your point, "it would have been really nice if you had bothered" to check the article and compared it to the userfied version prior to your speedy delete. In DRV not one editor agreed with you regarding your unilateral decision.

In reviewing the history on your talk page I am not comfortable posting comments on there. You have been accused of bias in the removal of some articles and comments. You've also deleted many comments from your talk page from editors that have found fault with your actions. I am more comfortable discussing this in a public venue and will copy this conversation there. Drew30319 17:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• In further reviewing your contributions I came across the following entry made on Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Based on your comments there I now realize that the "speedy delete" appears to be simply a mistake but not one based on bad faith. The "threats" that I received from the anonymous user I will chalk up to coincidence and I apologize for the misunderstanding. I hope that you can see how this might have appeared to me in light of the circumstances. That does not relieve me of any burden of being wrong but will hopefully cast it in the proper light. Drew30319 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted. As for the situation on my talk page, check out this archives WP:ANI thread about that situation. As for me removing things, normally I do not. If you look through my talk archives you will see a number of disagreements handled there, and left plainly in the archives. The one situation is different. Would you want to leave totally false accusations of racism on your talk page, especially when the accuser refuses to listen to any sort of reasoned counter-arguments, and refuses to offer a shred of proof? If a user started repeatedly falsely accusing you of racism, in inflamitory language, on your talk page, would you want it to stay there? The accusations are false, and I do not want such totally false accusations to stay on my talk page to prevent exactly the sort of false impression you have gotten about me. - TexasAndroid 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The account User:R-1441 is my account. I made a comment on the behalf of Devraj5000. I have no interest in atheism or articles related to atheism.

The account was blocked by Hemlock Martinis on the basis of false evidence. Help me to unblock the account. Thank You. Ravi. RaviJames 02:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmmm... This was that account's first contribution. The block for sockpuppetry seems appropriate. Grandmasterka 03:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out that contribution list. Complainant blocked indef. Grandmasterka 03:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OT: What a terrible name..Hemlock Martinis. Polounit 03:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

If by "terrible" you mean "excellent". ;-) Grandmasterka 04:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked Devraj5000 for a 3RR violation. The block was set for 24 hours. After doing so, R-1441 performed the exact same disruptive edits as Devraj5000 (that is, removing another user's scathing comments of Devraj5000 in the AfD discussion about List of atheist Nobel laureates). A user filed this, so I blocked R-1441 indefinitely and extended Devraj5000's block to a week. I was then browsing ArbCom pages due to my curiousity in the CharlotteWeb case, when I came across this edit. Seeing only the headline, I thought it was a remnant of my disputes with Giano and El C in the first week in June, but was quickly surprised to find out otherwise. That was my first notification of the complaint; Ravi notified every member of ArbCom and then Jimbo before even talking to me. Ravi has proceeded to badger me and numerous other editors, even resorting to personal attacks comparing me to Hitler, all in a campaign to order that his block be removed. I will not do so. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that RaviJames and R-1441 and Devraj5000 are accounts by the same person. I stand by my block. --Hemlock Martinis 04:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hemlock Martinis, I (as non-admin) agree with your assessment and actions. RaviJames was forum shopping on this and wouldn't accept the answers he was given by numerous people. He was cruising for a block which I see Grandmasterka gave. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 04:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Even if the story is 100% true, for our purposes meatpuppets = sockpuppets. Therefore, block = good. — Scientizzle 15:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Do not be fooled by the terms. "Meat" and "socks" are made of the same material. They are all made of plastic and all smell like plastic. There are no fibers and no flesh indeed. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

PlotCrock (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) fit the pattern of the sockpuppets listed at User:Squirepants101/Danny Daniel. The username is in CamelCase. Some of the pages he recreated are just hoaxes may have been created by past Danny Daniel socks, including Carl and Earl (check the first version of the page to confirm this). Adds fake info that's related to the Jibbert Michart Macoy hoax. Uploaded an image that appears to have been made in MS Paint. Pants^(T) 04:09, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Based on the articles and the verbiage of the content therein, it looks like recreated Danny Daniel material. I've blocked under the Disruptive "throwaway" account used only for a few edits clause which states checkuser is not necessary, but if anyone wants to request one to confirm the sockpuppetry, no harm in it. --Kinu ^t/_c 06:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can someone look at Grandta Logan (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)? I think this is yet another sock of Danny Daniel. Wildthing61476 15:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He's (apparently) baa-ack! Could an admin please take a look at the sock report? His disruptions of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John C. Bambenek are getting... verbose. Again.  :-/ — Coren ^(talk) 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This user appears to be operating a "Disruptive throwaway account" used only for a few mass deletions and accusations. Out of a total 62 edits, 55 were used making false accusations against myself. The other 7 were making mass deletions of long-standing material to the Shakespeare Authorship Question article. The reasons seem to be as follows: 1) User is a staunch Stratfordian who has stated that the article in question shouldn't even exist. He has made several mass deletions of well referenced material.[24], [25], [26], [27] 2) Because I restored this material, the user has made personal attacks, false accusations and went so far as to make erroneous reports to over a dozen administrators.[28], [29], [30] For full disclosure I have allowed myself to be dragged into 2 edit wars/3Rs, for which I have great regret. In each case it was because staunch stratdordians were making mass deletions of properly referenced materials. I believe this user is again trying to draw me into a 3R revert. Instead, I am keeping my edits light and I am coming here for help.

I request this user be blocked or banned, whatever you feel is appropriate based on the behaviour and the pure mean-ness involved. Thanks for your consideration. Smatprt 06:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I claim that the user Smatprt is acting in the Shakespeare Authorship without consensus and for the past year has taken complete ownership of the article. He has already been blocked twice for 3RR violation [[31]][[32]] and he has a reputation for non-consensus in his editing on other forums. For example, on 13 May 2007 we find under the Shakespeare heading that "Smatprt is trying to delete all the arguments and information from Kathman's site while retaining all material published by non experts in non-scholarly, purely commercial presses" [[33]] and this one from a google search "You might like to take a quick look at the Shakespeare plays, where a certain Smatprt has taken it upon himself to perform mass restoration of the tags ..." [[34]]. It is his custom when confronted to file a report on the Administrator's noticeboard blaming his accuser. The following example resulted in no block.[[35]] There is also evidence that he is operating under a sockpuppet BenJonson (see Shakespeare Authorship discussion). You might like to obtain the testimony of the following users mandel, barryispuzzled, Paul_Barlow, alabamaboy. I should like to see a substantial block inforced. (Felsommerfeld 11:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC))

Actually, I believe I have filed, at most, 2 or 3 reports in the last 12 months. Each was on an editor who was making mass deletions of referenced material, and then edit warring (like Felsommerfeld and hangemhigh) to keep their deletions intact. Your edits are similiar - deletions of material without any discussion - and that is the cardinal rule around here I thought. Regarding the Kathman edits, please refer to the William Shakespeare page discussion, as Kathman's website has indeed been declared NOT a reliable source. REgarding your 3 referenced users - Barry and Paul have certainly proven just as argumentative and controversial, however Alabamaboy, being a respected administrator, probably has the best outlook on this. BTW - in spite of being told by several non-aligned editors that I am no sockpuppet, Felsommerfeld is still making unfounded accusations. I think this speaks volumes.Smatprt 13:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm the main contributing editor of the Peter Nordin page. I have been trying to develop that page as well as related content pages for about a month. But I have a few editors who have been stalking me, posting numerous tags, deleting content based on misinterpretation of rules, engaging in revert wars to keep their tags in place, etc. - basically doing a lot to hinder the process. User:N has engaged in the most harassment, and has just reverted two tags that were deleted; after I waited some time for a response to RfC on the tags. One is clearly harassment: he claims a profile is "written like a resume" because he finds some overlap between information in a profile about a notable professional person and information that can be found in a resume. The fact that both contain information about a person's career seems to escape him - but the rude fact is that The tag plainly contains the suggestion of a conflict of interest - with a link directly to that - as if it's a self-biography: which it is not. The second tag (sections) amounts to a poorly expressed POV, but User:N demands that it remains. With weeks of experience with User:N, it is clear that the intent is to be forceful rather than collaborative. (See final paragraph below.)

User:N previously made a false sockpuppet accusation (in archive) and made it stick with additional false information (that one's still not cleared up, as the admins who checked it made it clear they weren't interested in the facts or the rules - another story?). He then immediately used the accusation to discredit me in a dispute about the use of a fair-use image on the page's discussion page (archived). User:N has stalked me to the point of finding my comments in other discussions - for example, when I tried to discuss biography classifications at the biography portal, and was rudely interferring. User:N also redirected stubs for pages on individual robots (Elvis_(robot), Elvina_(robot), Priscilla_(robot)) to a project site, rather than allow for development of the pages. This seems supported by User:Nadav1, who is himself a self-appointed overseer of all the pages that I work on. I accepted the redirect, at least temporarily, because all the extra work of battling these guys has not left me with time to work on them. But redirection rather than remaining as a stub, eliminates the possibility that another editor (maybe there's one out there interested in these robots) might become interested.

User:Mats Halldin is also engaging in the fun - finding his way around to the pages I have worked on and those I have tried to get going. (You'll also find his editing at Peter Nordin, for example.) He's started a notability challenge going at Institute_of_Robotics_in_Scandinavia_AB. This was an "under construction" page until he removed the "under construction" tag and placed the notability challenge tag in its place. I've spent so much time working against these hinderences that I did not have time to work on the construction of this page. So, now I've placed a stub tag on it instead. I've tried to discuss the situation with User:Mats Halldin on the talk page, but he made a rude comment in response and put his tag back on the page.

On the Peter Nordin page, these two editors have deleted 41 references to relevant published material (citing a rule that did not match) and a list of corporate spin-offs (common to this type of article) - and now complain that the article content may not have sufficient supporting references.

The aim of these editors seems to be to delete page content until articles are insufficient to remain, or simply to place so many hinderances in the path so that new pages cannot be created successfully. They have not been collaborating / contributing on the development of any of the articles; merely throwing up road blocks and bullying. My attempts to reason with them have always met with the same attitude in response. They regard themselves as superior editors, letting me know that I am inferior and must do what I'm told.

--Rogerfgay 09:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling other editors "sneaky vandals" is not very good practice. From what I can see, the Peter Nordin article really does need a lot of work on tone, and is written much like a CV. The tag will help call attention to other editors who will help to fix it. Don't be offended by maintenance tags, they help attract attention to needed work. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 10:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rogerfgay has engaged in tireless antagonizing of anyone who criticizes or suggests improvements for the Peter Nordin article... (see the talk page where he's filed a ridiculous 4 RFCs, mostly over basic cleanup tagging). I would suggest anyone use extreme caution when listening to his version of events. --W.marsh 13:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's not forget the big stink over the Nordin image at WP:FUR: [36]. howcheng {chat} 16:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Uber-troll Dragong4 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), who has also edited under the permanently blocked Zabrak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is continuing to edit/troll/vandalise/npa under the new account - Zephead999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). User has not refrained from uncivil trolling, personal attacks and vandalism which got his other accounts blocked. 156.34.216.32 10:34, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe this is correct, but from past experience trying to evaluate suspected sock puppets of banned editors, it is difficult to be certain. The similarity of this diff by Zephead999 and this diff by Dragong4 is a strong indicator of pattern vandalism. Shalom ^Hello 17:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jojopie User:Rotflmao User:Dodopie User:Fofopie User:Jewb User:JEWB SUCKS!!!!

All seem to be related, in that they all have similar user pages or (my mistake — only one has a userpage) are editing each other's pages and have similar edits (vandalism varieties on the form 'u have lupus'). It's not entirely benign, either, as both Jojopie and Dodopie have already got vandalism warnings (Dodopie is up to a last warning from me). Rotflmao's only edit is to Dodopie's user page (diff). What should I do, if anything? Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if these are related: user:Jewb, user:JEWB SUCKS!!!!. Maybe time for a checkuser, they all seem to be vandalising only. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I noticed them earlier but forgot about them. I'll have a go at writing them all up for a case at Suspected Sockpuppets, I guess. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 11:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A suspected sockpuppetry case has been opened with respect to several of the above users. Evidence, comments and conclusions may be seen at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Dodopie. Angus Lepper^{(T, C, D)} 12:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The has been an active contributor to Paris-based articles for over two years now, but has profited from the low-contributor input on the same to force certain inventive propos of his own as fact. The right or wrong of this doesn't matter here; my concern is this contributor's habit of knee-jerk revert-warring to "protect" his propos (in ingnorance of all reason and references) in any way possible, even resorting to sockpuppetry to get "his word" in place. One can also add calculated slander and other manipulative behaviour to the list.

The list of suspected sockpuppets can be found at Category:Suspected_Wikipedia_sockpuppets_of_Hardouin. All have at one time or another reverted to 'to the letter' former versions written by User:Hardouin, and one of these has even been blocked after breaking (circumventing? Don't remember) the WP:3RR rule to 'protect' the same. Most of this revolves around the use of one term, and changes are most always to the same.

