Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive284

I've posted this once, to which I got no reply. So I'll post it again. He's only here to make trouble and he also has several other accounts involving the name "Candice". He also vandalizes and removes comments. I suggest looking at this for once and perhaps a ban would be the way to go. He frequently disrupts articles and article talk pages by adding in unnecessary information which myself and other users have already stated was unnotable. Падший ангел 07:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We needs some diffs please. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 07:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one removing his comments. This was the "discussion" these two were having on the Dylan Postl talk page, right before I removed it. However poor BIGCANDICEFAN's edits may be, Падший ангел is way out of line there himself. Also, Падший ангел's edits are contentious at best. He claims he knows people in the wrestling business and it is therefore wrong to revert him or question his edits.--Atlan (talk) 11:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Claims? Excuse me? I'm the one supplying Wrestlezone with all their TNA related news pal. I knew about Dustin Runnels "Black Reign" gimmick for the past couple of weeks. Падший ангел 12:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's a claim.--Atlan (talk) 13:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, bite me. Падший ангел 13:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that nice remark, and now this completely unrelated personal attack to someone you have no business with after being warned. Can someone block him please?--Atlan (talk) 14:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who recently today had become the subject of an AN/I complaint regarding his penchant for calling other editors pedophiles. (The user is the owner of perverted-justice.com. Enough is enough. He has had multiple warnings, significantly more than most editors ever get, and refuses to change his behavior. I have blocked him for 24 hours and warned him that if he continues to call other editors pedophiles and take his crusade against pedophilia onto wikipedia, he will be further blocked. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Their response is very disheartening, but hopefully they can use the next 24 hours to consider what is or isn't appropriate behaviour. Editors who are willing to seek out and keep out POV pushing on pedophilia articles are very valuable (since most of us steer clear of the topic, especially at work), but there still are behavioural standards to adhere to. WilyD 15:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not likely. His response:

Whoopty doo. I'll call pedophiles what they are whereever I find them. Thanks for the block though, it is a stark confirmation of the allegations against Wikipedia :) And check me out when the block expires, I'll note a few more pedophiles afterwards and then you can block me again. Oh, and crusade is such an ugly term. I'm an Atheist. Use campaign or something. We're not marching with the holy cross to Jerusalem, after all. XavierVE 15:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

diff ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 15:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw. Disheartening. Maybe I've just too much faith in people, but I always hope they can reform. Someone's response to a block 5 minutes after it happens can be different from their response a day or a week later. I offered a little bit of counsel - I'm not sure how much good it'll do. WilyD 15:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

However much we may support (or not) the off-Wiki work of this individual, his on-Wiki behavior has been extremely confrontational and uncivil. If he could change his behvaior he could be a helpful editor. If not, he may be too disruptive. WP:TIGER appears to apply. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Simtropolis was nominated for deletion, though not by me. The problem is that the web site has been canvassing votes. What's the best way of dealing with this? The person who nominated it for deletion has suggested perhaps a semi-protection of the AfD discussion page would help but neither he nor I are sure this is a good idea. I have never dealt with a situation like this. I've seen warnings placed on AfD pages before indicating that it isn't a vote, if you've been asked to come here and vote, please don't, etc., but I'm not sure which template that was. So, suggestions? --Yamla 16:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Leave it for the moment. Unless the page is being barraged by vandalism, it's fine. At worst we'll have a lot of repetition in the discussion.-Wafulz 16:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've warned them about canvassing on the website. His username is TheListUpdater, as it said on the website, and I think he should get blocked for canvassing...  Jonjonbt 16:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

here's a tip - if you go offsite to "warn" people off - do it in a polite manner, your post over at their forum You guys are doing what we in Wikipedia call canvassing, and that will get you blocked. I will go to the extra mile to get you blocked. Either stop canvassing, and get the page deleted, or you can continue canvassing, and you will be blocked. I am Jonjonbt on Wikipedia, and feel free to attack me on my talk page. It'll get you even closer to a block! Have a nice day! Jonjonbt PS... I know a few admins who can block you... comes across like a bullyboy and does no favours for wikipedia. --Fredrick day 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Seconded to Frederick day - that was an extremely poor choice of words by Jonjonbt. Миша13 17:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I recommend you go and edit your post if you can.-Wafulz 17:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am current engaging with the community over there and trying to help them establish what reliable sources are there plus explain why canvessing and WP:ILIKEIT type !votes would not be help. Any block of TheListUpdater would be puntitive rather than preventive at this stage so that would not be help and I would Oppose such a move. I see no further action required at present and no need for any admin intervention at this stage. --Fredrick day 19:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Klaksonn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
I have indefinitely blocked Klaksonn for persistent disruptive editing, incivility, refusal to seek consensus, and repeated sectarian personal attacks on other editors. Full explanation with links at User talk:Klaksonn#Indefinitely_blocked; admins may also want to review a previous ANI discussion on Klaksonn, at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive273#Bigoted_comments_on_my_talk_page.

Some admins may regard an indefinite bock as an excessive step for a single admin to take, so I am happy for the block be lifted or shortened if there is a consensus here to do so. However, I would ask other admins to please review the history of Klaksonn's conduct before reaching any conclusions. Thanks! --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the block (before this was posted here) and found it appropriate. That said, I do not have much familiarity with the articles in question here. It is clear to me that this user is abusive and does not even attempt to reach consensus, or even to seriously discuss the matter (see, for example, this where the discussion involves Klaksonn states, "Maybe you should live with the fact that Umar was a sick murderer and refrain from vandalizing the article by adding things like "A minority Shia view (which is disputed amongst Shia scholars)"."). --Yamla 16:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, this edit in response to the denial of his unblock request, shows he has no regard for other Wikipedians. → AA ^(talk) — 16:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This individual's participation is a net negative to the project. More admins should have your fortitude. Raymond Arritt 16:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Klaksonn has now been protected by me due to continued incivility and personal attacks after warnings. --Yamla 17:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well done - I would've done it myself after one more edit in this manner. There must be a line drawn somewhere, after which it's enough with "second chances". My only reply to people who "have things to do other than [...] edit an already untrusted encyclopedia", is "then get the hell outta here!" Albeit uncivil, hits the spot in cases of continuously disgruntled and counterproductive people such as Klaksonn. Миша13 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't really have a problem with the block. In principle, I generally feel that indefinte blocks are ineffective as they lead to sockpuppetry. I prefer shorter blocks, perhaps a month of 45 days. Saying that, I won't shorten the block. Pepsidrinka 00:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • If a person wants to use socks, that person will use socks no matter how long the block is. —Kurykh 00:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has quite recently been involved in several content disputes, which he has instigated. The issue began at 20:57, August 9, 2007, when Jmfangio was blocked for violating the three-revert rule. During the duration of this block, I requested an edit on the protected Peyton Manning article, which was fulfilled. The edit was to merge a separate section which was on another page back to the main article. Jmfangio began a discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning, saying that per WP:CONSENSUS, he had a consensus to split up the article. I kept asking him where the consensus was, but he denied my request. He later said that he could do what he did because seven other articles followed the same format, and he said that gave him consensus. I was being friendly and was trying to help him understand what WP:CONSENSUS was; I was trying to help him understand something that it didn't appear that he understood. In this edit ([1]), he asked me to "stop attacking [him]," when I haven't even attacked him once. His exact words were "stop attacking me, I know exactly what this means." His previous posts showed that he didn't know what it meant, and I was only trying to help him clarify this. Jmfangio eventually leaves the discussion, saying it's not going to help anything.

This spread over to Talk:Brett Favre, but on another issue with that article, completely unrelated to the content dispute discussion at Talk:Peyton Manning. Aviper2k7 made a comment, "Can we agree on the section names? Can't we do both for now? Are you skirting this?" Jmfangio then replied with "Stop making uncivil statements - nobody is skirting anything here and you guys really need to stop with those comments. I do not want this to end up at WP:ANI because of personal attacks." Nobody was making any civil attacks on him, so it's beyond me why he responded this way. Later, he says "Okay guys - i'm done discussing. I didn't say you personally attacked me. I said these comments are drifting toward personal attacks. Your edit summaries and your comments are creating a hostile environment. All three of you do the same thing. I'm not going to put up with it anymore. Either discuss the content or move on," a comment which is even more bizarre because he created the discussion to "discuss the content," then leaves the discussion when we begin to "discuss the content." His final comment was "I don't agree with anything, I'm removing myself from this conversation because you have an inability to discuss things without saying things that are down right uncivil and rude." Still, nobody left a single rude or uncivil comment or personal attack.

At the ANI page, in this edit ([2]), he said "Ksy92003 - I am giving you an opportunity to leave me alone. You too have been ridiculously uncivil as has the other person involved. You guys are bullying me and being so incredibly obnoxious. Leave it be please." The comment I left before was in response to his original post at ANI, an edit in which I was defending myself, and Jmfangio declares me obnoxious and bullying because I'm defending myself. Ever since his block expired on Friday, his behavior has been completely bothersome to me; he's accused me of civil attacks, bullying him, being obnoxious, etc. when I haven't done anything at all. All the discussions were once that he instigated, and he leaves the discussion because all of us (besides him) share the same opinion, and he accuses us of being rude, uncivil, making personal attacks, etc. It is really disturbing, and his behavior has disturbed me so much. Ksy92003(talk) 17:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Might I recommend a User Conduct request for comments? Then there is this and this. An RFC might be the way to go from here. Respectfully, Navou ^banter 17:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• • I've looked at the WP:RFC format in the past, and I'm not at all clear on how to even use that. If I would have to do that, I would need somebody to help me understand what to do. Ksy92003(talk) 17:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Instructions are here. Please feel free to ask for help on the format on my talk page. You will probably get better results on RFC then here vis a vis this dispute. Regards, Navou ^banter 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine... I suppose I'll go there. Navou, if I still have any confusion on this, can I ask you for assistance? Ksy92003(talk) 18:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll assist on the format. The merits, will be yours however. Navou ^banter 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's all that I'm asking. Thank you, Navou. Ksy92003(talk) 18:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I take no position on the underlying controversy, but admins should note that the accused user responded on this page and Ksy92003 has deleted his response. THF 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry... I accidentally removed that part of the discussion. Here is the removed comment, in whole: Ksy92003(talk) 17:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually, I think I've restored it with the formatting intact, if I did not restore your comment, please restore it. I tried my best. Navou ^banter 18:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• I really don't even know what to say other than you guys have been nothing but rude and I have gone out of my way to try and get those discussions focused on content and not report you for your WP:UNCIVIL behavior. I'm sorry that you are disturbed so much. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
• And one point of clarification, I did not say that because WP:CON is what led me to expunge the information. WP:LENGTH and WP:SS (which are a result of WP:CON being in place) did, and this was complimented by the fact that other articles had the same thing done to them and it was accepted by multiple editors. You can see them at Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

What other steps in Dispute Resolution have been employed and exactly what are you asking administrators to do? --ElKevbo 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't gone to Dispute Resolution yet... I don't know what can be done about this situation, but it's just so frustrating to be accused of something when I haven't done anything bad. Jmfangio has been really disruptive to both me and Chrisjnelson in the past couple days, including claiming consensus, and then refusing to show the consensus, accusing other users of making personal attacks and leaving rude, uncivil comments when there weren't any, and threatening to take me and Chrisjnelson to ANI for those uncivil comments. In my opinion, his behavior is completely unacceptable, and the way that Jmfangio has gone about this situation has frustrated both me and Chrisjnelson. Jmfangio still maintains that we (I and Chrisjnelson) have done more wrong things than he has, and hasn't even been able to say what it is that we have done to him, like what we said that offended him. I took the view that Jmfangio just wants to argue for the sake of arguing, and as far as the rude, uncivil comments and personal attacks, I don't know where he got that from. Nobody has attacked him in any way whatsoever, yet Jmfangio maintains that he has. His behavior hsa been completely disturbing to both Chrisjnelson and myself, and is completely unacceptable. Ksy92003(talk) 23:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• ElKevbo None, although I suggested that very early on and was told this was not an issue for dispute resolution. I told them I would gladly participate in the DR process. I'm a bit warn out on the personal attacks and uncivil edits, so I'm not sure how long I'd be willing to go with it at this point, but I'd give it a shot if someone else wants to start the process. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, Jmfangio... I'm gonna ask you something very calmly, and if you answer calmly, then that would greatly help out... could you please tell me what are the personal attacks and uncivil edits you have referred to? I need to know so I can understand your situation. Ksy92003(talk) 23:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI to others - this is being discussed now on Ksy's tp. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why is User:Jmfangio using the name of a dead celebrity in his signature? Corvus cornix 01:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He isn't. His signature is Juan Miguel Fangio not Juan Manuel Fangio. Perhaps it's his real name. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 11:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ouch. I'm sorry. Never mind. Corvus cornix 16:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Quick interjection - Funny thing is - JM Fangio is awesome so my sig and my user name is a "lose" tribute to him. I didn't want to "copy it" for that exact reason. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio (talk · contribs) says that this is being discussed on Ksy's talk page; however I see nothing there, so I will just post here. My first encounter with Jmfangio (talk · contribs) was on Peyton Manning, when he redid a large portion of the article. While most of the changes he did unquestionably improved the article, there are a couple that have been disputed. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) changed the link for "College Team" in Manning's NFL Box to link to University of Tennessee, as opposed to the more specific Tennessee Volunteers football, its original state. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) repeatedly tried to revert this change, but Jmfangio (talk · contribs) kept reverting this back, with comments such as "STOP IT!!!" and "Please do not edit articles while someone is currently working on them.", showing definite signs of WP:OWN. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs) eventually got the article protected due to the edit warring, but not before Jmfangio (talk · contribs) made another controversial change. The awards and honors section was split off into another article without discussion, although it has since been restored. On Talk:Peyton Manning, Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has tried to give rationale for this change, although none of the reasons he gives make sense. WP:LENGTH was cited has the major reason, despite the fact that the article was nowhere near long enough to warrant splitting the article. WP:CON was also cited, as he claimed he had consensus for such a split. Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) repeatedly asked for a link to show consensus for such an action; Jmfangio (talk · contribs) never provided an such evidence, and instead complained the Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) was becoming "hostile" (he was not). As an additional note, W.marsh (talk · contribs), who has edited Peyton Manning on several occasions in the past agreed that there was reason for the split to occur. Looking at Jmfangio (talk · contribs)'s edit history, I noticed he had made the same changes to Michael Vick and Brett Favre, both of which were reverted. Looking at the discussion, I noticed a similar pattern to what occured at Talk:Peyton Manning. Jmfangio (talk · contribs) falsely claimed multiple Wikipedia policies as supporting his edits; when others pointed out that the policies cited said no such thing, he would complain that he was being personally attacked, and then leave the discussion. The same thing happened in another Brett Favre discussion here.

While Jmfangio (talk · contribs) has certainly contributed to Wikipedia, it seems clear to me that he has trouble working with others, often falsely citing Wikipedia policies and claiming that he is being personally attacked when he cannot get his way. This cannot be allowed.

Dlong 18:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

• Amazing that this keeps happening. Dlong - you are the one that engaged in uncivil behavior. I'm sorry that you don't like the fact that I made changes that do fall under the guidelines laid out at WP:LENGTH and WP:SS. You failed to adhere to WP:CIV and WP:AGF and all i did was move on. There is no revert war, and as I told you - I left the conversation. As for that user's talk page - he refractored the entire conversation. You can easily see it in the history of his tp. I don't have trouble working with others, I have trouble working with others who don't want to politely discuss things. For the most part, I just move on - but in certain cases, I try and have the situation dealt with by outside users. You can call me disruptive all you want, but I can provide edit history backed by guideline pages and other editors WP:CON. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

We have been constantly trying to discuss the issue at hand. Your remarks are the ones that provoke us. We have all tried to politely discuss those, and despite you being involved in the conversation, we all have remained calm and civil. We haven't been uncivil at all, thus we are adhering to WP:CIVIL, and since there was no reverting at all and no harmful edits, none of us could've possibly violated WP:AGF. And we all agree that the article isn't long enough to be affected by WP:LENGTH.

And I did remove the discussion from my talk page because I only had that because Jmfangio wanted to know why I made those quote/unquote "personal attacks." I replied to each claim he made, and you can look my edit history for that information. Ksy92003(talk) 22:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please indef block 82.53.117.47 as he is impersonating me, see this. Davnel03 17:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

A pretty minor issue for an indef block, no? — Moe ε 17:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP was blocked 4 days ago for an issue 4 days ago. There's nothing much we can do now, except laugh at the IP's obvious stupidity. —Kurykh 17:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

He's doing this, which could in effect get me blocked for no reason. Look at his contributions, the last six, which are on userpages, he is impersonating me. Davnel03 17:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Experienced Wikipedians will look at both the edit and the person making the edit. They will realize a disconnection between your editing patterns. Anyway, we can't block IPs indefinitely in the first place. If worse comes to worse and you do get blocked for those edits, Checkuser will exonerate you, unless you edit via open proxies. You can make a note on your or the IP's talk page if you wish, but there isn't really anything we can do. —Kurykh 17:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

They impersonated other users so its not just you Davnel03. Just ignore it and all will be fine. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

OK. Davnel03 18:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Yea, a quick perusing through the edit history would quickly show it was impesronation. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 18:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also consider it vandalism of my talk page. Bearian 18:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I, and I imagine more if not all other admins click on the mythical block button means we block the person who makes the edit, people have different names on their signatures, they often lead to a different account or userpage they're "cyber squatting" so it's always preferable to make a block based on who the software says is responsible for the edit rather than who the user says is responsible. So, to make a long story short, you've nothing at all to worry about. Nick 20:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

After blocking Uromax (talk · contribs) for 48 hours for repeated copyright infringement and linkspamming, I did an external link search on biographylist.com. I've found that some links, like their entry on J. M. Barrie are extremely similar to our articles, and one is definitely copied from the other. I'm not sure if it's our entries being plagiarized, or us plagiarizing them. The article on Buckminster Fuller has similar content as well, but our content contains citations.-Wafulz 19:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Considering that biographylist.com was only registered on April 24, 2007 [3] and our articles (at least the two you mentioned) existed in their current format before that, it would seem that we're being copied and not the other way around. Shell ^babelfish 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It's true. Biographylist.com steals material from around the web and claims it as its own. After searching phrases from dozens of its pages, I don't believe any of it is original. People should be aware of this and a) not cite it as a source and b) not delete Wikipedia material because it's on that site. (Is there any way to get that site taken down? Every page is theft.) 24.245.42.233 (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Totnaco (talk · contribs) has been fairly consistent in repeatedly vandalizing Mormonism with the same basic phrase, emphasizing that Mormons and Catholics don't allow homosexual men or women to be priests or members. I and a number of other users have posted the series of vandalism warnings. Now that he's hit warning #4, which says "this is your last warning", the same vandalism is being made by 166.89.54.30 (talk · contribs). I suggest that both be blocked, as he's had numerous warnings over a period of months. In the past, he was active in similarly vandalizing Roman Catholic Church. –SESmith 22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Tomasthetankengine found likely sockpuppetry between user:Elvisandhismagicpelvis and user:Tomasthetankengine. the clerk who processed the rfcu also commented at user|his talk page that

1. Moretimefor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
2. Serendipitouscontributor (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
3. Grooveyyoutuber (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
4. Tosserandmasterdebater (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
5. Russellthelovemussell (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)
6. Senibleconext (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log · CA · CheckUser(log) · investigate · cuwiki)

are all the same person.

I also wrote at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Elvisandhismagicpelvis:

Elvisandhismagicpelvis is an editor who has a fondness for rugby league that crosses over to POV pushing and disruptive editing. For the latter he was blocked for a week for 'WP:EW|edit warring]] on multiple articles, despite being warned to stop. This is utterly disruptive behaviour.'.

The block period has now expired, but a new user, Tomasthetankengine, has arrived and is apparently going through recent edits of mine and another user, Tancred and editing in a similarly disruptive way.

For example, the insistence on referring to rugby league as rugby league football is characteristic.

See Tomasthetankengine's edit of Sydney Football Stadium and Elvisandhismagicpelvis's edit of Sport in Australia.

Essentially all other edits have been to disrupt pages that either Tancred or I work on from time to time with the aim of pushing a pro rugby league POV.

I don't think it takes a lot of imagination to suspect that this user is also User:Rugby_666, User:Ehinger222, User:Licinius, User:J is me and User:NSWelshman - all of which have engaged in the same sort of disruptive POV pushing. Some of the sockpuppets go about making constructive edits for a time but the common thread is wilful and repetitive POV pushing and incivility.

Each time an account gets knocked off, even for a short time, the user goes and creates a new one essentially to bring the warning processes back to the start. It's not fun or funny to have edit wars crop up time and time again because one person can't stop repeating the same destructive behaviour. This person has been blocked countless times and returns constantly. It makes a mockery of WP's structure of sanctions and bans. It needs to be stopped.

That pretty much sums it up - I'd like to see some action taken as this has been going on for more than a year and a half, with numerous editors (user:CambridgeBayWeather, user:Chuq, user:Tancred, user:Grant65 and myself to name a few) at different periods in that time spending vastly more time than should be necessary to correct her/his vandalism and disruption. Dibo ^{T | C} 22:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

At Bird feeding, an anonymous user has been repeatedly inserting unsupported assertions (that bird feeding is controversial). The vast majority of the edits since about March 2007 are insertion or reversion of the material. [4]

After a warning didn't help [5], I was told [6] here at ANI to escalate the warnings and then take it to WP:AIV. But the IP started shifting around, so it didn't seem possible to leave warnings on the editor's talk page. I then requested semi-protection for the page but this was denied by WJBscribe, who thought the issue was a content dispute and said I should discuss before reverting more [7]. But I have attempted to discuss, and got exactly one reply which I couldn't make any sense of, and no reply after 13 days to my latest comment (see discussion). So yes, it started as a content dispute, but the anonymous editor's persistence against all four other editors, refusal to discuss, and lack of sources for the material now make it, to me, a textbook example of WP:DISRUPT. But that policy doesn't appear to address anonymous editors.

This kind of situation (disruption from a shifting IP) must have been dealt with many times before. What's the right procedure? Thanks for your help. --Nethgirb 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotection of the article is one possibility. Raymond Arritt 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt 00:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Raymond. --Nethgirb 00:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi folks, I've blocked a couple of editors for 24 hours over their behaviour on Guitar and I've semi-protected the page to stop any of the two changing IP addresses and resuming (given an IP address is involved). I'm off for the night, so if folks would like to keep an eye on the article and make any unblocks or adjustments to the block as you feel necessary, you've got my full blessing. Nick 02:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Comment, complaint frivolously posted by Bonapate (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed. See hre for details. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

BOT2008BOT (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) blocked as a single-purpose sock used to solicit a block[8]. No comment on Anonimu's actions. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just want to add that I support the indefinite block of this single purpose account.--Jersey Devil 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I also support an indefinite block of Anonimu, 100% and more. —  $PЯINGεrαgђ  23:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Best give Anonimu another block, he's just not getting it. reverting good faith edits as vandalistic, calling a non-banned editor banned, pot calling kettle black, and what appears to be OWNership on Nicolae Ceauşescu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I don't think there'd be any loss in an indef-block, though. Will ^(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I meant the SPA that reported this. With regards to the account being reported (User:Anonimu) I haven't seen any change in his behavior whatsoever. Continued edit warring, false "rv vandal" edit summaries, ownership of articles, etc... I support any action any admin wants to take including an indefinite block if that is deemed necessary.--Jersey Devil 00:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: I tried to remove all edits by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted multiple times through several proxies. Sorry, if I missed any. see this for more. --Irpen 09:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Matthew has been continually adding the word Jebus to show his disgust at something over at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Apprentice (UK). I initially removed the word and placed a warning on his talk page, both of these edits were reverted-[9][10]. The user has continually re-added the word-[11][12] and has accused me of "trolling" for adding warnings to his talk page-[13]. Thanks, Dalejenkins | The Apprentice (UK Series Three)'s Peer Review-Review now please! 19:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What "race" or racial characteristic does "Jebus" make reference to ? --Fredrick day 19:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he should be blocked for at least a week until it calms down. He seems to of removed the warnings off his talkpage. Davnel03 19:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebus on Wikipedia. We're all in trouble if that's racially offensive. Furrfu. THF 19:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh, it's a perfectly cromulent word. Will ^(talk) 19:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Right... it's a Simpsons joke. I've no idea in what context Matthew (talk · contribs) was attempting to use it there, but honestly I don't see how it is offensive, particularly since it is linked for meaning. It isn't offensive, just pointless... though no more pointless than the edit war over it that is now happening at that FA request. Don't make me embiggin the both of you.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it might be offensive to people with bright yellow skin and/or giant blue hair. --jpgordon^∇∆∇∆ 19:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now that I know that it's related to the Simpsons (!!!) I don't think a block is required. Davnel03 19:25, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add a bit of context here as I'm familiar with the article being argued over... Matthew (talk · contribs) has been constantly counter-productive and patronising on that particular FAC page. Whilst this particular flare-up might not be anything to worry about, the overall situation definitely needs some intervention. Seaserpent85 19:27, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Like I alluded to above... the edit warring and removal of comments by editors that I see going on at the FAC page is a far bigger deal than "Jebus".--Isotope23 ^talk 19:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't block him. Just slap the Sejebus out of him. Baseball Bugs 23:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. He's engaging in Wikiality. I thought that was just a joke used to incite vandalism. MessedRocker (talk) 04:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, "Jebus" is a classical minced oath: [14]. Digwuren 09:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Trolling by Bonaparte (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) posted throug an open proxy . --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The above user had been screwing around with Anonimu's user page and talk page and then made that comment signing with an IP address that isn't correct. I gave him/her a 24 hour block. IrishGuy ^talk 08:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

this settles it. --Irpen 08:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My user page (user:nate1481) has been moved to Mov4 tried to fix it and messed up could I have some help please, --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 08:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. violet/riga (t) 08:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Would someone please have a look at this?[15][16] If that isn't RfA misconduct I don't know what is. ←Ben^B4 09:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you speaking of the disturbing questions, or of the blanking of them? KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think he was complaining about the blanking. But they came back and were rephrased in a less personal-attacky way, and seem to be sticking now without being deleted again. Georgewilliamherbert 10:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears the blanking is the problem, rather than the questions, given BenB4's comments on the RfA. Nick 10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He's replied to the questions. ←Ben^B4 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Can somebody please take care of this? It's been sitting untouched for an hour. (I'm also wondering why Image:I15storm3.jpg or another photo wasn't added, but there might be a reason for that.) --NE2 10:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