The list of coincidences is too overwhelming - how can a newly-registered user come to one page only hours after an edit to the same to revert it to a former version written... by someone else? And this repeatedly, to the same articles? One of these puppets have been proven with the help of User:Green Giant and an admin, but the rest are similar to a point of being far beyond suspect. Cheers. THEPROMENADER 11:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to cross-post this at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Hardouin (which does not yet exist). I need to see all the userlinks lined up before I can evaluate the allegations. Shalom ^Hello 12:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Good luck, folks. This appears to be a very complicated case. Shalom ^Hello 12:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Does this warrant talkpage protection? He's been going along the same, multi-{{unblock}}, trolly, POINTy path that his sockpuppets have gone along.--Rambutan (talk) 12:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you can protect the talk page. He clearly shows no signs of remorse or cooperation, and the diff counts as a personal attack. Shalom ^Hello 12:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't; I'm not an admin! Could someone else?--Rambutan (talk) 12:15, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait guys. This report doesn't prove anything. Most probably he was playing w/ all those socks but isn't this IP 86.6.19.155 hailing from Southampton, Britain instead of France? Could it be the case of someone trolling on his account? I haven't fallowed this case but maybe you can correct me. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 12:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The thing is, the name "France" doesn't imply that he's French, first of all. Now, Dwrules' excuse for having the same IP address as a known Doctor Who sockpuppeteer who gripes a lot about being blocked and uses {{unblock}} far too much was that he bought a computer. This is really lame, not least since a physical computer doesn't affect the IP address. They all exhibit very similar behaviour. And, three or four admins have all agreed this, so it seems that he is a sock. Anyway, personal attacks after blocking are a bit rich, and as for someone hacking his account: they've got the same (poor) writing style as him!--Rambutan (talk) 12:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough though i don't know why CU could neither deny nor confirm the sockpuppetry. I am not sure if the CU tool is efficient in terms of accuracy and speed of dealing w/ request especially that usually there are only a dozen each time. But that's another story. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 13:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Quack quack. Will ^(talk) 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite. So could we protect his page?--Rambutan (talk) 15:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's OK, Riana's protected it. Thanks, everyone.--Rambutan (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

This user contributes primarily to try and promote his own 'record company' (which in turn seems to simply promote his own unreleased records). His article on his 'label' Pro-Active Recordings has been deleted before in Jan 07 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pro-Active Recordings) and as such, given no notability in the revised version, i placed a speedy delete tag on it.

The user keeps removing the tag {{db-repost}} from the top of his page, against WP rules (and the instructions in the box). He has done this 6 times today, despite warning.

Would it be possible for his User ID and IP (86.149.123.64) to have a temporary block put upon it to allow this AfD discussion to occur please? I imagine a day or two would be sufficient?

Many thanks

Owain.davies 13:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

For now this seems to be a stale issue. The page has been deleted as CSD G4, and the user has not recreated it again, nor has he made any other edit since July 8. A block is not necessary. Shalom ^Hello 17:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I noticed a couple of my watchlisted pages had SummerThunder sockpuppet tags changed to indicate that they are now socks of established users [37], [38] by Ska2kd (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). I've reverted these and Ska2kd's other contributions. I'd normally take this to WP:AIV, but all the vandalism was from several hours ago. Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• Indef blocked, thanks. NawlinWiki 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Warned for now. I am almost sure the account will get blocked as well as the only purpose of its existence on earth is tagging socks. Let's give it a few minutes and see. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I protected the user pages, too. I think protecting the user pages of tagged sockpuppet pages for him is going to need to be standard practice. -- Gogo Dodo 15:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So a user, now indeffed, posted welcomes with a shock image to several new user talk pages. The image is deleted, but when I look at the diffs of the pages, I can still see the image. I'm trying to delete those versions of the pages, but I'm confused about why I can still see the image in the diffs. Shouldn't it be a redlink? I don't think the new user's he posted it to should have this in their talk page history. Do not look at the diffs if you are not in the mood to be totally grossed out User's contribs: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Goingalso Dina 14:26, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

A cache issue? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

oh dear, perhaps. Dina 14:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not unless it's a server cache, because I could see it, too (suicide victim--horrible). These should be expunged. Why not delete these new user's pages? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am suspecting that the users this user was welcoming are jut socks. Al lof them got a 0 contribs till this moment. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 14:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Not Nice. Not a local cache issue. File is at commons - is this the issue?Pedro |  Chat  14:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Must be deleted there. I suggest contacting an admin with rights over there as well and deleting those revisions under CSD G3. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

How do you tell if an image is on commons? Dina 14:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Um, quite easily apparently. Dina 14:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've requested speedy deletion and notified the Commons AN. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I just checked and it's gone there now. Dina 14:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome. I've gone through and deleted some of those... "tainted" revisions. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

RJ CG (talk · contribs) (previously 206.186.8.130 (talk · contribs)) seems to be a single-purpose account created for edit warring and (occasionally racist) POV pushing ([39], [40]).

He is constantly using threatening edit summaries or calling other editors vandals and their edits vandalism ([41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49]).

Furthermore, he also often violates copyright guidelines by pasting material from various copyrighted sources (for example, [50] is from [51], [52] is from [53]). It seems that quite often he doesn't actually read his own sources before pasting text from them - or editing something, claiming it is not supported by sources ([54] (my edit), [55]).

User has been repeatedly warned - and before registering also blocked. His edits are a long list of reverts, repeatedly violating 3RR in progress.

Sander Säde 14:52, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• PDTantisocial (talk · contribs)

I just blocked this user. There was a discussion here. A request to the user was posted at User_talk:PDTantisocial#Fair use rationale. The user's response is here. Since the most recent activity was incivility directed at me, I wanted a second opinion on the block to make sure it is reasonable. The block was primarily a preventative measure due to the user's unwillingness to use proper fair-use rationales. PDTantisocial was persistently violating WP:NFCC, and promised to continue violating it. This makes unnecessary extra work for others, whether they try to bring the image descriptions in line with policy or have the images removed. Sancho 15:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I think an indefinite block is too severe because this is a productive editor (I scanned his contribution log) who happens to think the copyright policy of Wikipedia is overly stringent. This is his third block, and I understand the idea of "three strikes you're out." However, if I were making the call, I would have chosen a very long definite block - say, a month or two - and if he's still interested then, he can get one last chance to follow the rules. Shalom ^Hello 16:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
• Okay, I can lessen it to a shorter definite block. The reason I chose indefinite was to leave it up to the editor to decide how long the block would last by letting them indicate that they will change their behaviour. I'll wait around for maybe one more comment before shortening the block. Sancho 18:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And yes, I agree that he is very productive when not uploading images. I want to stop this editor from editing for the smallest amount of time possible. Sancho 18:30, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Could another administrator block STEALTH RANGER (talk · contribs) for disruption, incivility, and personal attacks? I would do it myself, but he seems convinced that I'm on a power trip and am the only one finding his behaviour inappropriate. He got upset when I removed a fair use image on his user page,[56] and then when I made some legit modifications to articles he visited.[57] [58] Diffs:

• General disruptive behavior: [59] [60] [61] [62] [63]
• Personal attacks/insults: [64] (Apparently a Klingon insult) [65] [66] [67] (This is with respect to my university's user box, which only says I am "affiliated" with my university)
• Threats: [68]
• Incidents where he compares me to Hitler or the Nazis: [69] [70]

He has been warned for personal attacks already[71] and shows no real intent to stop insulting anyone who disagrees with him. This type of incivility and abuse is ridiculous.-Wafulz 16:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My, that is a lot of incivility. I've left a message at his userpage with a pretty clear set of diffs as to what about his behavior is unacceptable. I tried to be concise, certainly most of the above diffs could be substituted as examples of unacceptable discourse; to me at least the selective editing of Wafulz's comments is the most serious matter. I'd like to see his response to this warning. Continued actions along this vein will be grounds for blocking.--Isotope23 17:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Just an addendum: This type of behaviour isn't limited to me- it's basically anyone that "crosses" him. After the result of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Superhero Captains, he added this to his user page. He's been extremely hostile since he started here (take this and this as evidence).-Wafulz 17:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Can anyone, please, mediate or check the edits on Safavid dynasty page. It's impossible to do any form of research or contribution to this article, because of User:Hajji Piruz and User:AlexanderPar, acting in tandem. The latter simply removes [72], the sourced material, citing disagreement with one reference and removing two as well as innocent translation of the title to a related language. It takes time to pull out the references and contribute to the article and User:AlexanderPar does not demonstrate any good faith or willingness to discuss. Please, also check Talk:Safavid dynasty for edits by User:Hajji Piruz and contributed quotes by myself, which are just impossible to integrate into article due to this POV/OR obstruction of any effort to contribute resources. Atabek 16:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Willingness to discuss? I have been discussing the issue on the talk page[73], Timurids and Ilkhanids were Mongols, and not related to Safavids at all, so that quote is irrelevant, and inaccurate.AlexanderPar 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You have removed two sources from the article, not just Oberling. Discussion is usually two-ways, meaning you wait for response or read and come to agreement, not immediately go to editing the article. It's impossible to edit the article in this way, so that's why the attention of ANI is needed. I will not touch this article, which is turned into POV/OR mess, until administrators or arbitrators resolve the issue with certain contributors trying to obstruct the contributions and research on topics. Atabek 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

When I see an inaccuracy, I correct it, after providing a rational on discussion page. It's an undisputed fact that Ilkhanids were Mongols. Please assume good faith, and do not make accusations like "AlexanderPar is acting in tandem with X or Y" or "AlexanderPar does not demonstrate any good faith". Thanks. AlexanderPar 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

General comment: Part of the dispute, as I see it, is regarding the inclusion of the translation of the title. Translations should only be included if the alternate-language translation is directly relevant to the subject (e.g., in the article for Munich, the German equivalent is provided). If there is no such direct relevance (as "innocent translation iof the title to a related language" implies), translations into alternate languages should not be included. I do not know how that principle applies in this case. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That principle does apply in this case, Safavids are a famous dynasty of Persia, their official court language was Persian, and they are regarded universally as sovereign monarchs of Persia, so the modern Azerbaijani language is quite irrelevant in this case, as the country of Azerbaijan was not established for centuries after Safavids' fall.AlexanderPar 17:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As the page clearly shows, the dynasty was Azerbaijani-speaking, originated from Azerbaijan, first came to power in Azerbaijan, used Azerbaijani as its court language, and has relevance to Azerbaijani history as ruled on the territory of this country as well. Again due to obstructions and POV/OR pushing it's impossible to present impartial evidence to support any form of editing on this article, as even sourced material is being simply reverted or removed without proper discussion. Atabek 17:29, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, this matter does not require any administrative intervention. There is no edit warring (yet) that would require protection and no actions that justify a block. I recommend continuing discussion on the article's talk page and, if necessary, pursuing dispute resolution. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The user is clearly removing sourced material from the article, and taking advantage of the fact that he is not (yet) restricted by ArbCom parole. Does there need to be a revert war to see this and ask the contributor to respect others' opinions? How about research time it takes to find references and contribute to articles? Atabek 18:18, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See this diff. Can the diff be deleted entirely? Joie de Vivre° 17:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've deleted it, and I'll request that it's oversighted. Cheers, WilyD 17:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I blocked the IP for 24 hours and have bookmarked his/her contributions page to monitor potential future vandalism. -- Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the prominence of Portal:Current events, this is a rather urgent matter. There is currently an anti-Israel POV pusher at Portal:Current events/Sidebar, who insists on adding "Israel's nuclear program" to the sidebar with no reason. It currently isn't a current event, nor is it being actively discussed worldwide. See also. The name of the user, Fâtimâh bint Fulâni (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), suggests that the user is Muslim (see bint). She has been warned about it, and this is fast becoming a POV revert-war. Admin intervention required. – Chacor 14:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

See this message. The fact that the user emphasises that this were her first edits (and yet seems to have a good grasp of NPOV) is highly suspicious to me, because no user would emphasise "notice these are my very first edits", as if that clears them of any policy violation. – Chacor 15:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Further, and in contradiction of WP:AGF but following the doctrine of WP:DON'T AGF WHEN IT'S A BLATANT SOCK the user page seems rather elaborate and well structured for a self proclaimed newbie. Pedro |  Chat  15:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it might be possible the user has been active in other language variants of wikipedia before registering and editing here. There is not enough evidence that would warrant sockpuppet suspicion, I could not find "similar" edits by other editors that are now blocked or something. --TheDJ (talk • contribs) 18:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It is rude to talk behind someone's back.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 16:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To TheDJ - Yes, you are very right. My apologies to Fâtimâh bint Fulâni for my lack of faith. As regards to talking behind someone's back it's a pity that Chacor did not notify you that this was being brought to ANI but I believe his/her initial request for intervention still stands. Pedro |  Chat  19:52, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I am active on the Spanish Wikipedia. Are there any major differences in this version?--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 00:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, what does my faith have to do with this? What a silly poisoning of the well.--Fâtimâh bint Fulâni 21:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

added by HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC) -->

There seems to be a long-going edit war on this page; at least one of the editors has been warned several times before for edit warring there. Both are now at 3RR point - for the umpteenth time.--Rambutan (talk) 17:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked G2bambino for 24 hours as he was warned for the same thing two days ago. I've warned Lonewolf BC as he's received no warnings. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:07, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Scrap the above, I've blocked Lonewolf BC as well now as he had been warned but removed the warnings. Ryan Postlethwaite 18:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

in addition, some vandal fiddled with a couple related articles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/86.129.118.185 --Rocksanddirt 18:26, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked the vandal for 24 hours. Walton^One 19:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, not resolved, I'm sorry to say: Gbambino was right back at it today. Please, in handling this, take the time to see who has really been doing what, and how much. -- Lonewolf BC 23:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oops. My mistake. I see this continuation already is noted twice, below. -- Lonewolf BC 23:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Feddhicks (talk · contribs) is an obvious sock of banned user Dereks1x. Their editing style, politics, and the timing of the account creation all reveal puppetry. What caps it, though, is explained in a comment I made here. Feddhicks claims I was reverting him at the Barack Obama article, when, in fact, I've hardly touched the article in over two months and have never reverted Feddhicks as far as I know (I was, however, reverting Dereks1x and his other socks at that article and others). The user has an extensive history of puppetry. Since Feddhicks is clearly a sock, and since I would be here requesting a block review if I blocked him myself because of my involvement in discussion with him, I'm here asking for someone else to do the honors. Thanks. · jersyko talk 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, I pulled the trigger. Please review my block of Feddhicks as an obvious sockpuppet of Dereks1x. I am requesting this review given my involvement in the discussion at the Obama FAR. · jersyko talk 19:50, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Block is inappropriate because administrator is having a content dispute here [[74]]. Unblock request was denied by another person also engaged in the same discussion. This is conflict of interest being done by 2 administrators. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

N.B., this is HappyFarmerofAsparagus' 10th edit to Wikipedia. · jersyko talk 20:30, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I have been here for months, do not blabber needlessly, and nobody else on AN/I has a problem with me. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I never said I had a problem with you, I said that was your 10th edit. Am I wrong? · jersyko talk 21:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

HappyFarmer might be "new", but he is right about the fact that both Jersyko and Zscout are involved in a content dispute with the blocked editor. That said, a surface pass over Feddhicks' contributions shows that s/he's a bit problematic to deal with. I provisionally endorse, but someone outside of the debate over the Barak Obama FAR should have made the block. A Train^talk 21:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing on the linked page which indicates a content dispute involving either Zscout or Jersyko and Feddhicks. Corvus cornix 23:18, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully, A Train - "HappyFarmer" is not correct about ZScout. Correct me if I am wrong, but ZScout is not involved in any dispute that I can see with the sock Feddhicks, and his support of Jersyko's block is therefore not irregular. Here are ZScout's edits on the Obama FAR:

• identifies some free images he has found
• asks which image is being discussed by a different editor
• agrees with SandyGeorgia that comments might belong on talk rather than FAR main
• trying to find out what this FAR is about

Note, please, that Feddhicks' FAR request had nothing little to do with images - ZScout was replying to something raised by someone else, and it wasn't a dispute. There was no conflict with Feddhicks that I see, and ZScout's involvement in the FAR was minimal. Unless I am missing something, ZScout's stepping in to support the block is completely legitimate.