TimDuncanSupportsTRNC (talk · contribs) is a obvious sock of a banned editor: [17] --Vonones 13:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I need some administrator intervention with Megaman89. He has mysteriously shown up in the last week or so and started repeating contentious edits from previous banned user(s). For example he made this edit on George Pendle which is the same as this edit by banned user User talk:FoolsRushIn, and this one on Charles Manson which is the same as this one by FoolsRushIn. He is uncivil as you can see on his talk page and for some reason likes to make personal attacks as seen here. Thank you for your time. --Chuck Sirloin 13:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User violated the 3RR rule, was reported and is now crying. Bah. Megaman89 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Megaman89 is now blocked for 48 hours for his incivility. If he continues, he's going to get longer and longer blocks it appears. Metros 15:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note this nonsense [18] here too, which of course, gets emails the foundation from the subject. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I reverted that trolling as soon as I saw it. I've now indef'd Megaman89 per this cute edit as a sock of FoolsRushIn (talk · contribs).--Isotope23 ^talk 16:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have confirmed this is User:ColScott as well. Cary Bass ^demandez 16:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly an incident, but this page has not been used for a while and seems to just be sitting there for no reason. Is anything going to be done with it? Davnel03 14:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am still not sure if this belongs here, but the page Baoli notes appears to be sheer nonsense with an image that is a potential copyright violation; however, any tags placed on the page are immediately removed by User:Baolim (see his talk page). I have tried replacing the tags but I fear I may have violated 3RR. Eran of Arcadia 14:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have deleted the Baoli notes. Lets wait a few day to clear the copyright status of the image Alex Bakharev 15:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:The_Professor_(of_Faith) is promoting the Anti-Wikipedia League which is kind of a POV pushing attack against the encyclopedia. Miranda 15:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have blocked him indefinetly. No signs of good faith contributions Alex Bakharev 15:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Explorador 33, whom I suspect to be the subject of the article Camilo Valdivieso, his own creation (and pratically single contribution), recorrently deletes the {{Autobiography}}, {{Notability}}, {{Refimprove}} and {{pov}} tags I placed in the article. He has done so in 3 acasions ([19], [20], [21]). I'm reverting once more, but I believe this needs attention from and administrator, since he will probably not rest. Thank you. The Ogre 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Warn him appropriately if he vandalises, conform with policy, particularly WP:VANDAL, and then, if he does not desist, report to WP:ANI -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 16:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I shall. Thank you. The Ogre 17:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See User talk:Polbot. User:CorenSearchBot thinks User:Polbot is copying stuff from www.infoplease.com, when in fact what has happened is that both www.infoplease.com and Polbot, have copied stuff from the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress. What should be done here? Should User:CorenSearchBot be blocked and the tags it has put on those US Congress politician bios removed? Carcharoth 17:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oops. Ignore that. According to User talk:Coren#Your bot 2, the bot has already been shut off. Carcharoth 17:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

user:The Matrix Prime continues to revert Optimus Prime (disambiguation) to include an Image:Allops.JPG. The two posts to the talk page are, first, me asking TMP (or anyone) to provide an explanation for how a collage of a dozen+ characters helps someone who hits that disambig. page choose between the three listed there and, second, a summary for RfC that's not been responded to. Additionally, the image -- which TMP uploaded -- does not have a FUR for use on the disambig page, only the main character article (where it is not included). I've tried engaging this editor repeatedly on his talk page,[22][23][24][25][26] pointed him toward relevant policies regarding images on disambig pages and the need for FUR on all non-free images, and suggested an alternative home for his image (i.e. on the Optimus Prime page, for which the FUR applies). However, other than an early initial exchange,[27][28][29] his responses have been confined to his reverting[30][31] edit summaries, when he includes them, that (to use the most recent example) assert that the "picture is self-explanitory as is the fair-use rational". Some of the diffs above are me trying to explain that there is no such thing as a "self-explanatory" FUR, and I disagree with his assertion earlier in the edit summary that the image's presence "has already been discussed".
Anyhow, as I mentioned, the RfC has not been Ced upon. I have become frustrated trying to explain the fair-use policy -- and, in other circumstances I'd be happy to write the missing FUR myself, but I really don't think the image should be on the page. Anyone out there with more experience have any particular pointers? I'm almost to the point of nixing the disambig page and just adding some seealso's to the top of Optimus Prime, but I think that might just be me being spiteful, esp. after a similar move AfDing a List of... over which TMP and I had similar back-and-forth about "implied fair-use rationales". Anyhow. Help? --EEMeltonIV 21:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an interesting situation. Since disambiguation pages aren't actually articles, fair use images shouldn't be used because of WP:NFCC #8 & #9. A fair use rationale for usage in a disambiguation would have to explain exactly why a copyrighted image is necessary, but that would be impossible because disambigs, by their very definition, already offer a GFDL text explanation of the information provided by said image. The logical conclusion, with respect to policy, would be to disallow Image:Allops.JPG. If TMP wishes to use the image, he will have to gain consensus for it at WT:NFC. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 22:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree over your opinion that this is an "interesting situation." Why does a disambiguation page need an illustration at all? Only after someone explains why one is needed for a specific disambig page (I won't deny that it is possible that one could need an image, but I'd insist on a plausible explanation first) do we reach the paradox you are fascinated by. -- llywrch 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Mississippi Delta (disambiguation). I can't really think of any reason to illustrate a disambig unless it serves to, well, differentiate between closely linked but distinct ideas. However this reasoning isn't even applicable to the Optimus Prime disambig. I guess my fascination was more with how no current policy (aside from common sense) addresses the feasibility of using fair use claims to illustrate disambig pages in articlespace. Maybe WP:NFCC#9 should include an explicit restriction on usage in disambigs to avoid similar conflicts. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 03:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll concede that's a good example justifying having an image on a disambig page -- & your reasoning for it is spot on. It does appear that you & I agree that using a Fair Use image on a disambig page has two hurdles before it: convincing enough people that an image is needed in the first place, & that a Fair Use image is the best choice available. Also, seeing how the whole Fair Use/No Unfree Content dispute has been so bitter lately, I'd lean towards putting emphasis on that first justification so we don't further stoke the fires of that dispute. -- llywrch 20:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, TMP restored the image and added multiple bluelinks to the disambig items, although the disambig MOS (to which I've provided links on his talk page; I can dig up diffs if you'd like) pretty clearly discourages that. I previously provided a link here on his talk page, and after reverting the disambig page to the last version by user:Anetode, once again asked him to abide be policy, guidelines and consensus. This is getting annoying -- I'm sounding like a broken record, and he's shown minimal interest in engaging in discussion beyond edit summaries (when he uses them at all). --EEMeltonIV 21:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

TMP's addition of this image is purely decorative and so far everyone else disagrees with such usage. There's no need for administrative intervention yet, but if and when the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Adding disambigs to NFCC#9 resolves into a decision, then there will be a clear policy against using copyrighted images on disambigs. Until then, I'd like to try to encourage TMP to enter in discussion either at WT:NFC or the Optimus disambig talk page. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this mess needs to be looked at by admins. At least six editors have said that they think Obama should continue to redirect to Barack Obama, and Barack Obama should have a pointer to Obama (disambiguation), with reasoned arguments given - including that the FA Barack Obama has been among the most viewed articles on Wikipedia in recent months, and is likely what people are looking for when they type in "Obama". The other opinion is that he is an unimportant "minor" American politician who is unknown in the rest of the world, that Wikipiedia is not a "tool of the USA" , and that the other uses of Obama are as well known - particularly the Prime minister of Equatorial Guinea who may or may not actually even be known as Obama - so they want Obama to go to the dab page. Other pages, like Chirac, Trudeau, Yeltsin use the same approach as Obama → Barack Obama. Meanwhile, the page has been changed back and forth and we're not getting anywhere. Tvoz |talk 23:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What admin action are you requesting? This might appear to a suspicious mind to be canvassing... --ElKevbo 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF, ElKevbo? Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, try not being suspicious then. I'm asking for some neutral help in sorting out a mess. If I were canvassing, I might not post it on an admin board, you know? Duh. Tvoz |talk 02:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll be the first to admit that this could have all been handled much tidier. The initial change of Obama as a disambig page to Obama (disambiguation) occurred in Decmeber, 2006. That was reverted and re-reverted several times between then and May 2007, *:when I started to get involved. Due to the number of re- and re-reverts, it seemed like something which needed to be addressed in a requested move, since there were some feelings about the default link. Until a rational discussion could be held, I have been trying to keep the pages at their original locations (pre 12/2006; and, a majority of the time since then — where Obama was (or redirected to) the disambig page). For some reason, the proper move request was never brought up at WP:RM, and yesterday, *: shit hit the fan when a hybrid move was brought there. Despite the six editors mentioned above, a thorough reading of the talk page will reveal that more than six appear to favor the Obama as disambig: Neier, SRMach5B, SNPBrown, Midemer, Nihonjoe, Chrishomingtang, Endroit, and John_Smith's. So, I agree that something should be done. My opinion is that the "something" should be to restore Obama as a disambig page, and if someone wants to change it to a redirect, then the proper WP:RM procedures to move Obama to Obama (disambiguation) can be followed. Neier 03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing holy or sacred about the state of a page ten months ago. Reverting that far back simply on grounds of "that's the way it was 10 months ago" makes no sense whatsoever. Italiavivi 03:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be completely missing the point. The status quo is that Obama is a disambig page. At various times, against process you and others have tried a controversial move without discussion and this has usually been reverted within several days. If and when a consensus is reached to change Obama into a redirect then this becomes the new status quo. Until then, it is wikipedia policy that controversial moves require discussion and editors oppose to the controvesial move are quite correct in reversing controversial moves that take place without discussion Nil Einne 03:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I originally misunderstood the situation but after more careful reading I think I now know what's been going on. Also I have never been involved in this move discussion before this AFAIK. I support Neier here. From what I can tell, the current mess is mostly the fault of Tvoz and others who support Obama as a redirect to Barack Obama. Obama started as a redirect to the city in Japan. When Barack Obama became popular, it was turned into a disambig for Barack Obama the US Senator and the Japanese city. Mostly the status quo has been Obama as a disambig since then. At various times, without discussion editors have gone agaisnt the status quo and turned Obama into a redirect. It should be quite clear to them that this is a controversial move as their move is usually reverted. Nevertheless, they have never started a move proposal in accordance with policy for controversial moves. Neier who supports the status quo finally took the situation into hand and protected the status quo while initiating a move proposal. However those who were opposed to the status quo refused to participate in this discussion so it was ended early. It is unfortunate that editors, particular those opposed to the status quo keep ignoring policy and trying a controversial move without discusion & refuse to take part when discussion is attempted. I have reverted to the status quo for now Nil Einne 03:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The status quo is opposed by a majority of editors. Contrary to the claims of "lack of discussion", in fact, the editors who want the page to redirect are giving reasons and explanations for their position, while the small minority that is enforcing the previous status quo is enforcing it wilthout giving any valid reason other than that it was the status quo. —Lowellian (reply) 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I again ask: Why is this being discussed here? What admin actions are being requested? This appears to be a run-of-the-mill content dispute as far as I can tell. --ElKevbo 04:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

On a related note, I've recused myself and stopped watching the pages. I also closed my attempt at coming to a consensus there as Italiavivi completely destroyed any sense of anyone being able to figure out what was going on. I'm sick of the bad-faith assumptions on the part of Italiavivi (right from the beginning, I might add). I have better things to do with my time then repeating myself over and over and over again to someone who refuses to even pay attention to anything I write other than to read more into my comments and actions than is actually there. So, have fun, all. Maybe I'll check back on it in a few months. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, Nil Einne, I'm afraid you do not have it quite right. And I don't see how this was my fault. Here are the facts, taken from the Barack Obama page of which I am one of the editors. I did a monthly check of the page status to see what in fact the status quo has been:

• December 2, 2006 tag says "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• December 2, 2006 tag is changed to "Obama" redirects here. This article is about the United States Senator. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• January 1, 2007 tag says “Obama" redirects here. For the city in Japan, see Obama, Fukui.

• February 1, 2007 tag says “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• March 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• April 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• until April 10, 2007 when, without any edit summary or explanation on talk, SRMach5B removed the redirect tag, but apparently did not change the redirect itself

• I replaced the tag, same day, because the redirect was still in place from Obama to Barack Obama, as it had been for months, and I saw no reason, and none was given, to have removed the correct tag.

• May 1, 2007 still “Obama” redirects here. For other uses, see Obama (disambiguation).

• June 1, 2007 same tag

• until June 17, 2007 when the tag is removed again, with an edit summary pointing to this cryptic exchange on the admin's talk page - no indication or explanation on Barack Obama as far as I recall
  • Please go read again what I wrote there. All I did was move Obama (disambiguation) to Obama, which had been redirecting to Obama (disambiguation) at the point at which I moved it. Can you really not see why I did that? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 06:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
    • But Obama was redirecting to Barack Obama prior to that - as of June 1 it still was, I believe. So who changed that, and with whose agreement? I am not seeing it in the history. Tvoz |talk 06:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
• And apparently on June 17 admin Nihonjoe made this change without consensus or discussion, and without WP:RM as far as I know.

Since then, there has been a lot of back and forth. But to characterize Neier's changes in any way as a return to the status quo is incorrect, in my opinion. The status quo, from the perspective of the Barack Obama page, was that Obama redirected to Barack Obama, with a pointer there to Obama (disambiguation). It seems to me that more of an attempt to discuss this should have been made before making the June 17 change - and then when comments were posted on the Dab talk page disagreeing with it, they should have been considered, not ignored. And as far as I know there was no RM initiated by Neier or Nihonjoe. So why blame me?

And ElKevbo, this is not a content dispute at all. I brought this here because I felt we needed some objective administrators to look at it - Nihonjoe was involved in the dispute and his recusal is a good idea, I think. When no progress is being made on a problem, I think that asking for help is a good thing. If it bothers you, maybe you should stop reading it.

Meanwhile, I hope someone will take the time to actually look at what went on here and suggest some action. Tvoz |talk 06:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of trying to keep this off of AN/I, I have corrected some of the mistakes above on the talk page of the article. Basically, there seems to be a disjoint between what the Barack Obama article said about Obama, and what the Obama article actually contained. For much of the time above, Obama was a disambig page, even though the Barack article said that it was redirecting to Barack. More details are on the talk page, if anyone still cares at this point. Neier 13:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it, Neier, if you wouldn't dismiss my request here for an admin to take a look at this. As you know, you were one of the people who removed the redirect to Barack Obama with no comprehensible edit summary or discussion, and without following through on Barack Obama by removing the redirect tag and telling the editors what and why you did it - all appearances were that the redirect from Obama → Barack Obama was in place. So if there was a "disjoint" it was because those changes were done in a stealth manner, not out front for editors to consider. We had no opportunity to discuss and you had no consensus for your unilateral change, and you still have no consensus. So, I think administrative intervention is called for. Tvoz |talk 15:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Phbasketball6 (talk · contribs) moved his user page and user talk page to User:Phfootball6 on October 31, 2006 citing that he wished to change the sport in his user name. His proper user page (the basketball one) has existed as a redirect to the football page since that day. His talk page was a redirect up until the 2nd of February when a bot notified him of an image proper and removed the redirect in the process. So right now he has two active user talk pages and one redirect to the other user name. This, however, is inappropriate as it was a self-fulfilled username change and it was never done through the bureaucrat system.

I left the user a note about this several days ago but he seems to have ignored it based on his numerous edits since then. How should this be handled now? I gave him suggestions on what to do but it doesn't appear like it got through to him. Metros 12:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't see why he can't register a new account and start using that one, as long as he's honest about it. >Radiant< 12:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • That's the thing...he hasn't. There is no Phfootball6 (talk · contribs). There's just a guy who has parked his user page and user talk page there. Metros 13:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You might want to leave him a note and recommend that he register an account. No issues with this so long as he is honest. I don't really think there is anything an administrator can do here. Best regards, Navou ^banter 13:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Metros is correct, though, that he can't leave things as he has done. We can, should, and must delete his parked page, if he doesn't establish a new account with the proper name, and Metros is right to warn/exhort him. Perhaps in two to three days, if he hasn't made the move legitimate, place a CSD tag on the moved user page. It shouldn't come down to that, of course, but it is what would happen if he doesn't get the new account. Geogre 13:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I was getting at here, I guess I didn't state it well enough. In theory, I could have deleted it right away under WP:CSD#U2 as a non-existent user but the fact that he's an established user and that there was substantive conversations on his new user talk page made me go through this process of trying to talk to him then bringing it here after no response. Metros 13:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good... I left a note. Navou ^banter 13:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't suppose that a Rouge Bureaucrat would perform a username change treating this behavior as a de facto request....? --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 16:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's a possibility except the user might not realized that his username has been changed and will get frustrated when he can't log in under his normal user name. Metros 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If he doesn't want to be renamed, he should at least register the new name (or someone could register it and send him the password). As it is now, someone could sign up for that name and he would have no recourse ... which is probably not what he wants. --B 18:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the userpage back to the proper place, and I will be move protecting the page and user talk, and deleting the parked page as there's no user by that name (as well as merging talk page history).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Vinay Jha has apparently had enough of the content dispute at Talk:Rigveda and is now threatening User:Dbachmann with a libel suit:[32] Sheffield Steel^talkers_stalkers 14:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If Vinjay Jha doesn't apologise, a indef block is needed. Davnel03 14:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked indef until he retracts that. Moreschi ^Talk 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

wow, that was quick. Actually, I would have thought it appropriate to inform him of WP:LEGAL first. This is a very confused editor. His behaviour has been deteriorating the more he found that rambling and random complaints didn't get him his way, and the legal threat is just the latest iteration of that process. This user would need a patient mentor, otherwise we're just looking at a protracted and frustrating waste of time for him and others with a zero result. dab (𒁳) 15:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

He should know better than not to legally threaten others. Davnel03 15:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

that was a great sentence, Davnel03. Are you a lawyer by any chance? (don't sue me :op) dab (𒁳) 15:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No I'm not actually. I don't even have a job, I still go to secondary school (as says my template on my userpage!). But it's true - he should know better than try to legally threaten others. Davnel03 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without any comment on the issue of his conflict with dab, I must say that this block by Moreschi is hasty and uncalled for. The user is new and obviously doesnt know about WP:LEGAL. All that it would have taken was to have perhaps reverted his comments and let him know politely not to do it again. While we require that users warned first even for WP:3RR, its galling that admins can throw their weight around for WP:LEGAL without even letting the editor know! Also a legal threat isnt exactly a threat of physical harm or something... it is at best, stupid. I request that the block be undone, Moreschi apologise for biting and that Vinay be asked to apologize to dab and retract the legal threat. What purpose is this gratuitous block supposed to serve, other than leave a newbie trying to find his feet here more confused and more angry. (I am sure, he's at the moment he's wondering how the hell he can apologise when he's blocked! I am not sure that he even knows that he can edit his own page when he's blocked). Since when did blocks get punitive, anyway? Sarvagnya 16:38, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Was leaving the user a warning, in hopes that he would retract the threat before getting blocked, but my warning edit conflicted with the block notice. I doubt serious would have come from warning the editor and giving him a short time to retract the threat, but there's also not much harm in blocking him until the threat is retracted. I think swift blocks are customary for legal threats. - Jehochman ^Talk 16:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It may be customary in case of editors who've been here a while or who you would reasonably be sure are aware of the policy. Unlike other policies like WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA etc., WP:LEGAL isnt exactly an 'intuitive' or 'commonsense' policy and I dont think there's any way a newbie can know without being pointed to it. this is also not something that comes up on talk pages all too often and it is bad faith to assume that a newbie should be aware of this policy. I request that the block be undone immediately and also that the blocking admin apologise to him. Not just the block, but even the message that he/she has left on Vinay's page reeks of arrogance. Sarvagnya 16:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Without going into too much detail, the reason why I suggested indef block is because I threatened Yamla legally, which got me indef blocked. I apologised several months later, and my block was lifted. I think that this user should apologise for his actions because behaviour like that should not, no matter what, be tolerated here on Wikipedia. Why should us editors have to put up with things like that? If he apologises, block lifted, if he refuses to apologise, he should stay indef blocked. Davnel03 17:35, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And so of course another wikinoob must be tortured the same way. Moreschi's judgment is clouded, as has been suggested before by other admins. I do not believe his actions were correct, and am beginning to see that his understanding of WP:BLOCK is especially poor.Bakaman 17:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

All he has to do is retract the legal threat, and he will be unblocked with no further penalties - and we can forget about all this. Simple as that. It is common practice to block indefinitely while legal threats are outstanding. Really, all he has to do is apologise (and yes, he should know better, it is common sense not to threaten your fellow editors with lawsuits). Moreschi ^Talk 17:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If all he has to do is apologise and retract, then all you had to do was point him to the policy and tell him to apologise and retract. You dont block someone simply because you can block. That would be the bullying you accuse the newbie of. Sarvagnya 18:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. We don't tolerate legal threats, ever, from anyone. That's probably the worst form of user conduct there is on-wiki. Note: we're currently discussing this via email, and I believe the "you are blocked" templates make it quite clear you can edit your own talk page, but I think he wants to resolve this privately. Hopefully this can be sorted amicably. Moreschi ^Talk 18:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We dont tolerate legal threats. We dont tolerate vandalism either. Or personal attacks. Or incivility. Or 3RR. or a host of other things. But even rank vandals get warnings before being blocked for the offence. Vios of 3RR, NPA, CIVIL all invite warnings first and then blocks. What makes you think WP:LEGAL ought to be different? Read up WP:BITE and WP:BLOCK first. Sarvagnya 18:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

In no other case will the block be instantly undone if the user retracts. Legal threats are different. Moreschi ^Talk 18:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not exactly. I've seen 3RR blocks being undone after editors promised to stay away from the article for a day or two. In any case, which part of you didnt need to block are you having difficulty understanding? What makes you think he wouldnt have apologised and retracted if you had simply asked him to do so (instead of blocking)? You owe the well intentioned newbie editor an apology. Sarvagnya 18:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Well-intentioned? I think I'll reserve my own judgment on that. Amongst other things, this user recently compared Dbachmann to Hitler (or, certainly, that's how it came across). When users make unambiguous legal threats (if you revert me, I'll sue you), they are blocked indefinitely. It's as simple as that: we cannot permit free editing of Wikipedia to be impaired. Moreover, "if you make legal threats, you may be blocked from editing so that the matter is not exacerbated through other than legal channels. Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely, while legal threats are outstanding." That's not hard to understand. If he retracts (which, if you give us a few matters to discuss this via email, I'm quite sure he will) I will happily unblock, and make it quite clear this is an editor in good standing with no stain on his character. Moreschi ^Talk 18:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking in this case seems like a fairly sensible option, in all fairness. The user can be prevented from making further legal threats whilst the whole policy about making legal threats is explained to the user. Nick 18:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. No Legal Threats, is a 100% clear policy. It is to protect users from receiving or being placed into fear from these threats, and to block the editor, at a minimum, until that threat is resolved. If the user makes the threat, they have already violated the principle behind the rule, as well as the rule itself. It's that simple. I support Moreschi's block, and I would have done the same.⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think legal threats are highly disruptive, and blocking users for making them is justifiable. However since the user was probably unaware of WP:LEGAL, I think giving him a second chance may be appropriate. Therefore I have posted a block review request on the users page. If he is unblocked, I hope that he realizes that such behavior is unacceptable in a collaborative environment. Abecedare 18:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Unnecessary, he's just retracted the threat to me via email. Will now unblock. Thank you all for remaining ever so calm. Moreschi ^Talk 18:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It has been brought to my attention that someone with whom I have previously won a slander/libel lawsuit from 2003 is now causing trouble on a page here. I would like to privately discuss this matter with an administrator. Can someone tell me what are the next steps?

Thank you.

GothicChessInventor 17:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:NLT. Anything you do w/ the law needs to take place off site. If you solicit any action with that as the basis here, you will be blocked with no further warning. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 17:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want to email me the details, I am willing to take a look and tell you what options (if any) you may have here. As Chairboy notes, though everyone has the right to pursue legal action, we have a strict policy against using Wikipedia to threaten legal action. Please keep that in mind. Dragons flight 18:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This wouldn't have anything to do with this would it?--Isotope23 ^talk 18:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a legal concern that needs to be brought up with Wikimedia, you can send it to [email protected] but as Dragons_flight and chairboy noted earlier, it needs to stay off Wikipedia. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 18:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I came to this talk page User_talk:Mirrori1#Salaam_baradar and noticed some strong personal attacks against unknown users. It seems that the attention of an administrator is necessary. --Pejman47 18:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I have left this warning on the user's talk page.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:NoGringo, a newish user, has clearly spent a lot of time creating several hundred articles on Telephone numbering systems, creating categories, templates, and all. However, every single last one of them that I have read through is a copyvio of http://findphonenumber.info/different_dialing_plan.htm, not to mention probably a violation of WP:NOT#DIRECTORY or WP:NOT#INFO. Somebody please handle this whole thing, as going through and tagging all of them as db-copyvio would be a waste, rather than just having someone click the delete button.The Evil Spartan 19:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

If you go to the end of webpage you link to, it states "From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia". This doesn't appear to be a copyvio, but instead that site is reusing Wikipedia content. -- JLaTondre 19:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's the users contribution log. Drumpler 19:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Call me a cynic, but is it possible this person is simply trying to link-spam to boost his/her Page Rank? jddphd (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

What is page rank if you do not mind me asking --SevenOfDiamonds 19:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PageRank --Nethgirb 21:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The user is breaking Telephone numbering in Europe (which that website has copied) into individual articles. There is no copyvio & no link-spaming. Another site is using our content. There is no indication that he's associated with that site. -- JLaTondre 19:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the website posted above pretty clearly states the info is from Wikipedia, so that would indicate no copyvio.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:29, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Moving this from AIV where I mistakenly put it:

Akbak (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) appears to be same editor as the indef blocked 12va34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who also appears to have been editing under several dynamic IPs, making identical quirky, invalid edits in evasion of the block.