HappyFarmer, however, does not seem to be as legitimate. Not only was this only his 10th edit, the timing of his appearance on AN/I is at least something that one might question - especially if you've had any dealings with the way Dereks1x's socks operate.

• 19:49 UTC Feddhicks was blocked.
• 19:54 UTC Feddhicks asks for unblock.
• 20:04 UTC ZScout affirms the block
• 20:22 UTC HappyFarmer starts editing at AN/I, his tenth career edit, and the first time he has edited at AN/I (a surprising place for a new editor to land). He makes two quick edits and his third is this one attacking the block and the refusal to unblock with erroneous information. Having dealt with Derkes1x's many, many socks before, I would say that this pattern at least raises a question in my mind about Happyfarmer.

And finally, there is no doubt in my mind at all: Feddhicks is yet another disruptive sock of Dereks1x's, as evidenced by his editing style, the content arguments he chooses to pursue, his edit summaries, his methods of dispute resolution, etc. The block is completely correct. Tvoz |talk 23:21, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm convinced enough to request a checkuser, which I've done. MastCell ^Talk 23:46, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I came on the Obama FAR because I was browsing other featured content pages at the time. Anyways, I tried to figure out what the problem with the image was, and saw some of the sock puppet issues. I wanted to focus mainly on the picture issue (which those involved in the FAR can see me on my talk page), but I agree with what MastCell was done with the checkuser. I am just backing up a fellow administrator. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Color me convinced. Endorse block, for what it's worth. A Train^talk 02:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• CU results are in. Kwsn^(Ni!) 02:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Voyage of the Damned (Doctor Who) has had several red-links in the cast-list, which were removed. I protested. I then created the articles, and the links have been removed twice. What's wrong with linking to articles that exist, of actors in an episode?--Rambutan (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

"Cackling in edit summaries is proof of vandalism." Eh... —Kurykh 19:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, quite. But I can't replace them (3RR).--Rambutan (talk) 19:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Ram has a habit of using passive agressive behaviour to mask his own poor behaviour on here. I am no longer involved in the editing on that page at the moment. There is much more here but I am not childish and will no longer be engaging this rather tiresome individual who consistantly shows poor faith in others.AlanD 19:57, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No, you twice removed the links. Why?--Rambutan (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

They've been put back now, anyway, so it don't matter.--Rambutan (talk) 20:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Once new article are written, I can't see why links are not ok. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

As another editor on that article, I have tried reasoning with Rambutan as well, and that wore me out. It started with putting ref links to every announced actor where one would have sufficed. With every action I or others take, he demands that policies be cited to justify our edits, even when removing some red links. Then he created some rather poor stubs of of not so notable actors so he could link to them, just to make a point. Considering Rambutan's block log, he has a history of going against consensus. Now I and AlanD have to justify ourselves here. He needs coaching, but I'm not up for it. --Edokter (Talk) 20:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How is creating articles disruptive to Wikipedia?--Rambutan (talk) 09:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am willing to coach. I haven't formed an opinion of who is bad or good. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:59, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

It's good of you to offer to help, HappyFarmer, but maybe you should wait until you've been around for a few months and are more familiar with the way things work around here. A Train^talk 21:02, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I think it's obvious from his or her edits that he or she has some experience. Whether or not he or she should intervene in this particular dispute is another matter on which I have no comment. --ElKevbo 21:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I am very old, nearly retirement age. I remember the days when I used a slide ruler. That was before calculators, which was before computers, which was before Blackberrys. I don't play childish games, not to imply that this guy or that guy is childish. Usually, I just watch wikipedia, not edit. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 21:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

In response to the points above, I don't have a history of flouting consensus. Perhaps you could explain how the block-log displays this fictional trait? I don't want or need coaching: if articles exist, they should be linked. It's so simple. It's not vandalism to link them, it's vandalism to remove them.--Rambutan (talk) 09:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They didn't exist. You created them as stubs just to use the point against the editor. He removed them because they were redlinks, and gave you reasons for doing it. You ignored him and are trying to toss it back in his face with this ridiculous case. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 10:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I created them to make a point, but I didn't disrupt by doing it - I helped the encyclopedia.--Rambutan (talk) 10:56, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're still violating the spirit of the rule by doing it, and it's disruptive to edit war over redlinks in the first place. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 20:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have clicked on some of the blue links on this page. Some of the articles may need fleshing out a bit but I think they should be left there along with the blue links, it may act as impetus for other users to add more details about the actors concerned. Kelpin 10:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

To make it clear, it is not vandalism to remove links, nor is it vandalism to add them in good faith. Awareness of this, this and this is needed... --Dark Falls ^talk 10:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan's block log and other actions on the article are completely irrelevant here. AlanD's removal of internal links, calling them "over citing" and "vandalism" is a mistake that makes very little sense at all until we see that on the talk page some users are talking about internal links and citation notes as though they were the same thing. There is no consensus to remove red links to articles that should be created, much less blue links to cast members, so the only question here is whether the articles deserve to exist at all. So unless they are worthy of deletion, the links should be left alone. JPD (talk) 12:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What JPD wrote. Creating articles for notable actors is a good thing. Jimmy Vee at least seems notable. Adding links between articles is a good thing - not excessive ones, but surely if a person's name is mentioned in an article, we should have at least one link to our article for that person. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Jaranda seems to be on a speedy-delete spree right now, abusing the speedy delete process and not giving users a chance to fix any perceived issues. He is speedy-deleting articles minutes after creation, checking his talk page it is obvious that some of the articles should not have been speedy deleted, and some should not have been deleted at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RandomStuff (talk • contribs)

Speedy delete is meant to be speedy, thus the name. Please provide specific examples of articles you believe Jaranda has deleted inappropriately and we will look into it. Vague complaints do not accomplish much, as it means nobody can verify what you're saying. Please be more specific. --Deskana (talk) 23:38, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The content article was North District Interama is Florida's second largest sewage treatment facility. address: 2575 N.E. 151 STREET NORTH MIAMI, FL 33161 latitude=25.91703722 longitude=-80.1497669, an external link and categories. Valid A1. As for the rest of the complains, most of them were valid speedies, one was recreated with sources, and one I undeleted. Thanks Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 23:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I created and was working on the article, it is the 2nd largest wastewater treatment facility in florida, and has other notable information that I was tracking down when you deleted the article moments after I created it. I was attempting to work on it when it was deleted minutes after creation (twice in a row), I could not re-create a third time with additional information without appearing to be abusing the system myself. My point remains valid despite the original information I entered being sparse: you should wait at least an hour after article creation if it has the potential to become more fleshed out, your deletion of some of the articles within minutes is an abuse of speedy-delete. By the way, since you live near the plant, I highly reccomend a tour if they are still doing that, it is a fascinating engineering accomplishment. --RandomStuff 23:56, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

How about a solution that benefits everyone. Create the article in your userspace, at User:RandomStuff/North District Interama for example, and if it appears to actually meet notability requirements, and is properly sourced, it can then be re-added to the mainspace. As it existed, there is no reason to restore the article. The deletion itself was valid. - auburnpilot talk 00:08, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

My 2 cents: wikipedia is built on collaberation, many times articles are started with sparse information as a stub and others contribute and the original author adds things as they find it. This speedy deletion of stubs immediately after creation loses some of the benefit of crowdsourcing. I still think there should be more patience with stubs, giving the creator the benefit of the doubt and other members of the community a chance to contribute. --RandomStuff 00:28, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You can also use the {{inuse}} template if you are still working on an article. I doubt if an article so tagged would be speedied. I use it a lot (but I prefer to write a whole article before posting it.) Thanks, Antandrus (talk) 00:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Or you could just, you know, wait until you have an actual article before posting it. JuJube 22:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel became very agitated when the line about Joseph Smith being Registrar and Mayor of Nauvoo on his entry on List of Freemasons was removed by User:Blueboar, going so far as to tag Blueboar with a vandalism warning twice (see User's talk). Watchtower asked for a poll, and his position was not supported, mainly because "founder of LDS Church" was already listed in the entry, and that is far more notable than anything else. The entry is also properly wikilinked, so it's not like more information cannot be had. Watchtower is apparently still not satisfied, and the argument has become NPA, baseless argument, and threats of vandalism in this section of talk over what is basically an unsupportable position. While I have no idea why there's even an issue, I'd like some action taken given the spurious vandal tags and threats. MSJapan 16:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of aggresivity in this user behaviour. I've seen the warnings at Blueboar's page but decided to wait and see if the situation would calm down. I think the user needs to calm down and start to discuss things in a calm way especially that he says that he is not a newbie. I'll do my best to calm him. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help on this... I have tried to explain to the user (on his talk page) why this isn't a case of vandalism, and I am happy to discuss the underlying issue with him at the article talk page. I expect that it is simply a matter of a user being unhappy that something he added was removed. Will keep you informed. Blueboar 17:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Please see my latest proposal at Talk:List_of_Freemasons. Before I came there was completely no information about Smith. Then I added that he was the first Prophet of the Mormon religion and founder of the Latter Day Saint movement. I also gave the information that he was registrar of deeds, country court judge and mayor. This bullyish gang of self-proclaimed freemasons, instead of thanking me for the information, deleted an entire line of what I posted without any discussion or notification. And that is why I vandal tagged the editor the first time. The second vandal warning was placed when he reverted the second time after only a few minutes of gathering consensus. If it is only a numbers game then I can just easily inform every single Mormon on board about my predicament and they will be all over the place. But I don't want to do that, I want these people to see the light of reason and stop their trigger happy and bullyish ways outside a gang war environment. Before I stumbled on the article there was absolutely nothing there on Smith, it appears as if they prefer placing his name there without any reason than citing something that he did to support notability. Now, they have retained half of my entry, saying that he was a religious leader, but he was also a political leader and they refuse to include that part of his personality there. These people are all part of one group and their comments should be treated as comments of just one person. It's simply meat puppetry. - Watchtower Sentinel 17:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure you want to make that accusation here? MSJapan 18:16, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not accusing anyone. I am stating an obvious fact. If I was merely accusing then I would have tagged you all as suspected meat puppets, but you are not suspects, you are confirmed meat puppets as anyone can verify from your edit histories. Everytime there is an issue you gang-up like the WP version of the 3 Stooges, only an absolute moron will disagree that you are meat puppets. And I have no problem about it as long as your actions are consistent with WP policy, but in this case they are not and so I have to interfere. - Watchtower Sentinel 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Watchtower Sentinel. I have also had dealings with the above editors. I would comment that, although I have on occasion disagreed with them, that I recognise that they are fine editors and follow the rules, policies and guidelines of Wikipedia to the letter. Moreover, I find your comments of "If it is only a numbers game then I can just easily inform every single Mormon on board about my predicament and they will be all over the place." and "you are confirmed meat puppets as anyone can verify from your edit histories. Everytime there is an issue you gang-up like the WP version of the 3 Stooges, only an absolute moron will disagree that you are meat puppets. And I have no problem about it as long as your actions are consistent with WP policy, but in this case they are not and so I have to interfere." as verging on threatening behaviour and personal attacks (including me). The editors are part of the Freemasonary Project, so it is very likely that they will both tend to agree with each other and comment on each others and project talkpages. I suggest that you read up on WP:Civil, and then address your concerns to the above parties in an appropriate manner (and far less inflammatory language). LessHeard vanU 20:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I find it interesting that Watchtower Sentinel comes back from a 3 month break from Wikipedia, makes a single edit that is partially reverted, and then blows up in such a manner that it gets brought to AN/I. Seems like someone has a grudge or a huge chip on their shoulder seeing as how a single edit has caused all this. The accusations of meat puppetry appear to have no merit. In reading through the various admin noticeboards, the Long Term Abuse section has a case involving WS. He's listed as a possible but not conclusive sockpuppet of NoToFrauds. I wonder where WS has been the last 3 months, and better yet, what account he's been editing under. Malson 21:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK... the snide remarks and personal attacks have now gone way over the top... I have tried engaging WS in a civil way, only to have insults thrown at me such as this. I am going to disengage before I end up retaliating... but I think a short block might be in order. Blueboar 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I went back through Watchtower's contribs prior to today's debacle, and I find him making similar arguments over an MfD CambridgeBayWeather started on a page of WS's: he calls for CBW to desysopped for "ignorance of policy" and says that CBW is "stretching policy for his own ends", an instance of canvassing here and here. He got hung up on User:Hamsacharya dan (and that Yogiraj whoever it was article that was a mess a while back) for a bit, to the point where he was named in an SSP (the one Malson notes above). Perhaps this Joseph Smith issue is simply an instance of a pattern of behavior, which is pretty bad as the account is only a few months old (14 March 2007, first four edits were reverts), and took a break. MSJapan 21:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