For example, compare this to this and also this to this including typo.

The IPs I believe are being used by this same editor to make similar edits include:

71.156.34.48 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

71.156.39.75 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.1.243.201 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.1.251.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.2.218.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

75.2.220.24 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and probably others, fwiw. Tvoz |talk 22:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

RookZERO edit warring/vandalizing (removing valid content) once again in the Scientology articles.

Or being about to. 2RR/3RR so far and counting.

Scientology and the legal system

David Miscavige

Scientology

The usual, he got blocked a couple of times w/o any change in behavior. Misou 23:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: There we go. 3RR. Anybody around here? Misou 23:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I took a quick look and they look to be just inside 3RR. Can you provide some diffs, please or maybe file a report on WP:AN3? - Alison ☺ 23:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User(s) blocked. - blocked now for revert-warring on multiple articles. That guy is out of control and is completely uncommunicative - Alison ☺ 23:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've worked with editor before. He's not willing to discuss any changes he makes and makes then to point towards a particular point of view which was already addressed somewhere in the article before. Uncommunicative is the word of the day. — Moe ε 00:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Misou 01:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This image was previously deleted with the explanation of "18 USC Section 2257", which I assume has to do with concern that the subjects are under 18. The image has been uploaded again. Should it be speedied? --ZimZalaBim ^talk 04:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any delete history at that name. Is the link correct? And yes, that Federal Code relates to under-18 models - Alison ☺ 04:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, okay. You fixed the link. I just deleted it as unlicensed (which it was) and it's a bit-copy of the previously deleted image. And yes, concerns re. underage - Alison ☺ 04:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Please don't try to interpret the law as it applies to Wikipidia unless you are a) a laywer and b) more importantly, the foundation's lawyer. That said, the contributions of both accounts who uploaded the image are somewhat off, so the image should probably be deleted on permission issues alone unless solid copyright and permission proof is provided. 75.116.0.59 04:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Relevant discussion at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 July 26. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre (talk · contribs) recently had a checkuser performed to see if he was His excellency (talk · contribs). The results were inclusive but the general impression seems to be sockpuppet or meatpuppet. Anyway, I have now protected that user's talk page indefinitely for this blatant threat. Whether or not this is the user known as His excellency, Cheszmastre has no business on the Wikipedia. --Yamla 04:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cheszmastre sent me an e-mail confirming that he is (at least presently) the banned User:Kirbytime, who once again is working with His excellency to troll Matt57; see Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Kirbytime. I am certain this is not the last we will hear from either of these gentlemen.Proabivouac 05:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kapnisma (talk · contribs) deleted a sourced content image, taken from the official report of the Carnegie endowment in the POV-labeled article Hellenization marking this change as 'minor' without discussing the deletion in the talk page of the article. In message to my talk page he threatened me that if I post the picture again, he will report me. The picture does not agree with the strong pro-Greek POV of the article but I put it just because of this: to show that there are other POVs and official sourced data that do not agree with the POV the authors of this article are pushing. Hope that someone will pay attention to this obviously biased editing. Lantonov 08:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the edit dispute is settled for now (I hope). Lantonov 15:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am reporting this case as I am tied up and cannot keep an eye on him. He is an extremely persistent vandal originating from Lithuanian Wikipedia, where he was blocked for personal attacks, distruptive editing, POV pushing, and absolute refusal to engage in productive discussions. He used to edit via multiple IPs on en wiki, usually to vandalize userpages of Lithuanian editors primarily active on lt wiki (see history of user:Windom, his favorite, user:Knutux, etc.) This week he moved to make massive edits on variety of biographies: adding Category:People of the KGB to people related to Venona project, {{soviet-stub}} to all people born in the Soviet Union, Category:Jewish atheists to randomized selection of articles on Jewish personalities, etc. While not something "horribly" bad that someone else would notice from first sight, it is sneaky, distruptive, unsourced and in many cases offensive. I have indef blocked the first known user account. Yesterday I bloked two of his IPs for 24 hour period. Can someone please go over and revert user:Pioner contributions and keep an eye on those articles? Thanks. Renata 15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've rolled back most of the contributions.-Wafulz 16:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, he's back.. Special:Contributions/87.74.46.129 Thanks. --Katoa 15:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Endorsing the block. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Lets_go_2_b_free. ....... --Katoa 17:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Paradisal (talk · contribs) continues to make personal attacks, as reported here previously. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is an administrator matter only as far as noting that whenever Pigsonthewing (talk · contribs) is involved in anything that requires admin attention, the admin needs to have the patience to go through the entirety of the issue, including the repetitive bludgeoning. I don't think that's what's happened in the {{coord}} modification proposal so far for example, as it's still on hold because of the bludgeoning, despite the supporting majority. On this accusation here, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pigsonthewing 2/Evidence#Andy_Mabbett_twists_WP_policies_for_his_own_ends highlights this NPA-yelling-behaviour quite well. The arbitration committee has found his behaviour disruptive at least once already, and soon yet again. Everything on Wikipedia:Disruptive editing#Definition_of_disruptive_editing_and_editors indeed matches, in addition to referring to a crank. How clearly does it need to be pointed out before it sinks in? Must you bark every time someone brings it up, instead of accepting that that's how the Wikipedia community sees your actions, and try to change? --Para 20:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of how right you are, I don't see how calling someone a loudmouth or a crank is either productive or compliant with WP:CIVIL. If the other editor is as disruptive as you say, then getting into a mudfight with him only makes it harder to recognize his wrongdoing. The fact that an editor has been in arbitration does not make him an outlaw for whom collaboration guidelines don't apply. Please be civil, avoid personal attacks, and use DR. Instead of calling someone a loudmouth or a crank, use DR and diffs to demonstrate improper crankocity. And be patient; it looks from the arb that he'll be banned for a year shortly. THF 21:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It only repeats what others have said before, in the same sense if not in those exact words. It is not a personal attack when disruptive behaviour is pointed out, especially when it's exact repetition of previously noted behaviour, and when it's someone with whom arbcom enforcement has already taken place and failed. Though I have lately just ignored most everything this particular editor has had to say and am not interested in mudfights, when someone brings up an issue where the resolution is blocked because of a loudmouth stalling things by making admins ignore not only him but everyone else in the discussion, I won't hesitate pointing that out and hopefully get some new views, dependless on which side they end up on. Formal dispute resolution and other remedies would come in due time, but in the discussions I've been involved in, that time hasn't come yet. I can't think of many things more unpleasant than going through anyone's correspondence with this particular editor, so I will not get personally involved with anything related to looking for diffs unless absolutely necessary. It is much easier copying diffs from others, who have for example noted that as a year's ban already failed as a remedy, another might not be effective, especially when the user has admitted[33][34] to using sockpuppets during his previous blocks. Be on the lookout for more socks. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, you are a liar. I have admitted no such thing. Will an admin please take action over this wholly unwarranted accusation? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 08:16, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para's incivility continues. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently not :-( Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 10:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, just stop stalking Andy's contribs, whether or not a ban is inevitable. Will ^(talk) 22:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't help that he does his damaging edits in areas I'm involved in. It's impossible to be patient and just watch the damage being done until the ban is effective. I could perhaps reconsider some actions if you point out what could be seen as stalking. --Para 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Nominating {{kml}} nine minutes after creation. Will ^(talk) 00:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's part of a WP:GEO project to reduce the number of geographical coordinate templates, and another to work on GeoTemplate design instead of forking other alternatives. That's standard procedure for cleaning out the cruft from Wikipedia, not stalking. But while we're on the kml topic, shouldn't good admins close deletion nominations with a reason that can be later used as a precedent? Such a long discussion did no good with this non-result. --Para 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the nomination, I'm talking about the timeframe. Will ^(talk) 00:34, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Para, consider that you (and others) are guilty of the same behaviours which Andy is being blocked for. He has been around longer and edited more and thus has racked up a longer list of enemies and conflicts... but that doesn't make him 'worse' than the people he is fighting with when they stoop to name calling, accusations, threats, stalking, harassment, et cetera. You note that Andy was blocked for an extended period once before... it is worth considering that several of the people he was in conflict with there eventually ended up being blocked themselves. As my parents used to say ad nauseum, "It takes two to argue". If you were behaving in a reasonable and impartial manner this mess simply couldn't exist. You help to make it what it is... and if you don't change that then sooner or later it will be a problem for you too. --CBD 14:49, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I am a new user here at wikipedia and have been wanting to create an article about the NASA QuakeSim project. My complaint is about user:Ryulong who has been giving me reasons for deleting my article that I do not see as a problem regarding the QuakeSim article I had posted. I am an employee that works with the project and together with a group of fellow employees we created a document we would like to post on wikipedia as an article about QuakeSim. My complaint about user Ryulong is that he seems to present reasons for deleting the QuakeSim article that do not really have to do with the article. He mentions there are no secondary resources other than the quakesim.org and nasa site but there are and all the links provided there are to allow for people to obtain more information. When I presented him with this information that there are secondary resources he brought up the idea that the fact that I am an employee and writing the article on my own project has to do with the CONFLICT OF INTEREST RULES that wikipedia.org has. This is when I felt a complaint was necessary because I felt insulted. My entire purpose for this article is to inform the public about the NASA QUAKESIM PROJECT. Nowhere in the article is there any signs showing or implying that I was doing this for personal benefit and personal promotion. I am not advertising nor am I asking for donations. I am merely providing information and resources for the QUAKESIM project and other geological information. Why I feel insulted is that user RYULONG, I feel, deleted the article without taking a couple minutes to read it and realize that the article's purpose is to inform the public and does not break any rules or policies presented by wikipedia.org. Also, user Ryulong never actually told me how I should fix the article content so that the "problems" he found would be corrected. I do not appreciate the difficult time I am having with this article because of USER RYULONG's comments and actions on the article. Please look into this matter because I want to be able to post the article without having to worry about it being deleted. I will be more than happy to send the content over and fix any problems it might have. I understand user Ryulong is trying to do that but the problems he is presenting do not make sense to me and it seems as though he does not want to help me in solving them so that I can post the article.

QuakeSim 00:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please summarize this in less than 200 words. Admins are loathe to read long passages. —Kurykh 00:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My summary: QuakeSim is a NASA project. This NASA employee made an article about it which Ryulong deleted, citing conflict-of-interest and notability issues, and User:QuakeSim disagrees with the validity of these reasons. Personally it sounds okay to me; if some other editors joined in we could get rid of the COI problem, and surely NASA projects are notable. --Masamage ♫ 00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I won't say "tl;dr" here. I will say that if Ryulong and you are having a disagreement on if the content belongs on Wikipedia or not, that you're having a dispute. Disputes are handled using Dispute Resolution, not asking admins to sort out your problems for you. If you insist on having an admin resolve the dispute between you two, then I'd point out that Ryulong is, in fact, one of our hard-working volunteer admins, and I doubt you'd appreciate it if he ruled in his own favor.

Your best bet is to simply follow the same dispute resolution procedures that everyone else has to follow. ~Kylu (u|t) 00:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedural issues aside, I'll just chime in and say that QuakeSim definitely is notable. I'm not in that exact field but I'm somewhat familiar with it. Raymond Arritt 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Keeping in mind that the editor is a new at this, I'd say he's done well to get this far without finding his account blocked. Sorting out the dispute resolution is pushing the bounds of reasonableness. I've reviewed the article. It needs work, but that's nothing new. The organization is notable. The topic is notable. The project is leading-edge applied science. The information is sourced. As a result, I've restored the article. Rklawton 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've procedurally nominated it at AFD. I have no objection to it being speedy closed if a sufficient consensus of those just showing up elect to keep it, but let's not edit or wheel-war over this thing, please.--Chaser - T 01:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call! --Masamage ♫ 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

So, what is going to happen now? I know my article is back up but there is still a chance of being deleted. I did have a dispute that needed ot be resolved but the reason I brought it to this discussion is because I did not like the way things were presented to me by the user. I understand there is another place for dispute resolutions but I felt I needed to bring it to this discussion for the reason mentioned earlier. I apologize for any inconveniences. I was not happy with the way things were presented to me and frustrated with the fact that my article was deleted and I was not told exactly why it was deleted and how to fix it so that it is not deleted again. Please update me on the status of the article and what I need to fix since one of the above users mentioned there is some work that needs to be done. Thank You. QuakeSim 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This incident is an example of how WP:COI violates the "comment on content, not contributor" principle. If the content is really bad, there is no need to call a COI. The Behnam 01:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's likely to be deleted; it's already got a lot of 'keep' votes. The nomination was just made in order to collect those votes so that we could be sure there was a consensus to keep the thing. --Masamage ♫

For those just reading, the nomination resulted in speedy keep. The Behnam 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

COI should not be used for deletion. That's a major misconception that should be nailed. Charles Matthews 12:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Correct. There's no "conflict of interest" criterion in the criteria for speedy deletion (nor is there a BLP one, but that's another issue). If a perceived conflict of interest exists, we have ways of dealing with them, and immediate deletion is not one of them. Neil ム 10:56, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa (talk · contribs) seems to have a history of incivility and edit warring, based on his user talk page and contribution history. Last week, he was given a final warning for incivil remarks, harassment, and personal attacks, although he wasn't blocked. However, lately he has been disrupting several "List of X" AFDs in response to my nominating List of Rajputs for AFD - while constantly baiting myself and others on that AFD, he proceeded to PROD List of Latvians, disrupt Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs (see these particularly incivil remarks). Not to mention he's been going around to lists and posting messages saying that they'll be "next" (he has repeatedly been accusing people in these AFDs of having an agenda).

This all comes on the heels of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grand Hyatt Hong Kong, which I deleted and he recreated three times, though the article was later restored after a DRV he thoroughly disrupted by attacking users endorsing the G4 speedy deletions of his recreations: [35], [36], [37], [38]. I would say Kappa deserves to be blocked for some length of time, possibly for as long as a week or two. This behavior cannot continue, and he's had a chance. --Coredesat 08:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmm I'm not actually blocked yet. I'd like to know if I can go let the editors of List of Greeks etc know that List of Poles is up for deletion, or if that would be disruption of the process. Kappa 09:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the behaviour at DRV merits a block. Kappa doesn't really have a "history of incivility of edit warring", but he is one of the most principled supporters of inclusionism, which is probably not a very fun position to have in the current AFD climate. Kappa, whenever you feel frustration about the victory of the deletionists, please try not to vent that frustration by trolling or by violations of WP:POINT. Accusing other editors of having an agenda is not likely going to help your cause. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 12:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Kappa, you know better. Take a break if you need it, but you do need to dial down the hostility and incivility you've been showing around AFD recently. Dragons flight 17:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, please! "Deletionist" and "inclusionist?" Sheesh. I do not agree with Kappa. I have pretty much never agreed with Kappa. There is no "history of incivility" stuff, though. There is/are national issues at war surrounding the Polish editors, and who is at fault or how it can be settled is not an appropriate topic here. No, no blocking of Kappa. Geogre 13:25, 14 August 200:7 (UTC)

"You bastards" is civil? Wow, news to me. --Calton | Talk 14:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Only if they killed Kenny. >Radiant< 14:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that calling something "shitty" or "POV deletionist bullshit", saying that "civility is more than you deserve", and accusing editors of "lacking the ability to grasp the problem" qualifies as incivility. --Coredesat 15:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Given my rounds of AfD and DRV, I do entreat Kappa to be more civil in discussion. Incivility and ad hominem arguments (I have seen quite a few of them) only serve to weaken your case. —Kurykh 16:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, come on, folks. "Civility?" Really? That's the problem? Sticks and stones are no longer the only ones capable of breaking bones, but words can always hurt, too? I thought both of you were well above that. I'm not saying that to be contentious, either, because Kappa has been nasty to me, too. It's just that there is a big difference between "getting called names" and "history of incivility requiring a block." The first? Fine. The second? Nah. I'm not in favor of using, "He's a potty mouth" as a reason for blocking people. Disrupting proceedings is much more of an occasion -- warring, stalking, vote busing, all the other glorious garbage -- those are reasons for blocking, because they're preventative blocks. Saving people from reading mean words isn't so much a good rationale, in my mind.

Again, I do not like Kappa. I have no real use for Kappa. I have disagreed with virtually every motion he has ever made at Wikipedia, and I think people who are in accord with him are making the encyclopedia more like Everything2 than a useful website. Don't read this as anything other than an objection on principle to seeking blocks over bad words and bringing up past disagreements as evidence that a person is somehow worthy of a block.

Also, I reiterate my first objection: "deletionist" and "inclusionist" are meaningless terms. The very invocation of them is intellectually crippled. (E.g. I'd call myself an elitist, not a deletionist, and a happy elitist at that.) Geogre 03:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'd be hard pressed to find an instance where I've ever agreed with anything Kappa (talk · contribs) has stated at XFD discussions (at least in regards to arguments about keeping or deleting articles. That said, I have not frequented XFDs in a while, but when I did I don't recall Kappa (talk · contribs) being enormously incivil; less stringent about what we should actually be covering here perhaps, but not incivil. Of course some of the quotes above exhibits less than ideal discourse, but I'd agree with Geogre; no block needed at this time though I'd caution Kappa (talk · contribs) to try and reign it in a bit even when he gets heated over an XFD debate.--Isotope23 ^talk 16:53, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Having only recently become acquainted with Kappa, I'm afraid I'd have to agree with those who believe him to be rather incivil as of late. However, I feel it prudent to mention that he's also been somewhat Jekyll-Hyde. For example:

• Kappa was quite civil for the most part during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Iranian women (2nd nomination).

• However, as pointed out, Kappa did a complete 180 and started attacking editors at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs.

• Kappa then became civil during his contributions to our list guidelines debate (even if his response to the invitation was decidedly less than civil), but then turned right around and nominated a list for deletion based on grounds he had decried during Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of chefs - possibly to make a WP:POINT.

I wonder - are we dealing with more than one person using Kappa's name? Is there maybe a deeper problem? I'll be honest, I can't figure the guy out. Sidatio 17:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I rather had the impression that Kappa was just very disenchanted with wikipedia at the moment and this behaviour is probably a function of that. What concerns me most is that Kappa is being very intolerant of inexperienced editors and this has to stop. To an extent established editors have to accept thet xFD discussions can get very heated but new users stumbling into discussions must always be treated with respect and calm explanations rather then profanity and anger otherwise they can get driven away. Kappa needs to stop this side of their contributions immediately otherwise they probably cannot continue to contribute. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC). This is what I'm on about. Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That warning's actually why I came here in the first place. It's clear that Kappa has no intent to stop his behavior, although he does act civil from time to time. --Coredesat 20:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Having been a recent target of Kappa's volatile temper, I can attest that he does not choose his words with care. I can't say I mind it much because I've seen much worse. However, that kind of attitude contributes to a toxic atmosphere on AfD/XfD/DRV and at some point I think we'll need to put him on some sort of civility parole because in the long run his systematic transformation of deletion debates into personal vendettas is detrimental to the project. Pascal.Tesson 15:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim ( Tmayes1999 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) ) has escalated a problem with his formatting and choice of comment locations to vandalism of my userpage. Diff: [39]

See also the edit histories of User talk:Tmayes1999 and Talk:Fat Man for other disruption.

I just had to sit on my hand and not block him on discovering his vandalism of my userpage, as I am anything but uninvolved and impartial at the moment, but I would like some uninvolved admin reviews. Georgewilliamherbert 08:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I did have a look, and noted your comments regarding cross posting, non signing, etc, in regard to his experience. Do you contend his edits are wilfully disruptive, or that he is unwilling/unable to properly use WP rules/guidelines? I would also ask if you feel his article edits (I am no expert) have any validity - inappropriate placing notwithstanding - or are as poorly conceived as his communications? I am trying to find out if this is a well meaning if misguided contributor or a plain or garden vandal.

Fellow admins (or other party), please feel free to act upon any reply - I am going to bed in a few minutes. LessHeard vanU 21:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Tim's had an account for a number of years now. He was the subject of a prior Arbcom case that was waived off when he went idle, as I understand it, but he has come back a couple of times with the same edit pattern.

This time he seems to be improving a bit over time. Georgewilliamherbert 08:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Leo III has been posting copyrighted material into several articles (see [40] as an example, taken from [41]. They claim that they are the copyright holder, but it seems doubtfull. Can someone investigate, as I'm not really sure else I can do other than continuing to revert the changes. Markh 11:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

They have also vandalised peoples talk pages [42], and left insults on other peoples talk pages [43]. Markh 10:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Some (but by now means all) of the edits documented below is several months old, I mention them to illustrate the continuing nature of this user's problem behaviour.

• This editor continues to engage in disruptive sockpuppetry

For recent evidence that User:R:128.40.76.3 & User:A.J.1.5.2./User:Curious Gregor and User:Tim.Boyle/User:Mad kemist are the same editor, see the histories of the Bennelong, Bennelong Society and Bennelong Medal (currently a redirect) pages. Clearly User:R:128.40.76.3 & A.J.1.5.2. are not independent editors, while these all claim to be different individuals editing from the same machine, with similar interests note however that in the first few days following the creation of the Peter L. Hurd article that their edits are clustered within minutes. See the old Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Curious Gregor for evidence supporting the conclusion that Curious Gregor (now known as A.J.1.5.2.), Mad kemist & ip 128.40.76.3 are the same editor (note that here ip 128.40.76.3 edits the SSP case about, about 6 months after it was closed, changing the spelling on links so that they no longer points to the AfD that sparked the case, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle). This editor's sockpuppetry and protestations of innocence are disruptive, see e.g. Aug 7, Aug 9th, yesterday, & today.

• This editor impersonates academics while editing on wikipedia:

here ip 89.104.35.216 claims to be User:R:128.40.76.3, and admits to using the sock account User:Iconoclast4ever. He also states that the account Tim.Boyle is a sockpuppet of Mad kemist and an impersonation of their PhD supervisor, chemistry prof Tim Boyle (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timothy Boyle for more drama). In this diff [44] on the page User:Curious Gregor (which was deleted 12:14, 15 June 2007 by Phaedriel) Curious Gregor (now A.J.1.5.2.) signs a self-awarded barnstar as "Greg Fu" which seems a clear attempt to impersonate MIT Chemistry Professor Greg Fu. This editor has impersonated two academics on WP, which can only discredit the project in the outside community.

• This editor creates biographies of academics in furtherance of suspect purposes

This editor created an academic biography (the deleted Timothy Boyle) which apparently made spurious claims (such as a previous career as a professional soccer player). They have also created a biography of me (now at Peter L. Hurd) presumably as a target for harassment and vandalism (e.g. [45]). This editor claims that the creation of this article is a good faith creation of a notable scientist's biography, it's hard to believe this given that he once filed a bogus SSP case against me (the now deleted Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Pete.Hurd, for which he was blocked [46]). It's just plain harassment.

User:Phaedriel (who is attempting wikibreak) has been dealing with this mess, it seems unkind to drag her back to WP for this nonsense. The editor does have some constructive ability in him but has, and is, sapping a considerable amount of effort from other consistently productive participants. I'll file a user conduct RfC if that's the most productive way of dealing with this clown, but I invite an admin to take some more efficient action. Pete.Hurd 17:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

just a note that regardless of the motivation in creating the bio, it survived an AfD and is not currently abusive.DGG (talk) 00:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC) (the bio on Peter Hurd, that is.)DGG (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Being honest around here seems just seems to antagonise other editors. As I have said in previous posts, we are not all the same user although you do have the grouping and socks of other users correct above. I personally have only had one sock User:Iconoclast4ever which I stoppped using immediately when I realised there was a policy violation. User:A.J.1.5.2./User:Curious Gregor are the same user which is blocked now and this user has had to create a new account (and will probably be accused of sockpuppetry when Pete see's editing similarity). User:Tim.Boyle/User:Mad kemist are the same editor, however this student was a fourth year project student who has subsequently left (at the end of the last academic year). We are/were different editors and we edit from different machines, however, we work in the same office and often ask what each other is editing at any given time. Our whole building has a common IP address 128.40.76.3. As for the protestations of innocence being disruptive, they are basically just responses in an attempt to clear the air about the circumstances I have detailed above and are no more disruptive than the unfound antagonistic comments left by Pete's insistence that we are all the same user. I fail to see how the creation of the page Peter L. Hurd is an attempt to target and harass Hurd, as the article did not contain any personal attacks and as DGG has pointed out survived an AfD. The user who impersonated Dr Boyle (Mad kemist) is no longer an editor (although that user did leave aa lot of third party collateral damage to Boyle which should be removed so it does not appear in google cached pages), and User:A.J.1.5.2./User:Curious Gregor has admitted in the past that the barnstar he awarded himself was an experiment (however it was not carried out in the sandbox). I find it quite frustrating when I am trying to become a better editor, that I am being continually harrassed. Comments such as Hurd's above calling me a clown are blatant violations of WP:CIVIL and WP:ATTACK, and his supermoderation of all my edits, and the following nonsense tagging of articles by Jack Merridew such as this COI tagging[47] are starting to violate the pillars of WP such as WP:AGF, and are leaning towards WP:STALK. R:128.40.76.3 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

First-off, I have corrected one of the user names Pete linked to above; it's User:A.J.1.5.2. with a trailing '.' not User:A.J.1.5.2 wo/. I don't know the whole history with this editor but it seems a long one, and many faceted. As Phaedriel seems to be busy/exhausted, I guess this is the place. I would ask that others take a look at the articles user has been editing and review the history of the cloud of other accounts. See also: User talk:Phaedriel#back as promised, User talk:Phaedriel#Block on User:A.J.1.5.2. and User talk:Phaedriel/Archive 51#3rd party -> you. --Jack Merridew 11:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A number of only marginally active editors have resurfaced at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Crockspot and they all seem to have the same style. I'll list them.