And a blatant NPA on FayssalF here, wherein WS states: "You seem to be clueless about everything that you're blabbing about, actually I doubt if you even speak English. No, I am not a new user." and "Calm down and take your nonsense to Iraq or wherever it is that you came from". NOW do you think perhaps he has overstepped some boundaries and should be blocked? MSJapan 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked for 1 week. I'd answer no question of his as i gave him one as my reason for blocking him for a week. It is summer time. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tmacfan543 (talk · contribs) Vandalised Chris Benoit page. Then left a vandalism notice on my talk page after I reverted his edits and warned him. All his edits seem to be vandalism.--Renrenren 18:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

He was indef blocked by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me before you filed this. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 18:05, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks. Can I delete the ridiculous vandalism notice he placed on my talk page? --Renrenren 19:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, in cases of blatant misuse like this, no one would object. I've gone ahead and removed it for you. -- JLaTondre 20:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks JLatondre.--Renrenren 20:14, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I need the article to be protected as 2 people keep removing POV templates that I and other editors feel must stay there to point out POV.Can someone here disable the editing options there as I have seen it can be done for other articles so Im hoping it's possible to do it here as well.-Vmrgrsergr 18:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Go over to WP:RFPP. Sasquatch t|c 19:20, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Labyrinth13 was permanently blocked for gross incivility at Talk:Max Headroom pirating incident and Talk:Broadcast signal intrusion. He/she has used this IP: 161.55.204.157 (talk · contribs) to evade the block. He/she also posted this incivil comment after I warned a user for vandalizing an article. He/she disruptively reverted a good faith edit I made to List of countries by number of active troops. Please take action on this disruptive user. Parsecboy 19:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Blocked 1 month as a block evading sock... or a meatpuppet impersonator.--Isotope23 19:59, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. Parsecboy 20:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Kurdking created the King Adam E article which was speedy deleted multiple times. He also repetitively uploaded the same unfree image used on the deleted article. I'd like to request admin intervention. -- Cat ^chi? 20:43, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Watchtower Sentinel, whose prior thread here was removed for some reason, and despite FayssalF's intervention, is engaging in PA through comments and edit summaries like thisand has made meatpuppetry accusations (both in the ANI thread, where he stated he was convinced of it) and here, all related to one line in List of Freemasons. His behavior (as evidenced here is well beyond acceptable limits at this point. MSJapan 20:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

The thread still exists, as I have commented on it there. LessHeard vanU 21:00, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

So it is. I must've missed it, otherwise I would've put this there. MSJapan 21:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously! ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:06, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See also thread immediately below Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[75] - A call for a "jihad" on the Cheri Yecke article. Corvus cornix 21:24, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I have no info about this person or her controversy, but the use of blogs to attack her isn't proper, but she seems to have hired an image consultant to keep the article about her free of controversy, even though there appear to be links in the history to newspaper articles which should be valid sources. Corvus cornix 21:27, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

You're mistaken on several points, I'll explain. ScienceBlogs, run by Seed Magazine, are on par with WSJ and Salon blogs, and have long been accepted as reliable primary sources at Wikipedia according to a number of admins including Geuttarda, JoshuaZ, FM, and KillerChihuahua. Yecke hired the image consultant not for this article, which would violate WP:COI BTW, but for one of the blogs. Odd nature 21:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, the information comes from Pharyngula (blog), which I had never heard of, as I said, I didn't know anything about this prior to seeing this edit war going on, but at least the Wikipedia article claims it's a high quality blog, I have no opinion on that subject. But what is the Austringer? Corvus cornix 21:39, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That's the blog of Wesley R. Elsberry, a well know professor and published expert on the intelligent design movement. He's also an editor here sometimes. Odd nature 21:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Austringer is Wesley R. Elsberry's personal blog. This is the site that the image consultant tried to get info removed from. The newspaper article references the site. It is used as a source for what Elsberry says happened next. Elsberry is a primary source for the news story. In the interest of completeness it's worth saying whether Elsberry complied with the request by the image consultant or not, and why he did or didn't. Thus, his blog (there's no doubt that the blog is actually Elsberry's) is a useful source to report what he had to say on the matter. Guettarda 21:51, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Larry Fafarman (talk · contribs) previously announced a campaign on his blog to edit war at a particular article, which he did, and now is seeking for support from meat puppets, which has happened: Announcing the edit war Recruiting meat puppets to help on his blog He's been conducting an edit war there and ignoring/misrepresenting policies there since Sunday, and within a few hours of posting his call for meat puppets a new anon started edit warring as well. Larry has been pointedly incivil as well. The background on Larry and the subject of the article is that Larry is an outspoken ID proponent has a reputation at most science blogs as an internet crank and has already been indefinately banned from most, which he ususally returns to troll as a sock puppet. The Wikipedia article he's targeted is of a fellow ID supporter running for office in Florida. There's been discusssion at Talk:Cheri_Yecke#How_to_handle_disruptive_editing about a ban according to WP:DE, and I support such a ban; his reply to that discussion was to post Seeking tag team members for edit jihad on his blog. Odd nature 21:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I've blocked him for now. Attempting to harass other users: Edit warring, personal attacks, disruptive editing, and encouraging meat puppetry is certainly enough for a block. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 21:32, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

• See thread immediately above Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:33, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Support block; nipping that disruption in the bud is a good thing.--Isotope23 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One day after #British monarchy edit war, it appears to be back on. I've given both G2bambino (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and TharkunColl (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) warnings for {{3rr}}, and it's cooled down for the moment. Could someone keep an eye on this? Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 21:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

These 2 are also slowly going back and forth at Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom

Could someone please deal with the backlog here? Perspicacite 21:57, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I blocked G2bambino yesterday for edit warring, less than 5 hours after coming off the block, he's already got another 3RR warning. The three revert rule doesn't entitle users to three reverts per day, especially after a block and a recent history of edit warring. I would have blocked for 72 hours, but as I blocked yesterday, it may be slightly wrong of me, so could someone else take a look? Ryan Postlethwaite 22:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on now. It's plain for anyone to see that the edits I made today were constructive and had nothing to do with the content of the dispute at Talk:British monarchy. User:TharkunColl is baiting for a fight by automatically reverting any edit I make, completely regardless of it's content or relevance to discussion elsewhere; he's abrasive, uncooperative, and seems to have a personal beef with anything I do at Wikipedia, following me from article to article to start a disruption. I stopped short of taking his bait today (two reverts at British monarchy, I'm sure you can count), so please don't start singling me out as either the instigator of any revert wars, or a key participant in one. --G2bambino 22:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They seem to have taken it to talk (admittedly, I'm involved, so take my advice with a grain of salt) so it may not be necessary at this time to do anything. I'm not sure further blocks will help the atmosphere - if nothing else happens today, and they don't indulge in the same back and forth stuff tommorow, I think it'd be more helpful to let it go. WilyD 22:25, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

They've taken it to talk? I don't think that is so, but that the warring is merely in abeyance because the daily "revert-ration" has been burned up (about 21:22). There was some unproductive discussion (see Talk:British monarchy#Unjustified reverts) starting shortly before the last pair of reverts, largely consisting of accusations and blaming and including a threat (which was carried out) by Gbambino to make a vandalism report (which was duly dismissed), and lasting about an hour, before Gbambino left, saying he had party to attend, and would carry on tomorrow.
I won't comment on the other party, since I got sucked into a similar scene yesterday, but Gbambino is carrying on just like before he was blocked.
-- Lonewolf BC 03:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a bit of disagreement between User:Reginmund and User:Squash Racket about whether 100-year old encyclopedia can be used as reference for archaic name Buda-Pesht in lead. This should go to 3RR, but it's late here and I am too tired to start writing two 20RR reports - sorry about this... – Sadalmelik 22:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

See also Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Budapest's one and only real name. --Masamage ♫ 22:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I warned them both for 3RR and proposed a solution at Talk:Budapest [76] that Reginmund seems to be ok with [77]. I'm not sure about Squash Racket though. Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 22:23, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Now they seem to be revert warring on each other's talk pages... This is just getting sad. --OnoremDil 22:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

TheKnowledge1814 (talk · contribs) has re-uploaded an image of Mariah Carey which they claim to own. The image was deleted once as a copyright violation. TheKnowledge1814 claims that he/she has sent proof to OTRS that they own the copyright. Whether they do or not, they've been making LOTS of personal attacks all over the place and somebody needs to start a mentoring program before TheKnowledge1814 get blocked for too many personal attacks. Corvus cornix 23:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. Can folks keep an eye on the Reference Desk for socks/IPs associated with the banned editor Light current (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)? He's been back harrassing people at the Science Ref Desk, as well as making a nuisance of himself on the Ref Desk guideline page and on the pages of admins and other editors who have been reverting his edits (see, for example, the history of User:DuncanHill: [78]).

He edits anonymously from IPs in the 88.108.x.x - 88.111.x.x range (It's a Tiscali UK DSL account), and has also been known to create an assortment of 'sleeper' sockpuppets to circumvent semiprotection.

For any admins in the UK, there is now an abuse report summarizing his six-month history of harassment and vandalism; it's waiting for review and for someone who can contact his ISP. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:11, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I usually monitor the RefDesk/Misc, so I'll keep an eye out there. --Haemo 01:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello all. I have been having a discussion with a new editor Czimborbryan (talk · contribs) over the last several days. I have been trying to gently explain to him why it is not acceptable for him to using his own website as a reference for articles. Since he started off by listing the site as a simple external link from several IPs diff, diff, etc., and still insists on including his own website as a reference for every bit of content he adds, and has become more and more vehement as he's told that it's not appropriate diff, it has become apparent that he's trying to promote his site. I have been trying very hard to assume good faith and not to bite, but my patience is worn thin and now he himself has asked for an "appeal". So here I am, sorry to have to trouble you all with this. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 01:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Sure, I'll talk to him. --Haemo 02:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Haemo. —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 02:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The user Unfreeride made racial edits to Model Minority. It isn't a blatant edit, but he has already been blocked for similar edits. He cited a reference from controversial book IQ and Global Inequality. I reported it to AIV but then, Daniel Case told me to bring it here. Thanks -Flubeca^Talk 02:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well. That makes of Unfreeride a BIG POV pusher. Sourced edits can't be seen as racial ones unless the editor is into WP:SYN. He uses weasel words like However, Chinese people in average have higher IQ than Vietnamese people, which does not support Klineberg's hypothesis.<ref....> WP:V?. He should be blocked because he recognized he added OR once. And also because he stated that he will never be blocked even if never quit. I now quit wikipedia. 2 weeks for 2 violations as 2nd block. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

"Open source identity", aka freely open role account. I suggest user be indef blocked, and possibly speedy the user talk page as blatantly advertising said open source identity. Confusing Manifestation 02:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I logged in and scrambled the password. Account is now useless. Viridae^Talk 03:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

And it looks like it has already been done for gmail. Viridae^Talk 03:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not surprised. Confusing Manifestation 04:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

A seemingly endless parade of anon editors keep adding extlinks to uffnet to several Usenet-related articles:

• Notable Usenet personalities (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Usenet‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

despite many editors' removing them on the basis of WP:EL, being off-topic per editors' consensus in the articles, and other reasons. Removals' edit summaries indicate consensus it doesn't belong (also started discussing on a talk page). Additions usually have no edit summary, and the anons ignore warnings. Uffnet seems to be some sort of ignore-all-internet-rules group. Seems like semi-protection of the pages would be a start. DMacks 05:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Symode09 (talk · contribs) was running Wikivandaltest2007 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), an account meant to vandalize to use in some sort of statistics because of the Nancy Benoit situation for some good press (I don't know, I don't really care). I've blocked the Wikivandaltest2007 account.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:09, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yet another frivolous RfC on MONGO: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/MONGO 3, this time by an obvious sockpuppet. It has been certified by two people and consequestly moved to "Approved pages" on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page. But isn't that formalism run mad? Does the community actually "approve"? I have moved the page from "Approved" to a new section I just created, Vexatious litigation, defined as a special section for frivolous RfCs on MONGO.[79] (Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, should one be brought, go in one of the other sections.) Comments? Bishonen | talk 15:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

I object. There was nothing frivoluous about this Rfc. These were serious violations of the norms of conduct that should be been clearly exposed and condemned by the community as unacceptable. That the evidence presented was quickly deleted is also disturbing. Esp. on the basis of some technicality that could have been easily remedied? Wikilawyering, and frivolity is what we have here by those who have suppressed a valid examination of a serious and ongong problem with Mongo on this article. I have nothing against him personally, but his behavior has been out of line. If a Rfc is deemed the incorrect approach to get the community to stand up and issue preventative measure to stop him from continuing it, then I take it an Arbitration case would be?Giovanni33 01:27, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

P.S. My re-structuring of the main RfC page has been reverted, well, fancy that.[80] Bishonen | talk 16:14, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

That seems just about right. To would-be Wikilawyers: if you wish someone to be more polite, be more polite to them. Eventually, they'll get the point. Filing an RfC as if it's a lawsuit will probably not have the effect you desire, and it might cause the community to think less of you. In this case, you didn't score any points in any column where you want them. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you were reverted. The Rfc is unsubstantiated. I was never informed by the filing parties on my usertalk or via email. No effort on my usertalk or via email has been made to work things out...just editors who toss out insults and evade admin warnings repeatedly and then when someone like me stands their ground with them and calls a spade a WP:SPADE they get hot and bothered. I do have a compliant board and had they simply come there and griped, they could have even possibly won a few terrific barnstars!--MONGO 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Which ED sock is it this week, one wonders? Corvus cornix 16:15, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting on a situation you didn't even bother to even glance at. --MichaelLinnear 07:17, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

What makes you think "I didn't even bother to glance at it"? I did, in fact, read the whole thing, and went to the RfC page to review that, and, once again, just see more of the same attacks againt a well-respected member of the Wikipedia community who has had to endure personal attacks and lies not only on Wikipedia, but spread throughout the Internet. Why would you feel the need to support the whining of brand new users who are obviously sock puppets with an axe to grind, over a well-known, well-respected, long-established member of the community? Corvus cornix 22:33, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually I largely agree with Mongo's concerns about the article. However the mudslinging by many different parties there is really too far. Nearly all are experienced editors who should know better, again many different people are at fault here. And smearing people as "ED socks" is out of line, a lie, and quite rude. --MichaelLinnear 02:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