• MonsterShouter (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in 5 days...no edits since.
• BernardL (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)...first edit in two weeks...no edits since.
• Dureo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)....first edit since last Rfa participation, 11 days ago...no edits since.
• HiDrNick (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)..first edit in two weeks...no edits since. If nothing else, it's pretty obvious these votes must have been spammed via email.--MONGO 23:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems some canvasy spam is quite different matter than sock stacking an Rfa. Is there more to it than gaps in editing, and some similar viewpoints? Or do you have other suspicions of stocking wearing by those folks? There is a lot of unpleasant behavior as part of that discussion, it's a shame to elevate the fairly polite incivility if it's not needed. --Rocksanddirt 00:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't request checkuser until the Rfa as ended.--MONGO 00:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can check me right now, I don't mind. BTW wasn't emailed about this, became aware of it because of a thread here at ANI. Adding further, this was what interested me in that RFA http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:ANI#Disturbing_questions_being_blanked_at_Crockspot.27s_RfA when you check me, realize I was in LA for a week and a half and this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2&diff=148908475&oldid=148905292 and this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Elonka_2&diff=next&oldid=148908475 were made from there, also any other edits made around that time, prior to that and now it will mostly be my work IP, (Police department, County IT) and my home IP, Comcast. Ridiculous accusation, but I'm all for checking it out. Dureo 02:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No not ridiculous...whenever someone shows up to !vote at Rfa's or Afd's after not editing for a while it is often a red flag. Most people who participate in these things edit more regularly than you do. Thanks for clarifying you're not a sockpuppet.--MONGO 02:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the above users are socks, but a checkuser might be performed on newly-created SPA User:MrGibblets, as his only non-userspace edits are to the RFA in question. VanTucky ^(talk) 00:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As for MrGibblets (talk · contribs), I'm inclined to block and strike his/her comment as a thinly-veiled personal attack by an obviously disruptive sock. Thoughts? — Scientizzle 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice...WP:AGF WP:NPA such high, lofty ideas, but here on the factory floor, the sausage is made in a different way. I would suggest you keep with the subject and not launch personal attacks as to my qualification's to make a comment on this. I accuse you of disruptive behavior per WP:BITE MrGibblets 00:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A new user well versed in our policies? Marvelous. --Deskana (banana) 00:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Whats wrong with reading...unless it's SOP not to read the HELP link Such statement implies "assume bad faith". Lovely.MrGibblets 00:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[ec]A user that can properly link a picture on his/her 1st edit[48], edits an RfA on the 3rd edit and posts at ANI by the 5th edit (with a link to WP:BITE)...? I thought that referring to Crockspot as "Crackspot" was a personal attack. I now see that you're just not good at spelling. Fine. I won't block or strike your RfA comment. But I am curious about a possible checkuser (It's obvious that MrGobbles (talk · contribs) is the same editor). — Scientizzle 00:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Threaten,intimidate and insult. Nice to treat a newbie so well... I'm impressed.MrGibblets 00:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Though its never good to jump the gun, I wouldn't be too surprised to see a new user who read a policy or two before creating an account or feels like voting in a RFA. Its just a bit strange that you found this page so instantly and very easily? This isn't the page that a typical new user would want to swing around the first, second, or third day...how exactly did you decide to go to this page?¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 01:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I stumbled in to it, like you would stumble in to a dance of murmurs, in a dark forest. I saw it on and thought it was interesting, so much is being made of this. Any rate, you people don't exist in the vacuum of your little world, Wikipeida exists in the greater internet and it's impact on it is as such, that it must allow outside voices in. Considering the hostility and disrespect I have received, I would have to say, so far, the critics of Wikipedia are right. Hope that answers your question.MrGibblets 01:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• As other people have said, this is being discussed on the mailing list, which could draw in some inactive editors. -Amarkov moo! 00:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

MonsterShouter has made over 50 meaningful edits scattered over the 3 months previous to this RdA, BernardL over 1500 edits, several hundred at different times in 2007, Dureo has commented on many RfAs in the last month, HiDrNick has 600 edits since April 2007 including other RfAs. They all look genuine to me. DGG (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And the opposes, other than being the solitary recent edit for each are all different in style & content, IMO. — Scientizzle 00:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you both for AGF. :) Dureo 09:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess I am wrong then...nothing suspicious here...nope, nada. All the more reason, as I have openly stated previously, that IRC and the mailing list are for those whose main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia.--MONGO 00:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You say that as if it's a terrible thing. My main effort is something other than writing an encyclopedia, and I'll freely admit it. I could do a lot more for the encyclopedia if I didn't care about editing being an enjoyable pasttime, but I do care about that. Frankly, very few people have devotion enough to making an encyclopedia that it's their top priority, so we really have to take what we can get.-Amarkov moo! 00:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

My, what an astoundingly useful comment. Mackensen (talk) 00:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's pray the media didn't catch that. bibliomaniac15 00:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The media watches the mailing list and the comments there are often beyond the pale of what is tolerated here. Yes, if people spent less time chit-chatting on IRC and the mailing list, they could instead do what we are supposed to be doing on this website, namely, writing and editing articles, Mackensen.--MONGO 01:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no doubt. I'm simply puzzled how disagreement here translates into the comments you made. It seemed a complete non-sequiter to me (mind, I don't read the mailing list). Mackensen (talk) 01:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In other words, this isn't a mailing list or a chat room. Stay on-topic. VanTucky ^(talk) 01:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(sigh) ATTENTION BOT OPERATORS: Will one of you talented folks please write a bot to drop you a message on your talk page when your name is dropped on ANI, since some users seem to lack the common courtesy to take care of these niceties themselves. Call it "CalledOnTheCarpetBot" or something. I am no ones sock puppet, and resent this unfounded personal attack. There is no reason to go hurling around accusations of these sorts just because your pet candidate's RFA is tanking hard and fast. I read RFA regularly, and comment rarely, and there's no harm in that. I will not be disenfranchised just because my wikiholic score doesn't rival MONGO's. ➪HiDrNick! 08:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have been in a Genocide dispute this user adds Turkish sources and does not want to add third party because this is OR you cannot find these absurd sayings anywhere, anyway he has attacked me constantly.

• Please don't destroy the article with your nationalist stance. [49]

• Back off troll [50]

Interestingly enough I added third party and neutral sources he refuses to comply with the rules. --Vonones 03:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, he removes Armenian Genocide and continues with his uncivil remarks saying the Armenian Genocide will never be true. [51] --Vonones 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He also violated the 3RR and is being disruptive without wanting to discuss his edits; [52] --Vonones 03:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Dealt with for the 3RR and the attacks. --Golbez 08:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As some may know, there is a small group of editors that are continuing to battle (i'm included in the group). Ksy92003 (talk · contribs) has been copying text from User talk:Jmfangio/Archive 1 to his talk page. Repeated notices that this does not fit well with WP:TPG, WP:ARCHIVE, and WP:RTP are being ignored. There are a number of other "ousttanding issues", but I am happy to continue to walk away from them: this however needs attention. It would be appreciated if someone would instruct this user to stop copying content from one user talk page to his (especially without agreement). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This makes no sense. All Jmfangio has done is give me three policies (WP:TPG, WP:RTP, WP:ARCHIVE) which I've never read once in my life; ergo, I don't know what they say. I took this originally as an attempt to harass me, but I kindly asked on his talk page why I couldn't do that. I asked him what from those three pages say that I can't do what I was doing because for all I know he could've been making it all up, something that I've no doubt he would do because of the recent history between us (he hates me and has continually accused me of making personal attacks towards him and being uncivil, two things that another user, Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs), believes I haven't done at all. He responded (rudely, in my opinion), " have pointed you to three different articles that have relevant content on this. As they are important articles, it is best that you read this. Now i am quite serious - i am stepping out of this," saying "I am stepping out of this" without even telling me why I couldn't do what I did. Now, he comes and reports me. For all I know, he could've made it up. All I did was kindly ask him what it says so I know that I really can't do it. He hates me, and I am under the impression that he would do anything to frustrate me.

And also, mind that the conversation took place in the past several hours; I wasn't ready to close the discussion, but Jmfangio took the conversation from User talk:TonyTheTiger, moved it to his own talk page, and then archived it before the discussion was, in my opinion, dead. He got all mad at me for doing something that he, himself, suggested in replying on his talk page because he moved the discussion there, I asked him politely why he was mad at me for only doing what he said, and he has yet to answer. I wasn't ready for the discussion to be archived, as I saw it as an attempt by Jmfangio to completely ignore my post so he wouldn't have to answer me. I feel that the discussion was wrongfully closed and haven't even been able to get any answers from Jmfangio. He flat out refuses. Ksy92003(talk) 04:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• And again - trying to keep it on one of his sub pages. He doesn't need to be blocked, so we don't need to go to 3RR, although I will even if it get's me blocked. Just get this to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I have to admit that I am also confused as to which policy he is violating by doing this. Could you be a little more specific in your reasoning for removing this content from Ksy92003's talk page? (ftr, I am not an admin) Resolute 05:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
• Further, why is it so important to blank this discussion from his talk page? Would it not stop if you simply let him maintain this archive and moved on? Resolute 05:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this is unrelated to the topic, but I have had to put up with so much frustration because of Jmfangio that, because of this recent development, I have been frustrated so much. I decided to do myself a favor and hit a tennis ball with my tennis racquet. Because of all the frustration built up inside of me, I feel that I might've severely injured my right shoulder because of the swinging. Just wanted to say that to prove how frustrated I am and have been. Ksy92003(talk) 05:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your misrepresentation of the history of our "relationship" is beyond my control. Stop refractoring my comments to other talk pages without my permission. I'm even giving you a chance to get out of the other stuff. Just stop...i'm yet again about to have to go bail on a conversation I started with ANOTHER user because of you. Go read the articles you were pointed to. Your actions are in dramatic violation of several points on all the articles. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not clear on why this is disruptive? – Luna Santin (talk) 05:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to point you to one quote from him: "All Jmfangio has done is give me three policies (WP:TPG, WP:RTP, WP:ARCHIVE) which I've never read once in my life; ergo, I don't know what they say." He is pointed to the articles that explain everything and then says "i don't know what"... Amongst the many other problems with his edits, and amongst the many other violations within these articles - i'll point you to just one more thing and then i can't imagine whatelse to do but keep him from moving my comments. Per WP:TPG#Others.27_comments

"Never edit someone's words to change their meaning. Editing others' comments is sometimes allowed, but you should exercise caution in doing so. Some examples of appropriately editing others' comments:

• If you have their permission"

He doesn't have my permission. How many more reasons do i really need to have to give you guys. Just get it to stop. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You do not WP:OWN your talk comments any more than you do any other edit. Can you show that he has changed the context of your comments by any changes he has made? If all he has done is simply move an entire discussion, I still fail to see how this is a violation of this guideline. Resolute 05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um... I never edited your comment. All I did was move it, but I didn't change anybody's words to alter their meaning. I don't need your permission to move anybody's comments, only to edit them.. I didn't edit them at all. I copy-pasted them, and nothing more. What's so wrong with that? You did the exact same thing. Ksy92003(talk) 05:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Go read those pages. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By posting any text to Wikipedia, you agree to license it under the GFDL -- no permission is needed to re-use (or even modify) your content, provided your contribution is attributed. There are, of course, some Wikipedia policies which suggest we should avoid editing the comments of others when doing so would alter their meaning or otherwise produce confusion... but I don't see a compelling reason why this particular case is problematic. In any case, I see that you've violated 3RR at this point, and with that in mind, I've blocked you for 24 hours. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All that said, there's clearly something going on involving Jmfangio (talk · contribs), Ksy92003 (talk · contribs), and Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs). – Luna Santin (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there is; in fact, last week an exasperated admin took them both to RfAr to try to stop their feud, although it looks like the case isn't going to be accepted. (I'm not sure that an unambiguous statement by admin that copying the talk posts wouldn't have solved the particular sub-problem at issue in this thread, without a block, but I can understand the general frustration with this entire situation.) Newyorkbrad 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, and as someone who has been observing this situation for a bit I think it is unfortunate Arbcom probably won't accept this case (though I understand the reasoning of those who rejected it). It seems pretty clear these editors can't solve their problems with each other on their own.--Isotope23 ^talk 13:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blanked Ursasapien (talk) 07:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Uifjei (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has posted {{UsernameHardBlocked}} on several talk pages ([53], [54], [55], [56], see contribs for full list), signing as User:Ryulong... and he's continuing this behaviour on more user talk pages. –sebi 09:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Already blocked... Seems to be a series of users posing as administrators. --DarkFalls ^talk 09:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep. Someone impersonating Luna Santin said they'd blocked me yesterday... -- Anonymous Dissident^Talk 10:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Neil closed down Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Names of Omagh Bomb Victims. There is an ongoing discussion here, [57]. I myself sought Adminstrator clarification here [58]. Having asked to him to take a second look at His AFD decision, I am a little uneasy as to the reasons he has made an edit to Birmingham Pub Bombings without replying to me first. Aatomic1 12:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am unaware why I need your permission to make an edit to an article 13 months after closing an only vaguely related AFD discussion. Neil ム 13:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe I said you needed my permission. I would like to know you reasoning, however. Aatomic1 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

this is a content dispute - I see nothing currently requiring admin action. --Fredrick day 13:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Content of What? Aatomic1 13:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

your description I am a little uneasy as to the reasons he has made an edit to Birmingham Pub Bombings without replying to me first. - what about that does not say "content dispute"? the problem you seem to have, from your own words, is that he has made an edit without replying to you - that is all you have given us. If there is a problem that requires admin action, I cannot see it from either your post or a quick look at the contributions of both of us. --Fredrick day 14:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Aatomic1 - the content of the article. It's not even a dispute, it's just I didn't answer his question (mainly as it was less of a question and more of a request to arbitrate a dispute on a topic I know nothing about) before editing a loosely-related article. Neil ム 15:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have now moved the debate to Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 August 15#:Names of Omagh Bomb Victims..sorry to waste the time of the Great and the Good. Aatomic1 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This is the Point

I hope everyone will now understand the point I am making: [59]Aatomic1 17:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See Also

Talk: Birmingham pub bombings# Team editing to make provisional SF more electorally attractiveAatomic1 17:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I recently blocked a user who had been writing insults about various editors, including a long campaign against a prolific editor, a recent example can be found here. Additionally he wikistalked this editor across a number of other pages in order to insult him on user's talk pages as well.