And you know this new user is not an ED sock how? Corvus cornix 16:02, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I guess that's an offense of which people are guilty until proven innocent? Wikipedia:Assume bad faith! *Dan T.* 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

You said my assumption that a new user who just happened to find an RfC was probably an ED sock is a "lie". Prove it. Corvus cornix 22:31, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Its up to you to prove the positive assertion obviously, I thought it was far more likely it was a sock of a banned leftist of some kind. --MichaelLinnear 23:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Since it's clear that you have no intentions of apologizing for calling me a liar, I see no point in continuing this discussion. Corvus cornix 15:53, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I, in turn, have moved the page to "MONGO Ω", as it certainly seems more than the third or even thirtieth RFC against him. Will ^(talk) 16:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You know, the fact that this RFC was created by Seabhcan without ever having attempted to resolve the dispute (as required) could arguably be seen as a blockable offense under Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Seabhcan#Seabhcan_is_placed_on_personal_attack_parole. Thatcher131 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Lets not do that...I just hope he doesn't decide to go to arbcom as I believe it will be a really bad idea for all involved. I think the best thing to do is for all warring parties on the article in question take the weekend off from that place...I intend to...little is being accomplished in the talkpage there anyway...just a lot of mudslinging by all of us.--MONGO 16:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked. As was blatantly apparent from the RfC, the people creating this had no intention of trying resolve their differences with MONGO before going to RfC. They presented no evidence that they had tried to resolve their personal differences with him, other than a recantation of their farcical grievances. Uncertified RfC gets deleted. You have to actually resolve the dispute before resorting to mud-flinging. Moreschi ^Talk 16:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't fully understand, though these kind of processes are still kinda a mystery to me (I've never participated in an RfC before). I did not start this RfC and had not planned to do anything like that, but once it was started I signed on as being in agreement with the summary (and added a small piece of evidence) because in my opinion MONGO was behaving in a very uncivil fashion and not responding well to comments from users (including me) to tone down his rhetoric (I similarly asked a user on the other side of the debate to do the same thing on their talk page). MONGO should absolutely have been told about this and the fact that he was not is probably reason enough to cancel this thing (I did not realize he had not been informed), but I guess I do not see what the huge problem is beyond that. I don't see how one of the users who signed on to it is an "obvious sockpuppet" but maybe I'm missing something. Perhaps more effort could have been made to engage MONGO, but when I asked him on the article talk page to stop the incivility he told me to "not wikistalk my edits and stop POV pushing" while largely ignoring my complaint about his behavior (he was similarly non-responsive on his talk page regarding a separate issue, so it did not seem possible for me to work out anything with him, though as I said I would not have opened an RfC). Looking at my edit history I think you will see that I am a good faith user and nobody's sock nor an SPA. I agree with MONGO that it's best for all of us to take time off from the article talk page (most of us seem to be doing that) and perhaps an RfC would have just made things worse, but the manner in which this RfC was closed down (for example creating a special RfC section just for MONGO, and another editor moving the RfC title to "MONGO Ω" while posting a note on MONGO's talk page which says "They can't just shut the fucking hell up, can they?" and awarding him a barnstar) does not inspire a great deal of confidence in me as to how this was handled. If the RfC was set up poorly (particularly by not informing MONGO) I think it was shut down poorly too. I find these processes very intimidating and was reluctant to even sign on to this, but I found MONGO's behavior extremely problematic (unlike other users on the article talk page who were beginning to work together a bit) and wanted to try to do something about it because trying to communicate with him was not working. Unlike MONGO, I'm not well known with a bunch of friends here on Wikipedia, and don't particularly enjoy sticking my neck out like this, but I wanted to point out that it is possible to have issues with MONGO and not be a an ED sock or a troll or a habitual RfC filer etc. etc. I'm not sure if some of the folks who've posted here even read the basis for the dispute (including a comment MONGO made accusing a new anon editor of being anti-American simply because s/he apparently had an IP address from Brunei) but it was substantive in my opinion, which is not to say that I'm asking for it to be re-opened because I am not since I understand the problems with how this was filed. Thanks, and sorry for the lengthy post.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 17:43, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The truth of the matter is MONGO seems protected. He has created articles on many wildlife related places and as such as earned a status where he is not required to be civil to others. After reading over the past RfC's and RFaR's, which there are 4 total. It seems Wikipedia operates more on the buddy system then anything, being able to contribute over weighs hostility. I am apparently a sockpuppet because the intricacies of Wiki markup, you know adding a < and closing with a >, the very basic tenants of html are to be a mystery. I only hope I too can garner a large sum of edits so I can no longer be held accountable for attacking people based on their place of origin. You would think the existence of 4 total prior complaints would lead to someone questioning the overzealous hostility, I believe that is what Arbcom called it. --SixOfDiamonds 17:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Nuked as I was trying to endorse Bishzilla's outside ROAR, darnit. Regarding "protection" - I wish. Were he protected, he wouldn't have been de-sysopped for holding the line against POV pushing vandals and edit warriors, and oh yes - not being sweet enough to them as they ran roughshod over every Wikipedia policy in place. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Update: My creation of a special "Vexatious litigation" section for bad-faith MONGO RfCs on the Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User conduct page was reverted,[81] by User:.V., but has been reinstated[82] by User:Bunchofgrapes. It's still there now, two hours later ... so I'm allowing myself to hope the section will become a standing and useful feature of the RfC/User Conduct page. Perhaps it could accommodate other frivolous RfCs than those on MONGO, too? Please remember to place your bad-faith RfCs there and nowhere else. Bishonen | talk 18:31, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

Is this a productive line of dialogue? I mean, it's funny, and I understand the spirit in which you're working here, but are we actually addressing a problem in a way that will lead to a solution? Is "calling a spade a spade" actually helpful here? (Is it helpful ever?) -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:35, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is pretty sad people are honestly advocating here on Wikipedia, a global project, that it is ok for Mongo to call people "Anti-American" because of the country they are editing from. Its is disgusting that people would allow that to happen, and insult those who bring it forward. These are the types of things that end up giving Wikipedia a bad name, things that end up in news articles. --SixOfDiamonds 18:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sigh SixofDiamonds leave MONGO alone, that useless RFC you did and the comments you making here didn't doesn't help. Take your Point of View somewhere else. Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 19:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

So is Bishonen's "Vexatious litigation" section serious or just a joke? I'm asking in all seriousness because I cannot tell, and that is not good. Personally I find the phrase "Non-frivolous RfCs on MONGO, if any, go in one of the sections above" disturbing because the snippy phrase "if any" implies that there could not be a non-frivolous RfC against MONGO, which is obviously not true. I'm sure Bishonen did not mean to say it that way and maybe her creation of that section is largely tongue-in-cheek, but if so it's not particularly funny in my opinion. Bishonen's last comment does nothing to comfort me about how the deletion of the RfC went down, and I do feel some of the points I raised in my comment above are worthy of a reply from those who were involved in closing this out and changing the name to "MONGO Ω". In general I'm wondering if others feel if this is the way we should do business around here (i.e. making light of legitimate and serious complaints about user conduct, even if the original RfC was admittedly improper in certain respects). I'm asking about this in good faith and really would appreciate replies, if this is an improper thing to bring up in this venue let me know and I could discuss it on user talk pages. Thank you.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 19:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The "Update" above came out a little meaner than I intended it. I'm sorry. I guess I'll revert the "Vexatious litigation" section on the RfC page myself, if it's still there. Bishonen | talk 20:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC).

• It was reinstated, but I removed it again. .V. _[Talk|Email] 20:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Bishonen for your reply and mea culpa, no worries, and to V for removing the section on the RfC page. I guess we should just move on from this. Hopefully those of us working on the State terrorism by the United States article can work more civilly with one another in the future, otherwise I fear the same issues mentioned in the now-deleted RfC (and to be fair some of the concerns mentioned there probably apply to other editors besides MONGO, and on both sides of the issue) will come up again.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 21:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=State_terrorism_by_the_United_States&diff=142403955&oldid=142403728

MONGO's summary: "revert vandalism by anon IP, soon ot end up blocked...shoul we belive than an editor from Brunei Darussalam is not anti-American? I think not.". Note that the edit which was reverted was not vandalism, but a content dispute. 200.58.112.238 21:19, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps not a good edit summary, but that IP has 4 edits and not one to a talkpage and was adding contencious material (I and others disagreed with it) repeatedly. Please use your username.--MONGO 22:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Only perhaps!? It's not a question of it maybe not being a good edit summary--its clearly is a gross and unacceptable violation of policy that should have earned you a block. First, you call it vandalism, when the editor was actually restoring (not adding, as you claim) the long standing and most stable version, supported by various editors; he was removing the additions that went against consensus, added by UltraMarine. His edit was supported by many other long term, established editors. Thus, this was clearly a content dispute, yet you wrongly label it as vandalism. Surely you have been around long enough to know that is not appropriate. Add to that the bullying threat that he is "soon to end up blocked."

Secondly, and more serious, is the fact that you felt it necessary to do an IP search to discover this editors country of origin, and then make a personal attack on this editor based on his national origin—the country he happened to be editing from, as if that is relevant. Maybe you something against Brunei or its people (I don't know) but its very repugnant and ugly to display such prejudice openly, much less use it as the basis to attack an editor, i.e., attacking him on the basis of his national origin. That crosses any conceivable grey lines, and is not something to be tolerated anywhere, by anyone, at anytime. If you don't see how wrong what you did is (not just perhaps), then we have a serious problem (it also calls into question your fallacious reasoning process on these types of articles). Unless WP takes a strong stance against this behavior, per its rules, it shares in the complicity of allowing it to continue. If it becomes known that WP tolerates this kind of behavior, then it does immeasurable damage to the projects reputation.Giovanni33 00:49, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. I don't add anything ever that could conceivably be seen as contencious to articles about other countries. I have nothing against that country where those edits came from...the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S. to add such material. Claiming long term editors have more clout on material in article space is akin to saying you own the article, which you don't. I urge you to prove to me that you are here to incorporate neutral information into our articles and not misuse Wikipedia as a soapbox or advocacy platform for your cherry picked references to advance a position.--MONGO 04:21, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for a civil response. You say: "the question is, does that person have a beef with the U.S..." I disagree. That is not the question at all. It doesn't matter if an editor disagrees with US foreign policy or not (what I assume you mean by "beef with the US"). It's not our POV's that matters. Sure, we all have bias, but we should not let that get in the way--even if its reporting on political concepts and perspectives (i.e. the concept of State terrorism and the allegations that the US has been guilty of such practices) that we personally disagree with. But, why is that question presumptive based on the editors national origin? That remains unanswered. What does this editors nationality have to do with anything? You say you never add anything contintious to article about other countries. Well, what you wrote in that edit summary is an attack on the editor for being from another country, and therefore you are implying that merely being from that country makes the editor, in your mind, "anti-American" (whatever that silly term means). That is certainly a contentious (and irrational) written comment about another country and/or its people.

The fact is we have many subjects that are very contencious in nature, and there is nothing wrong with working on and adding such material, provided it means WP requirements of Verifability, Notablity, and Reliablity, among other sound policies. Among these other sound policies is assume good faith that is esp. important on such topics. Thus, I don't have to prove to you first that that my edits or participation are in good faith, that I'm interested in developing this project according to its goals, including this article in question, making it an educational and encyclopedic article that reports on these notable observations from various notable sources, using reliable referenced material--the only extent of my "cherry picking". I welcome all relevant POV's to balance the article provided it follows the same criteria, and is relavent to the subject matter.

It seems you are operating on a the wrong assumption: an editor does not need to first prove to you he is editing in good faith per policies, before you can consider if you want to treat him as a good faith contributor, and then be civil, etc. There is no such burden of proof. When there is an assumption to be made, (prior to proof one way or the other), then that assumption, per policy, is to assume its good. Otherwise, you will be excessively combative, and work to work with others, of other POV's (yes, including far leftists like myself. I've read your blog so I know you are quite right-wing, but that doesnt bother me). If we do not assume good faith (and follow the other rules) we will spiral downward, with the project suffering in the end. WP has good rules. I only ask that we all be expected to follow them not as a luxury but as a requirement. If for whatever reason one finds he can not follow the rules for a particular article (and that includes being civil), then one should simply not edit in that article. Adherence to these rulres, I think, are prerequisite for the privlege of editing.Giovanni33 07:03, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a blog! Please, link me to the blog so I can see what I have supposedly been writing there.--MONGO 07:15, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I had just assumed this [83] was your blog based on the name and similar politics. If its not, then I stand corrected (not that this fact matters). I've answered all your quesitons, but you keep ignoring mine.Giovanni33 17:45, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

My politics are not the same as that person. Your comments aren't worth responding to if your reading ED to get your facts about me.--MONGO 22:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what your politics are, just as it doesn't matter what mine are (or the editor you suspect of having a "beef with the US" because he is en editor in Brunei). That is the point. I don't know what ED is, but I do know you keep evading the issue, and ignoring the important questions posed to you. Are you afraid to answer them because the answer is not one you, or others, can in good faith support?Giovanni33 01:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with Giovanni that MONGO's reply was "civil". MONGO presents as an arbiter of fairness -- "I urge you to prove to me..." -- when it is no contributor's responsibility to prove their good intentions to any other individual contributor. The policy is to "assume good faith." Proof isn't required when a condition has already been stipulated. MONGO violates the stipulation of good faith by asserting a person's good faith, in this instance faith "that you are here to incorporate neutral information", is not to be assumed, but proven to him as the sole arbiter of what is good or neutral. MONGO has failed to prove consistent neutrality -- especially by calling those who offer neutral information that is less than flattering of United States "anti-American."

MONGO improperly asserts a claim of proprietary interest in the content of Wikipedia when he demands that someone prove to him personally their intent with regard to "our articles." MONGO is part of no organization that owns any article on Wikipedia. MONGO edits here as a guest of and donor to the Wikimedia Foundation. The Foundation is not a membership organization and MONGO is not a member of any organization that owns these articles. The articles are the property of Wikimedia Foundation, licensed for free distribution under GFDL. MONGO and Wikipedia would accomplish much more for the world's access to collective knowledge if they would use reason rather than intimidation to resolve conflicts. Intimidation by inappropriate claims of authority and ownership is not civil. H8 Buster 18:11, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Another brand new account that finds its way to ANI and jumps straight in to a dispute about MONGO. Yawn! ElinorD (talk) 07:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The fact that is a new account is irrelevant. Lets focus on the content of what their claims are, the merits or lackthereof, its veracity, instead of who happened to make them. Obviously its a puppet account, but it seems to be a legitimate use of a socket puppet, since some people, apparently, have a fear of speaking their mind, openly, without fear of retaliation, hence the anon account. Lets respect the users choice not to disclose their main account and focus only on the argument they make.Giovanni33 17:53, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I do not understand why we are allowing this harassment to continue. I propose blocking the SPA's and blanking their contributions to these threads.Proabivouac 07:23, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand why you call pointing out serious and repeated policy violations, and discussions about this conduct, harassment. Its like a women who has been raped, saying, "why did you rape me, stop raping me,' and you asking the women why is she harrassing her rapist? The question is absurd. Mongo has yet to even agree to stop violating WP policy. WP rules must apply to everyone. Do you disagree?Giovanni33 17:50, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. The opinions of long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributors to the site have more weight than brand-new accounts or single-purpose accounts, period. Brand-new accounts especially are to be ignored if they jump into disputes like this since it is very easy to create an illusion of consensus for or against a person or proposal simply by churning out new accounts. The fact that nobody here is agreeing with you should be a signal to stop digging. - Merzbow 18:23, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologise for interjecting this comment, but a long-term, productive, non-disruptive contributor to the site,like (ahem) myself, might think that the statement quoted is worthy of condemnation, but be unwilling to jump into a dispute marked with such unpleasant attacks. So the above comment is both incorrect and counter-productive. Hornplease 01:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I sympathize to a degree, but unfortunately there is no way to distinguish productive contributors commenting anonymously from abusive trolls spawning sockpuppets (like the EDers who've been harassing MONGO), so comments from fresh accounts can only be treated with the utmost skepticism. - Merzbow 02:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorrry Merzbow, your 5163 edits do not qualify you for the right to express that opinion. 86.149.97.92 13:03, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I, for one, object to the attitude MONGO and his friends are taking here, and I'm far from being a single-purpose account, a new account, or anybody's sockpuppet. *Dan T.* 18:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you've been harboring a grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO for a while, and have been warned before by an admin about stalking him. You're hardly unbiased in this matter. - Merzbow 20:49, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

When you can't defend what MONGO does, I guess character-assassinating his critics is the next best thing, huh? *Dan T.* 23:38, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, and the username is real charming isn't it. --MichaelLinnear 07:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

As usual, because of the powerful clique he has behind him, MONGO proves to be of an Untouchable Caste, with a free pass to be as uncivil as he wants, and anybody who objects to it gets personally attacked with impunity. *Dan T.* 03:07, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I found the contempt with which this complaint was met with to be very disappointing, not helping to reach a resolution at all. --MichaelLinnear 21:59, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am a bit confused by all of this as well, such a hateful quote assuming all people of a country are Anti-American would surely have led to a block if not ban for hate speech to anyone else. I have decided not to work with MONGO at all from this point forward, there are others on the article who actually are attempting to work in a civil manner such as Tom. --74.73.16.230 10:51, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Just drop it already the admins here are on MONGO's side, no one is caring that he made a xenophobic attack on someone. Like Merzbow said, they value his ability to write articles on parks more then anyone else chiming in here. Edit count > civility. If you do not like it, start some articles and you to will gain privileges. --SixOfDiamonds 20:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I am somewhat disturbed that even established users still don't understand the concept of consensus. The 'powerful clique' is called 'consensus'. I am sorry that some of you find yourselves on the other side of consensus and must therefore resort to ad hominem arguments about cliques and cabals. Perhaps if you feel that way you should reconsider how you are contributing to such a consensus based project like Wikipedia? --Tbeatty 06:30, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about one person, not the illuminati, please take your tin foil hat off. SixOfDiamonds

That's out of order, dear chap. Nick 10:50, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

The hilarity of that bothering you more then someone saying everyone from Brunei is Anti-American. --SixOfDiamonds 15:46, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

So a blatant lack of respect for fellow editors and an obvious contempt for anything even remotely similar to manners or can be excused by 'consensus' now? If this is what 'consensus' on Wikipedia has degenerated to, I certainly want nothing to do with it. I suppose it's lucky for Wikipedia that the vast majority of people who do the actual work around here neither look at places like WP:ANI, or care.

I wonder if you actually understand the concept of 'consensus', if you think that it's possible to be on the "other side".

Consensus [84]:

1. General agreement among the members of a given group or community, each of which exercises some discretion in decision making and follow-up action.
2. A specific method of community decision making where consent by all parties is required.

I don't believe that there is 'general agreement' or 'consent by all parties' from all editors of Wikipedia (not even amongst the self-selected ones that edit at WP:ANI) that it is acceptable to treat people who have legitimate complaints with the frankly bizzarre and incredibly xenophobic behaviour of another user with mockery and ad hominem, rather than addressing his complaints. Consensus means that everyone to some extent can agree. It doesn't mean that just because someone's friends turned up to agree with him, everyone must have the same opinion and therefore his opinion is OK. 86.149.97.92 07:24, 10 July 2007 (UTC) (User:KamrynMatika)

The ad-hominem arguments I've seen in this thread have been coming from the so-called "consensus" side, not from the critics. The critics have been commenting on MONGO's behavior, not making personal attacks on him, while his defenders are the ones who have been trying their best to character-assassinate the critics by applying labels based on superficial things about their edit history, rather than addressing the substance of their comments. Does it matter if somebody is a "troll" or a "sockpuppet" or has a "grudge the size of Jupiter against MONGO" or is a convicted ax murderer... if they have a valid point about something, it is still valid no matter who made it. *Dan T.* 10:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Does that axe you have to grind have a double blade or what?--MONGO 11:04, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Comment SixOfDiamonds and 74.73.16.230 are the same editor. Could someone explain to him that it would be helpful if he at least added his SixOfDiamonds username in print when he makes edits with his IP account. We have tried, but he has dismissively ignored our polite requests.--MONGO 21:43, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Done. --John 00:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

My opinion? If you play with fire, you're going to get burned. (this goes to both sides - MONGO, that was a rather strong personal attack, but to the other side: removing valid boilerplates isn't on. Discuss first) Will ^(talk) 13:33, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely. Removal of valid boilerplates is a no-no. It can, however be reverted. Dismissing an entire country's contributions as irrelevant and worthy of reversion without discussion because every single editor from there is bound to be anti-American is deeply, deeply worrying. I've never run across MONGO before, and am not likely to in the future, so I have no axe to grind, or see any personal advantage from seeing his wrist slapped a bit. (Needless to say, I have nothing to do with ED trolls, either.) I just think it's bollocks that an attitude like this should be out there and nobody established has reproved him more than the gentle knock above. I compare this sadly with what happened to dab after a far more explicable comment, which he hastened to explain. Hornplease 03:13, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Bullshit! That IP had 4 (four) edits total, none to the talk page and was adding highly POV crap to the article. I saw zero effort on the part of that IP to do anything but edit war. I certainly never add anything perjorative to articles about any other country. So this ongoing hallucination that I am some kind of xenophobic editor, when all I am trying to do is ensure that articles about my own country aren't taken over by POV pushers who are not editing from the U.S. Before you mislabel me again as being xenophobic, I strongly urge you to search my edits and see if I have ever ONCE added perjorative content to an article related to any other country than my own. The edits I revert I definitely consider to be perjorative and I will continue to revert them. I could add all sorts of well referenced but pejorative POV to articles about North Korea, Iran, Syria...you name it, but I don't and have no intention of doing so.--MONGO 05:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Please, be civil, at least to someone who specifies that he has no axe to grind. 'Bullshit' is a bit much, I think.. I think you may have misunderstood what concerns me. I do not worry that you are xenophobic, and adding xenophobic material to other countries' articles. I am concerned that your comment, as reported, indicates a predisposition towards believing all others are xenophobic, and thus towards deleting without discussion legitimate worldwide contributions precisely because they do not represent what you feel is domestic consensus, and thus seriously damaging the project. This is also quite clearly incivil at worst and uncollegial at least. Your statement above, I am afraid, goes some way towards confirming my initial impression, and only exacerbates my disappointment that nobody else established seems to be speaking out against it on this occasion.

Since I have said my piece, this will be my last post on the subject. I apologise if I have offended you. Hornplease 07:00, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing collegial about that IP's contributions in the least. I have explained this matter but you fail to understand.--MONGO 07:08, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL means that we don't snipe at the vandals in edit summaries, warnings, block messages, etc. It just makes you look like an asshole and doesn't defuse the situation, it inflames it. 99.9% of your edits are fine here, but you keep stridently defending the 0.1%, rather than just admitting that you sniped at someone and shouldn't have done that. Doesn't help... Georgewilliamherbert 00:37, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's what assholish...when one comment is overblown by pedantic wikilawyers who have the insolence to link me to the CIVIL policy and tell me that this 1 tenth of 1 percent of "unfine contributions" justifies being labelled by people on a witchhunt as de facto proof that I am some kind of bigot. If your intent was to convince me that I am the bad guy here you have failed miserably.--MONGO 04:38, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not an either-or. What you did is wrong, regardless of what they did to provoke it. When you do these wrong things, it blows up in your face, causes more drama, etc. Haven't you noticed that you provoke 10x the number of these things compared to just about any other sr editor? It's not just that you tend to hang out in article areas where there's lots of controversy - you respond to controversy with actions that encourage further controversy. Your life is not simply plagued by ED trolls. You're bringing this on yourself... Georgewilliamherbert 18:44, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I deserve more credit than that...I create at least 1,000,000 X "number of these things"...whatever these things are. I hope I can become as perfect as you George...that is my ultimate quest. You just go ahead, stick you head in the sand and stay away from dealing with controversial areas. It's these very controversial areas that need to be cleaned up or Wikipedia will never be taken seriously. Time wasters, POV pushers, trolls, they need to be shown the door...don't expect me to kiss their ass as I do so.--MONGO 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent)Cleaned up? Time wasters? I see the disruption caused by your incivility as a waste of time. And, although I respect your motivation, I don't see this as having cleaned up anything. Seems to me you made a mistake and don't want to admit it. That's a shame. --John 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Since I'm adding to it, clearly it wasn't my last post....in my defence, I had come back here to further qualify a few things, but my hand was forced by the above comment. (a) You have explained why you believe you are not xenophobic, but that is not the point at issue (b) the IP's behaviour is not what concerns me at this time (c) I really do not care to get into a discussion about this with you. If it is indeed the case that nobody else thinks that this sort of crap is worth commenting on, then I suggest this section be marked "resolved through careful ignoring of the matter" and be archived. Thanks for your careful attention. Hornplease 07:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Do two wrongs make a right? Does uncollegial behavior by one editor justify retaliating by being uncollegial not only to that editor but to his entire country? *Dan T.* 20:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

let me know when you wear out that grindstone. Shall I come running to the noticebaords next time you are less than perfect. I mean, I'd have to spend most of my editing time here.--MONGO 04:42, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Again, I am sure that it is not only those with a grudge against you or who are inflexibly anti-American who may be very disturbed by your remarks. Please do not take away from this the belief that such remarks are acceptable, or that they only anger those who are liabilities to the project. As has been said above, you would do well to either apologise and moderate a small subset of your behaviour, or merely ignore this discussion without attempting to taunt those already angered. I suspect this discussion has gone beyond your behavior to the community's complicity in it, anyway. Hornplease 06:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No, maybe most editors here know the difference between what is a big deal and what isn't.--MONGO 19:35, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Hornplease and Georgewilliamherbert are right though. It would be a big mistake to think the community has given you carte blanche to ignore core policies like WP:CIVIL. They apply to all of us and are vital for the good of the project. None of us is perfect but there is good reason for having these policies. --John 05:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Just stop it already, MONGO has committed himself to the role of a martyr, fighting evil doers and all, and as such he will be praised no matter who is caught in the blast. People here respect MONGO because a website attacked him and makes articles on parks. Most people here also are highly patriotic and do not believe in conspiracy theories. Wikipedia does not work on concensus, it works on majority, which they basically equate to each other. Take your issues to the articles and if you feel MONGO is disrespecting you, choose to ignore him from that point on. No one is going to stop him, from his labels of calling people "Anti-American" at least he is not raising the threat level ... get it? right ... threat level ... means of manipulation and gaining support ... Just be happy you are not being called a "red." --SevenOfDiamonds 13:06, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Third time's a charm? I seriously need an admin to intervene here. Among many other things, A Jalil is:

• Deleting dozens of scholarly sources from an article
• Blind reverting a WikiProject and deleting its scope, claiming an irrelevant NPOV concern

He is generally avoiding talk pages and blind reverting several articles, along with User:Wikima and to a lesser extent User:Juiced_lemon. Please someone assist me here. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 19:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Uninvolved editor
Admin intervention is needed. HappyFarmerofAsparagus 20:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

For koavf to say I do not use the talk page is easily refuted by looking at the relevant articles talk pages. As to what can come out of talking to koavf, that is another matter and can be more understood by looking at koavf's own talk page. The archive of the ANI contain more about koavf's complains against anyone who disagree with him including myself, Collounsbury, Juiced Lemon, wikima, ...etc.--A Jalil 23:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

To all parties involved. Please have a break of a few days. If i'd block Jalil i'd be obliged to block Justin for the same reasons. Nobody is innocent in this case. The problem is if i have to block Justin, i am afraid it would be an indef this time due to the fact that he is under 1R by day parole. Since his return from the last indef block he's been blocked twice for the same reasons (parole vialations). Again, both parties should leave those set of articles stable and disengage for a while. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 09:54, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Obliged to block me? Why would you be obliged to block me? Did you see the diff that I presented above? I worked for a long time making a constructive addition to the article and he ruined it with no explanation. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 15:55, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I saw the difs above of course. The problem is that neither you nor them are innocent. I can make a list of 1km long of all of your and their tedious editing, revert warring, 3RR, etc... So you think by blocking him all problems would be sorted out? Noway! I don't buy that. One thing is sure: if you are not willing to start a new process of dealing w/ eachother from scratch then i am afraid you both would be blocked. Do one thing: start both of you a RfC where nobody would accuse the other. Try mediation. You've never tried it. All i see here is that both of you are working hard your POV. Why not go both of you help the negotiations between Morocco and Polisario and keep this place a bit quiet? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 16:19, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Right I've done nothing to warrant a block, Fayssal. I don't think a block will solve anything, but if an admin did get involved to mediate/arbitrate, that would definitely solve something. For the time being, I need him to stop blind reverting out sourced information and inserting irrelevant POV tags into this WikiProject; it wastes everyone's time and keeps us from doing anything valuable. I would be happy to have mediation or RfC or whatever else, but I've requested it before with no intervention. No one has actually assisted me in the past. Do you have any recommendations on what would be best or most efficient? Clearly, this kind of behavior is not acceptable, right? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, as you say an admin can try to mediate. Certainly not me because i could be biased. I can arbitrate though. So according to our policies you both should be blocked. You are claiming innocent but you are wrong on that. Thanks to Pepsidrinka, we got some raw statistics below that show why i don't believe you and why i was right above. Other admins like Francis Tyre tried hard but in vain. I appreciate your contributions and i remember i said at the ArbCom that i have no problems to see Justin back if he'd play fairly. So where we are now? I'd block Jalil but i am afraid another admin would deal w/ you. If someone reverts your stuff don't revert immediately because in many cases what you revert is just the wrong version. Try to be patient or if skies remain dark go for an RfC. I am sure it would help easing tensions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Glancing through Koavf (talk · contribs) contributions shows you reverted his edits 26 times on July 10. Looking through A Jalil (talk · contribs) edits, he reverted your edits 18 times on July 11. You guys don't care about getting the article correct or finding a solution, you just have this kind of back-and-forth reversions. It seems as if you (speaking to both parties) see the other users name and decide to revert. I agree with Fayssal, both users are deserving blocks. Pepsidrinka 19:47, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Koavf as you might know has been indef blocked for edit warring and disruptive behaviour. He is editing again just because the community thought he learned something from it and that he might edit differently. After coming back from the block he started a wave of reverts of dozens of articles to where they were when he left for the indef block. In doing so, koavf discarded everything that a number of editors made. About the two diffs above: in the first, Legal status of WS, there are many editors involved and the reasons for undoing koavfs version are explained in the talk page: inaccurate map and more. In the second, koavf tries simply to make WS and SADR be used interchangeably with the SADR flag and many more sentences taken out stright from the Polisario propaganda. If there is anyone that deserves a block that is koavf. Recently, He was blocked for one week for disruptive behaviour on different subjects but is here now only because the good faith of the community. In less than a month from his return koavf has been edit warring, causing chaos with his thousends of article moves, in addition to being in confrontation with many editors here and elsewhere. Something to think about for those who believed or still believe koavf is capable of changing.--A Jalil 00:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What is relevant here Jalil is what we have now. You do revert as he does and that should stop immediately. You reverted 18 times in a single day! If someone reverts your stuff don't revert immediately because in many cases what you revert is just the wrong version. Try to be patient or if skies remain dark go for an RfC. I am sure it would help easing tensions. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 00:50, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Whatever I don't really care what step happens next per se as long as it involves someone with some measure of authority encouraging policy and constructive edits. When something like the two above edits happen, of course I reverted. Why would I not? I certainly don't see how those examples could be considered the "wrong version" by any outside party. Again, regardless of any other edits/reverts in any other instances, I think anyone could admit that the two above diffs are completely unacceptable. Furthermore, I defy anyone to show me any reverts that I have done to any of Jalil's edits that delete so much information, especially when it is properly sourced and cited. That kind of behavior has to stop. I would certainly prefer that it be of his own volition and that he decides he wants to be a constructive editor on the articles in dispute. If it comes about by someone else enforcing policy, that's regrettable, but fine by me. The one thing I won't abide is this continuous back-and-forth sniping. Again, this is not the first time I've asked for some kind of intervention, and I'm getting tired of doing this; it wastes everyone's time, and does nothing to make Wikipedia any better. Does anyone want to volunteer to assist me? -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 01:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I really read your comments w/ care but i fail to understand why you are labeling yourself as a very innocent contributor. I really want your disputes to stop once and for all but all i see is that you are still reverting the same edits you were reverting years ago (both of you). You talk about others reverting you because your edits are sourced and well referenced. I know about your disputes very well. That strikes me Justin. I don't buy that as well. Haven't you reverted an unsourced edit w/ another of yours at another online encyclopedia on May 5th? So? I told you a few times that i appreciate the fact that you've never used socks. Your impatience has enhanced as well but we are at it again. You know what happens? You push your POV and you get faced w/ another push. That's the story. Please contact an admin or a couple directly and try your luck. Or else would you accept me to help w/ another admin like Francis or Asterion? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 02:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Innocence Here's the smokescreen: I've never claimed innocence, nor have I claimed that only Jalil(/Wikima/Juiced lemon) are in the wrong. What I am saying is that the two diffs I have referenced above are completely unacceptable. I think you'll agree. If you see POV-pushing on my part in those two edits, let me know. That having been said, I also agree that the back-and-forth is totally unacceptable and for that to be the case, we must be reverting one another's edits. Again, I'm willing to concede that, and I'd be happy to have someone else mediate or arbitrate, bearing in mind that I won't always get my way and that any outcome would be a compromise. Fayssal, I've generally had a good relationship with you and I don't think that you would be capricious; I would be happy to get some kind of finality on this with you involved, if you're willing and able. Furthermore, I've had a good relationship with Francis and Asterion as well; I'd be happy to have them involved or anyone else who could be of assistance (in point of fact, if you check the history of the WikiProject page, you'll notice that Francis did, in fact, intervene; Jalil immediately blind reverted him.) Bring on whomever you think can be of assistance; I'd be happy to see an end to this, so I can start constructively editing again. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 02:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry if my tone was inappropriate. I do trust your intentions but i dislike your ways of edit warring. See?

I can gladly help but i just don't want to waste my time if you are not willing to start a new page. You are calling for a block which would change nuffin'. That's my point. The most of the articles you edit are a bit hot however these content disputeS are not that complicated. At least there are some civil behaviour from both parties. That would be a start. So let both of you AGF. Can we start w/ an article of you choice and help? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 03:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tone, etc. No worries, Fayssal. The only reason I would want a block is simply to get Jalil to stop reverting back (on those two in particular) so we can start some kind of mediated/arbitrated/whatever discussion with an outside admin. I have no personal interest in seeing him blocked per se. If you want to start somewhere in particular, in the main namespace, the most egregious dispute is over the article linked above: Foreign relations of Western Sahara/Legal status of Western Sahara. Others in the main that are troubling are Polisario Front (which is actually over a pretty small matter in terms of content, but large in POV), and Flag of Western Sahara. Outside of main, the Western Sahara WikiProject (again, the one linked above) is causing a real hassle. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 05:13, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The common denominator to all koavf's edits is the same: the disputed territory of Western Sahara is to be used to mean the SADR and vice versa. The flag of the SADR is to be used for Western Sahara and of course WS is occupied by Morocco. He also misuses the arabic word intifada to give the sopradic riots by Polisario supporters more importance. The Wikiproject Western Sahara is considered by koavf his own personal garden where he can plant whatever he wants. He considers two books written by two Polisario fervent supporters as the ultimate references on the WS subject. I have discussed all these matters in the respective talk pages and made it clear that was POV but he was simply reverting and as you counted, much more than I did. I think these are the real issues that have to be addressed. PS. If I dont react quickly here it is because I am on holidays, but I will be looking from time to time. Apologies for that.--A Jalil 12:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hi, I just saw this (wonder why I am cited but not informed?) and must say the fact that koavf is the one who complains is just absurd!!!
• It's just a vain attempt to present himself as "victim" while he is the driver of edit wars, as usual.
• Koavf was blocked several times, then for longer times like a week then on indefinite, why? Because of extrem edit warring and because his disruptive and exhausting behaviour.
• In his absence there was a relative peace and rest, everyone can verify this fact.
• Now that he is unblocked, we have the same situation again, with him pushing pro-polisario POV and trying to make Western Sahara virtually independent on wikipedia.
• It is clear, and a verifiable fact that koavf is the cause of such tensions
• Only short time after he was unblocked he managed to get blocked again, for one day and then for one week (though he was realeased on good faith)
• It is just impossible to cooperate with this guy.
• His aim is to use wikipedia to militate for the independence of Western Sahara from Morocco.
• He absolutely insists to present the "sahrawi republic" (proclamed by Polisario) as same as Western Sahara (disputed territory).
• While I don't dare to put good faith of any of us under doubt, Koavf cannot be objective in his edits.
• His behaviour is excessive, destructive and contra-productive!
• To unblock koavf was not wise in my personal view (we are now having the result) and I think the solution would be to ban him from edits in all pages related to Western Sahara and Morocco. This had once been suggested and I am convinced it will resolve this question.

Thanks - wikima 18:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

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

Warned about 3RR[85], but violates it anyway[86]. Warned about personal attacks[87], but violates it anyway"I don't know why you have a bias against Muslims and Iranians, which is evident based on your edit history, but Wikipedia is not a battleground for your personal vendetta.". He has also called me a "bully"[88] and insisted I work for the Israeli government.[89] Why has this user not been blocked? Did I mention his edits are sockpuppet-ish? I'm not exactly alone here[90][91]. Perspicacite 07:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Note: This user's conduct is also being reviewed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Vitalmove reported by User:Perspicacite (Result:). Shalom ^Hello 17:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

That 3RR resulted in a block, but I undid it because the article is now protected and discussion is underway, so the block would be purely punitive. I left a warning about personal attacks and incivility. Mangojuice^talk 15:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Confirmed case of sock puppetry used to evade a community ban. Requesting admin to indefinitely block all involved accounts; namely, Weekscrazy, Reddysteddybrekky, and Onetwothreefourfivesixseveneightnineteneleventwelve. CounterFX 23:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Add Fm104 to the list (performed an identical act of vandalism as Reddysteddybrekky - compare [92] and [93]). CounterFX 15:16, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The accounts have been blocked. Pax:Vobiscum 18:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Stormshadows00 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Johnc1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

User is revert warring and continually posting uncited statements which libel Cherokee Nation Officials at Cherokee Freedmen Controversy. Account is clearly an SPA and is continuously violating WP:BLP. Suspected sockpuppet of User:Johnc1. I think a block is needed at this point since the editing pattern is the same and recent edits are nothing but vandalism of other editors contributions. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 01:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that this allegation is correct. This is the very first edit by Stormshadows. It looks like he's been here before, and he's trying to prove a point. I have not reviewed the case carefully enough to endorse an indef-block, but I can substantiate that there is a case here. Shalom ^Hello 01:53, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Add a check of user:Smmurphy as well. I am sick and tired of this POV pushing editor and his antics as well. He just replaced uncited materials which violate WP:BLP with a dishonest edit Summary. I think they both need a block. I suspect one of them is a Freedmen involved in WP:COI issues from John Cornsilks board at [94]. They are playing Wikipedia like a cheap flute just like the SCOX trolls did. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 02:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Before you say too much about POV pushing and violating WP:BLP, you might want to review some of your edits, referring to a "Mormon grinfcuk and then they stab you in the back" and "Mormonism is the biggest fraud" (these are not exact quotes, just paraphrases), or perhaps your edits to Eric Schmidt's biography. I'd add specific diffs, but I'm still figuring out all the neat WP features and stumbling over others.

That said, if Stormshadows00 and Johnc1 are socks of each other (would that be "co-socks"?) then WP should deal with that per policy.

This request is not germane to the instant discussion on AN/I, but since you're involved here, I know that you'll see this, and so I'd like to draw your attention to that request, and ask you to discuss it on that talk page. I apologize for bringing a second subject into this thread, but since I agreed to make no edits to your user and talk page as a condition of being unblocked, I can't drop a short "could you look at this, please?" onto your talk page, and so my options are limited. Thanks. Pfagerburg 15:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Jeff, I'd suggest you either open a request for checkuser or a formal sock investigation if you feel these are the same editor.--Isotope23 15:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I will do so. Jeffrey Vernon Merkey 16:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

This highly offensive post was left on my user page for, what I can determine is, no valid reason [95]. I realise the offending text was removed shortly thereafter, however, if I did this to another page I would be immdiately blocked. This user should experience no different. I suspect it's the IP address of a user with whom i've had quarrels in the past (and trust me, there are many). However, my quarrels never escalate to the childish, offensive, personal attacks such as this one. Batman2005 11:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I have issued a vandalism warning. If the behavior continues, he surely will be blocked, but with only 2 edits and no warnings, blocking now would be out of process. (and it looks like there have been any edits for days).-Andrew c ^[talk] 17:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Jason Mraz has called on his fans to add nonsense to his Wikipedia article. See his July 1 entry on his MySpace blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4818814&blogID=282689129, URL is blacklisted), where he says "Reality is Malleable. It's constantly changing and shifting and becoming something different each day. Because of this amazing quality of life, I am challenging each of you to help me create an exciting new life courtesy of the loopholes at Wikipedia.com… basically, I'm encouraging everyone to visit the Jason Mraz page at Wikipedia and make minor amendments until the entry sounds as absurd as humanly possible. Keep in mind you'll likely be notified at least once by the Wiki-Police for "vandalizing" Internet real estate, so be careful." Please add this article to your watchlist and remove or comment out dubious information. Cows fly kites (Aecis) ^{Rule/Contributions} 11:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like there has been heavy vandalism already over the last few days so it is semiprotected. Viridae^Talk 15:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Italiavivi has reverted article without merrit. Note: This user has not violated the 3RR rule yet. But a pattern is developing in this article for Fox News Channel controversies Listed below is many incidents involving this user:

• July 13, 2007
• July 12, 2007
• July 9 - July 12, 2007

Please solve this dispute before an edit war begins. Thanks again. LILVOKA 12:02, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The only edit war here is being caused by LILVOKA, who is repeatedly inserting information that doesn't possibly meet WP:NPOV, and is grammatically incorrect. See his reversions: [96] [97] [98] [99]. This is a content dispute, LILVOKA; try the talk page. - auburnpilot talk 13:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I was trying to edit a section of Chrysler Cirrus and as I tried to edit, it took me to a completely different page. The page had been moved before, and was moved back to the correct title - but what is causing this strange error??

Anyone else experienced this?? --SunStar Net ^talk 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Well-known bug without satisfactory solution at the moment, already discussed... um. Somewhere at the mailing list and/or bugzilla. It happens with too many (>=2) frames stacked on the right side. An ugly workaround involves putting the right-side contents into a "parent" table/frame. A simple workaround involves slight reordering of images :-) Duja► 15:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

No, it is not the edit link stacking it is where the link goes. That link is going to "HENRY VIII WAS AN OBESE OLD MAN WHO WAS A PAIN IN THE ASS", because someone vandalized the page, and moved it there. Prodego ^talk 17:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

As a result of WP:NFCC items #3(a) and #8, album covers in discographies are being removed all across the project. Some information regarding this issue is available at User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse. Examples of such removals: [100][101][102][103][104]. Literally hundreds of these removals have been performed and are still ongoing. A partial list of such may be found at User:Durin/Fair_Use_Overuse#Complete (scan for "discography"). The same action is happening across band pages, where there is no separate discography.

The basic principle is that album covers are acceptable fair use under our policy in articles specifically relating to the article. For example, Haunted (Six Feet Under album). Acceptable fair use does not include the display of the album cover in lists such as the examples above where they were removed. Whether there is one album cover or hundreds, the principle is the same.

Today, I removed Image:Jasmine Guy Album.jpg from Jasmine Guy ([105]). As this orphaned the image, I tagged the image as such [106]. I informed the uploader of the image that it was orphaned [107], and also informed User:Jheald that the fair use tag he had applied was inappropriate due to the image being used in a discography [108]. Following this, User:Jheald reverted these changes [109][110], claiming the use was appropriate, asserting it is not a discography but a discussion of the one album the artist ever made [111].

I reverted the re-insertion of the image and the de-orphaning of the image, and responded to User:Jheald on the issue [112].

I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter.

Thank you, --Durin 14:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. When i see CD album covers in any article other than an article on the album itself, it needs to go. -- Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 15:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree also. Some of the cases on your subpage are just horrifying. There are also some single fair use images that are used far too excessively; for example Image:Beatles - Abbey Road.jpg

I asked copyright lawyer User:Wikidemo for advice, who's recently been taking a lead role at WP:FAIR. Wikidemo's view was:

It's a close call but I would side with Durin on this one. The example we put into the WP:NONFREE guideline allows for album images to identify the album in articles or sections about the album. This section isn't really about the album, it just shows or lists the album. I wouldn't call it a discography though. A list with one item isn't really a list. But it doesn't actually talk about the album. It's implicit that there should be some narrative text. How much, I don't know. If you moved the discussion of the album down from higher in the article, and perhaps added a second or third sentence about the album, then there is truly some discussion of the album. At that point, whether you make it a separate article or keep it as a section within the artist's article is a style issue, not a fair use issue.

I'm prepared to go along with that. Jheald 15:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree - there does seem to be a difference between one album cover and hundreds. I clicked a random sampling of Wikipedia:Featured articles#Music and found that there is extensive precedent in displaying a limited number of album cover pictures in articles about the artists. In fact out of the 4 featured articles about musical artists that I clicked, only one didn't have an album cover picture.

1. The Jackson 5 (2 album covers)
2. The Notorious B.I.G. (1)
3. Phil Collins (1)
4. "Weird Al" Yankovic (0)

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Repeating experiment:

1. Bob Dylan 1 album cover
2. Beijing opera 0 album covers, but they don't seem to make albums as such
3. AC/DC 2 album covers
4. Frank Black 4(!) album covers

This seems a very strong trend. I strongly advise not removing fair use album covers from articles with fewer than, say, 4 of them on "overuse" grounds. That shouldn't affect User:Durin/Fair Use Overuse if that truly sets the limit at 10, but it seems to apply strongly in regards to the specific case in question here. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Precedent is not the guiding principle here. Foundation mandate is. The issue here isn't the use of album covers where such covers are being discussed. The issue is the use of album covers in lists/galleries. There are plenty of band articles we've yet to get to [113][114][115], and plenty that we have [116][117][118]. If the album cover is actually discussed, there's no issue. Lists and galleries, there's an issue. --Durin 16:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the album needs to be discussed, but that's not the same thing as discussing the album cover. If that were so, then most articles on albums should also have their image removed, since rather few even mention the cover specifically. Look at what the lawyer says, above: not discussion of the cover, discussion of the album. And if you're claiming "lists and galleries" are your target, well it seems clear that the question you're asking about is neither. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

By the way, the article Jasmine Guy does discuss the album, in two places.

During the run of A Different World, she released her self-titled debut album in 1990, which spawned three Billboard Top 100 hits: "Try Me", "Another Like My Lover", and "Just Want To Hold You." In the spring of 2006, Jasmine spoke to the graduating class at The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and revealed that she will record a second album. She commented that of all the entertainment industries, the music industry was the worst. She will sell her new album online herself and not through a major label, similar to the marketing strategy used by Prince.

and

Album information
Jasmine Guy Released: Oct 16, 1990 Label: Warner Bros. Chart Peak: US Pop #143, R&B #38, Heatseekers #32 RIAA Certification: None Singles: "Try Me" "Another Like My Lover" "Just Want To Hold You" "Don't Want Money"

That's substantial discussion by most of our standards, if properly cited it would be a fine standalone stub article, even meets Wikipedia:Notability (music) with 3 charted hits (not to mention notable artist). --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:30, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• And I have no problem with a separate article on the album, where the album cover can be used. In this list, it's inappropriate. --Durin 16:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The term "list" is not usually applied to a single item. As someone who has removed a fair few fair use images from band articles too, I think this this may be rather over-zealous. --John 16:46, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You're ducking and bobbing and weaving. Pick one argument that you really believe, state it, and stick to it. Is your argument that album covers can only be used in articles specifically named after that album, like Chrislk02 says? Well, that's not anywhere in any of the policies you link to, it seems you just made that one up. Is your argument that the article "overuses" album images, like the title of your page that you made on the subject? Seems hard to call 1 (one) image "overuse". Is your argument that the article doesn't discuss the album? Well, I've shown it does, and you seem to be accepting that. Is your argument that you think that if you admit to being wrong you will have to apologize to an article editor for deleting their good work finding, uploading, and placing that image? Well, yes, you've got me there. You will. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• We've got literally hundreds of images removed from discographies exactly like this one. The only difference here is that this one is for a single album. There's plenty with more. Where would you like to draw the line? Is one album acceptable? What about two? Three? Ten? Fifty? The line has been previously drawn at not accepting album covers in discographies using this sort of layout, where the image is accompanied by some bare information about the album. If you're not willing to assign a particular line as the breaking point, then you've got to say that either album cover images in this sort of format are not acceptable or they are. In the latter case, then we go back to having discographies that look like this. So, please identify where you think the line should be drawn and why. Thank you, --Durin 17:04, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• Six. :-) (You wanted an arbitrary line, you got one!) More seriously, this a common issue in fair use, called Amount and substantiality. It sometimes takes real judgment about just how much of a given article is really "our work" with the images merely adding on, and how much is "their work" that we've stolen, merely adding on our text as a cheap excuse. As I wrote, for most of your list with 10+ images, "overuse" is correct. Not for this one. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• For the record, I maintain you are incorrect, specifically with regards to the foundation resolution on the matter. If you want me to stop doing this, get consensus to get me to stop. If you want to discuss an album cover inline, such as in Slayer (last image on page) fine. If you want to add it to a list such as the case here, I'll remove it. Period. I'm sorry if that's overly confrontational. It's not intended to be. But, the endless arguments must stop if we are to come into compliance with the Foundation's resolution by the deadline of April '08. --Durin 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

(deindent) A "list" of one? --John 17:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• The issue isn't so much whether it is a list or not. The issue is whether it is discussed in any significant way. Displaying the album cover along with bare information such as release date, label and chart peak has regularly been determined to not be significant. That's the principle I'm operating on. It doesn't matter if it's one or a thousand images. See WP:NFCC item #8. Such use is not significant.
• Of course, we have yet another long, drawn out debate on what counts as "significant" Regardless, the practice is to remove images used in this way. That's been done for hundreds of articles now, and I'm not about to stop because someone says one album in such a list is somehow different than two or three or four or five. It isn't. It's PRECISELY the same kind of usage, whether you do it ten times or once. --Durin 17:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Obviously we must comply with the Foundation's rulings. However I do see a difference between one album cover used in a band article, where no article on the album exists, and the sort of unarguable abuse with many images being used as decoration in one article. So, unless I have gravely misunderstood you, did you when you said "I have no problem with a separate article on the album, where the album cover can be used. In this list, it's inappropriate." --John 17:42, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

What happened to "I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter."? Did you really mean "I'd appreciate an administrator reviewing the matter as long as she agrees with me."? Look, Durin. The great is the enemy of the good. Everyone agrees that there are excessive cases, and you are doing a fine job cleaning up the excessive cases. But in this case you seem to be the excessive one. Please let up a little on the lower end of the scale, and go on with your fine work otherwise. Don't confuse "with all due respect, you're wrong in this case" with "you want me to stop doing this". Just a little while ago you were saying that our policies and guidelines were what was important here, not precedent. Now you are saying it's all right for you to go on in all cases because you have precedent that you have done this before in other, larger cases? You want consensus to get you to stop, when we seem to have shown you that ... well, if not that you're just wrong, at least there is at least room for serious debate here? You're an experienced administrator, what would you say to a user who finds a debatable issue in a policy and guideline and goes around deleting stuff from multiple articles saying "get consensus to get me to stop"? Wouldn't you say something like ... please stop first, and see where consensus lies before going on? You have consensus to delete fair use images where there are lots of them. Please keep doing that. That's great. But you were unsure in this case. So you asked here. That's also great. But now you see that there is a strong argument against you in this specific case ... and you want to go on anyway unless we "get you to stop"? Come on. Don't demand absolute agreement with everything you do or else. That's not the way we do things here. Please. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

• I didn't say I was unsure in this case. I asked for an administrator to review. The problem with low end/high end is that we WILL get into debates like "wtf? In such-and-such band's article there's a list just like this one with three album covers! What the hell's the problem with this one with six? Get over it!" If you don't think this would happen, you have no idea the struggles we've had. --Durin 18:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

My two cents (and thanks for the honor but you can stop calling me a copyright lawyer, when I'm here I'm just a Wikipedian like anyone else). I agree with Durin's action in this case, and similar cases. However, we did explicitly allow album covers in major sections about the album and not just an article about the album. In this case it is a stretch to call it a major section or to say the section is about the album. It's just a collection of data with the album picture put in. Durin calls it a one-album discography. I use different terminology, I call it an insignificant addition to that section of the article. Whatever you call it, I believe that as per the consensus we reached or confirmed yesterday, this is fairly close but not good enough. If there are hundreds of similar uses, there are hundreds of uses that will fail the test. So be it.

How many album covers is it okay to use in an article? It depends on the article and the use. We did not set an exact number and I think that would be unwise. Sometimes one is too many. Sometimes three or four may be appropriate. Let's not talk in the abstract, let's look at the articles and see if it fits. There is a fivefold limitation that prevents too many non-free album covers from appearing in articles:

• (1) discographies are explicitly banned in the guideline as we updated yesterday.
• (2) to qualify for identification use, it has to be in a major section. You would be hard pressed to create ten different sections for ten album covers and call each of them major.
• (3) the section has to be about the album. Not a mere passing reference, and I argue, not just a data dump. It has to be prose.
• (4) if an article is predominantly a series of sections about albums after only a brief introduction about the artist or some other subject, you could argue that it is a list, which is explicitly banned along with discographies. Maybe it's too free-form to call a discography, but you could say it's a list.
• (5) beyond non-free use considerations, as a matter of style, an article that goes into detail about multiple albums should be broken down into multiple articles. So I just don't think the matter is going to come up too often. Why don't we work with the projects like wikiproject albums, and ask them to make that an explicit style guideline on their end? I don't think anyone would really think there should be articles that have a long string of different albums.

A few final notes. Perhaps there was enough descriptive information about the album in this one particular article to support the cover. But it was in a different section. To be useful for identification of a discussion of the album, the discussion has to be in the same section as the album cover. That's also good style. Finally, there are going to be some rare cases where an album is used for purposes other than identification, for example critical commentary about the album cover itself, a discussion of the graphic artist as opposed to the musician, or perhaps the a significant use of a photograph of a deceased celebrity for which there is no fair-use alternative. Those raise their own issues I don't want to go into here, but there is no blanket prohibition in using album covers for other uses. This does represent a change in policy, one that has been cooking for a long time. At one time there was consensus, or at least a convention, of using discographies and a lot more non-free material. Things change. Whether you think it is wise or not the source of these policy changes is the directive from the Wikimedia Foundation to limit the number and purpose of non-free images. If you don't like it, that's where to take it up at a high level of Board policy because they are the boss and there is not a whole lot we can do here. Wikidemo 17:52, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

We have an article called IANYL on that, I see. :-) Thanks Wikidemo. Could you check the part earlier in the discussion where there is a prose paragraph in the article that does discuss the album? (If you'll notice, she only put out the one album, so any discussion of her music, her relations with the music industry, etc., really is discussion of that one album). Could you confirm that merely moving it down to the same section would, in your judgment as merely-a-Wikipedian-who-happens-purely-by-coincidence-to-be-a-copyright-lawyer-and-by-further-coincidence-to-be-influential-in-setting-this-very-policy, be sufficient? And, possibly more important, Durin, would you agree to that? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:05, 13 July 2007 (UTC)