He had been warned repeatedly over a period of several months that this behavior would not be tolerated, warnings that he always removed from his talk page. The warnings went unheeded. I gave him a short block and a warning to cease, and his response was to insult me as well. A perm block followed. No great loss; almost every edit he made is to a talk page.

Since then he has been spamming my e-mail. A recent letter contained a lengthy diatribe, and the subject line stated that I had the right to "defend myself" against these allegations. He did not indicate what he did with this e-mail, and has failed to do so since, after being asked several times. His latest message simply ready "Shut up".

So has anyone out there received mail from him? Is he spamming admins? Or perhaps he's sent it to one of the public e-mail drop boxes? Anyway, just a heads up. Should I turn on the e-mail blocker if this does turn out to be the case?

Maury 16:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, here are the user's article contributions.-Wafulz 18:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

She's done a little list of blueberry-themed disruptive moves that are making my eyes cross, but I'm on the clock and have to leave my computer. Can someone try to put this mess back? -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I did one, but persian poet gal is too fast for me :( --ST47Talk·Desk 18:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh, guess that means I got 'em all :)...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 18:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Not for long, for I have finally discovered the secrets of VoA's Master Rollback! For great justice! --ST47Talk·Desk 18:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks from the BBC are editing the Criticism of the BBC page and removing negative stuff.

The following edits are from a BBC-registered url: [60] [61]

I used [62] to find this stuff.

Maybe the BBC should be asked not to remove negative information from pages about the BBC????? Bigglove 03:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Carbon copy of my (as a non-admin) response on the articles talk page: AFAICT Wikipedia has no power to discipline the whole of the BBC, and a quick check of other contributions shows that blocking BBC IP addresses en-masse would certainly harm Wikipedia more. Where, good content is removed, the editor concerned, should be subject to the same disciplinary procedure as any other editor.

However, the point good content should be noted. There is a fair bit of rubbish that gets put into this article sourced from sources with hidden agendas - and often put in by editors with hidden agendas. Your Evening Standard example above is a case in point - the original editor credited it as a report from The Times(given the use of "of London" I guess the person came from outside the UK) and quoted from the article, what the article what appeared to be quotes from the BBC's report - go to the actual report and this "quote" is not contained in the report. The quote that was put in here appears to be merely the opinion of the Evening Standard - a right wing and rabidly anti-BBC tabloid. This being the case and numerous other examples from DMGT tabloids makes me suspicous of a number of the other tales which use such sources - at that point I would like to see at the least a more reliable source for the tale.

Pit-yacker 09:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• An admin has already blocked one of the IPs linked to the BBC-based edits of BBC articles, so this has already gained some attention. After a cursory review I agree with User:Bigglove that a breach of WP:COI and WP:NPOV is taking place as a result of these edits. Where this is the case it's probably worth dealing with the individual editor/IP using the templates and requesting admin attention as necessary, rather than an IP-range block, as User:Pit-yacker notes. Edits can be reverted as vandalism with reference to WP:NPOV. Coldmachine^Talk 13:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

As the talk page template has suggested, I made every, or close to every, attempt to contact the BBC to report the abuse. Cheers! — Moe ε 15:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. THe BBC anon IPs made many edits, mostly of a helpful nature cioncerning BBC stuff (links etc) or on random stuff that was probably of interest to BBC employees personally and which had nothing to do with conflict of interest. I only reported the stuff above, which I felt was concerning because they removed critical material about the BBC; this was conflict of interest. Bigglove 20:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Per this 3RR report, I have blocked Giovanni33 for two weeks. As the reporter notes, there is no technical 3RR vio; however, Giovanni's long record of edit warring convinces me a longish block such as this is merited. In case I am wrong, I have posted this here for review. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

All Giovanni33 does is edit war...how long before we can seek a community ban? He has been at 3RR at least two other times in the past couple of months...lookout for socks.--MONGO 04:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I've consistently seen him hre on ANI about edit warring. —Crazytales (t.) 04:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur in the block. He's been blocked many times for 3RR or gaming thereof; he should know better by now. There may be other editors on that article who should be warned about edit-warring. Raymond Arritt 04:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also concur, I had no idea that his block log was so large. There is value in increasing block lengths when an editor is not getting the message. At some point we have to stop wasting time on an editor, when that time comes is up to ArbCom or via community ban...but for now Heimstern Läufer made the right choice. RxS 04:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long, IMO! I suggest 3 days. Look who made the complaint too. Tbeatty who is guilty of censoring my proofs on the Crockspots election for admimistrator. Twice or three times he completely deleted my posts on an official board with 'BLP' claims. He is involved in a 'war' on that article, and there is no real 24 violation! If it was 4 RR in 20 hours I could understand, but to apply this penalty in this one case is unjust. IMO. Please reduce and give a warning that 24 hours doesn't really mean 24 hours. This rule is silly anyway, as it has no actual values for the hours! Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 04:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Bmedley, the 3RR has always been an electric fence, not an entitlement. The 3RR is just one way to measure edit warring. Users can edit war without breaking 3RR, and when they do this long-term, they should be blocked. As for Tbeatty's faults, I'm not interested in entertaining tu quoque arguments. If indeed Tbeatty has done things worth a block, you can make a report about him. His behavior has no bearing on whether Giovanni33 should be blocked. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni33 has been blocked an unreal amount of times. I think that a community ban is in order. Pablo Talk | Contributions 04:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Without casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Pablo) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors! Another comment somewhere talks about the left-right wars on Wikipedia. You better get these warriors under control! I myself withdrew from 2 or 3 (?) articles because the wars were too fierce! Bmedley Sutler 06:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If there are no strong objections from the blocking admin, I'm going to shorten the block to two days, if by virtue of the blocking admin's own ambiguity as to this particular dispute. Also, I note that the person who reverted Giovani used "rv vandalism" as their edit summary. Thanks. El_C 06:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni has received multiple short blocks. Is this just going to go on forever like this, with him receiving a day or two for constant edit warring? I may not know much about this particular dispute, but I do know edit warring when I see it. Frankly, I think it's for the best that I know little about the dispute, as it leaves me more objective. I don't agree with shortening this block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

With all respect, that wasn't the question. I'm not going to doubt your even-handedness at this point, but would suggest closer examination is in order when imposing blocks of such lengths on established contributors. El_C 06:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"That wasn't the question?" You asked if I had strong objections to shortening the block. I have said that I do. Or maybe I wasn't clear enough. I do in fact have strong objections to shortening Giovanni's block. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I do as well...he has been blocked more times than almost any long term editor who is still editing here. Though most are from some time ago, he has been at 3RR some many times recently, I can't even keep count.--MONGO 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, disagree strongly, would have done it. Speaking of which, I strongly object to your block (see below for details). El_C 06:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Heimstern and MONGO here. This block is more than appropriate and I strongly object to it being reduced. - auburnpilot talk 06:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It increasingly looks like this user is being ganged up on due to his politics. No warning ,no nothing. I'm going to reduce the block to a week. I think that's a fair compromise. Let me know if you're gonna wheel war over it, though, because then I won't do it. El_C 06:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but who exactly is wheel-warring? Several editors and admins have endorsed this block, yet you seem determined to reduce it regardless. - auburnpilot talk 07:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to reduce it, unless someone intends to reverse me, yes. El_C 07:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, you brought your block here for "review" (whatever that means to you). I have reviewed it and found it to be excessive and rather arbitrary. El_C 06:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I appreciate the feedback. Well, you decide what you want to do. I won't make any changes to whatever you do, but I do feel that the block is justified. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Everyone else seems to feel it is justified, El_C. It seems that reduction would be the extreme position. --Tbeatty 06:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I should extend a few blocks to the other rverting parties, then... El_C 06:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If they are edit warring consistantly and have a history of such, then I would agree.--MONGO 06:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of them, Tbeatty, reverted "per talk," just as Giovani did. The other didn't even use the talk page since June, and used "rv vandalism" as an edit summary. I don't think a two-week block was justified in this case. This dosen't seem like fair interaction on the part of Honda, nor fair interpretation as well as communication on the part of the blocking admin. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether the original block stands or is reduced, I am concerned that we will simply find ourselves here again, as Giovanni is clearly a prolific edit warrior. I'm wondering what other steps toward dealing with this edit warring might be taken. For example, has there ever been a user conduct RFC for him? I certainly can't find one. If not, might that be a possible step? Heimstern Läufer (talk) 06:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't appreciate the threat and I stopped reverting prior to any violation and I used the talk page to justify all my edits. I also edited the talk page prior to the edits, unlike Giovanni33. If you read the report, you would see the big issue is that Giovanni33 tried to recruit additional editors to revert the page so that he wouldn't be in violation. That is gaming the system. --Tbeatty 07:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't threat, I warn. The fact is that the other person reverting to your version did not use the talk page. You, as the filer of the unorthodox 3rr report were or should have been aware of this. Yet you did not encourage that user to participate in the talk page with both of you, instead, you reported Giavani at an3. El_C 07:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What unorthodox 3RR report? He recruited people to revert for him. He said so on the talk page. I don't really give a shit about what other editors did or did not do but I did not see a violation. I reported Giovanni when he said he was recruiting people to game the system.. He was reverting at least 3 editors. If you think that's unorthodox to report, then perhaps you shouldn't be reviewing 3RR blcoks. If you had read the 3rr report as filed, you would see that was the issue. --Tbeatty 07:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You may not "give a shit," but what you should consider of interest is that I may. In answer to your question, the one that obviously did not have a 3rr violation. As for your suggestion that I refrain from reviewing 3rr reports, well at the event, I have closed many tens and no one has seen fit to take issue with my judgment. In your 3rr report you reference Giovani block log, but fail to mention that except for a quicly-lifted block in June, it has been nearly a year since anything new has appeared in said block log. El_C 08:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, it seems that there are plenty of editors and admins taking issue with your judgement to reduce here. And maybe if Giovanni33's 3RR reports weren't dismissed so quickly and his blocks reduced so readily, he would stop gaming the system and stop edit warring and he wouldn't have so many people adamantly in favor of such a long block. --Tbeatty 08:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be, aside from the cheers coming from several of his content opponents here, general ambiguity about what is actually happening now and a tendency to go by notions (such as a 2-second glance at a block log) rather than evidence. El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll guess we'll have to disagree as it appears to me, Giovanni33 has one cheerleader and a lot of persons that oppose, are sympathetic to or apathetic to his particular ideology that simply see someone who edit wars and games the system in order to violate the letter and spirti of 3RR. --Tbeatty 08:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This mode of communication is becoming eliptical. El_C 08:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One is never enough to edit war. Except for a block in June, that was soon lifted, the last block is from September 2006, nearly a year ago. El_C 06:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, even a week is too much. This dosen't appear like a just block. The use of the 3rr noticeboard seems questionable as does the fact that the blocking admin consulted this, much more relevant board after issuing this irregular block. And the lack of communication by the blocking admin with Giovani also seems somewhat problematic. The reporter in this case is a longstanding content opponent. Should I go on? El_C 07:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reporters are nearly always content oppponents.Proabivouac 07:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm of course pointing to its longstanding nature. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni games the system by recruiting editors to continue his edit war. That was the complaint. It was not questionable. It states very clearly what the problem was. An admin reviewed it. Blocked him progressively based on his LONG history. He notified him on his talk page. There is no other notification requirements. What is problematic with that? --Tbeatty 08:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I already illustrated what is problematic with that (3rr not having been violated, other user not participating in talk page, blocklog cited but no blocks, except for the lifted one, since Sept. 2006). El_C 08:22, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni mode of operation is to edit war and push 3rr to the limit, and sometimes over. When called on for it, make excuses and blame others, and then "promise" to do better. Here he promises to limit his reverts to only 2 in the future [[63]]. Giovanni is generally a fine editor, however he is certainly a frequently flier at 3rr and edit war gaming. Dman727 07:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, except for June, there hasn't been blocks since nearly a year ago. So it looks like there's been improvement. I don't think draconian penalties for surprise-2rr are fitting, nor having 3rr as one-sided venue. For my part, I have protected the page for a few days. El_C 07:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's be crystal here: a blocklog is not an eternally damnable record (well, except for mine!), and with a gap of a year between blocks can, the block log can instead be seen as a record of improvement. ♪Accentuate the positive,♪ and so on. El_C 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel two weeks is too long. I have had very little interaction with Giovanni. In the dispute, our views were different on the matter but I felt he tries to make his case as clear as possible and argues for it. --Aminz 08:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two weeks is way too long. I say three days. "Wihout casting assertions I will comment - another arch-conservative POV warrior (Tbeatty) asking for a ban of one of the most potent liberal POV warriors!" He is being ganged up for his politics! Ever since that PrisonPlanet thing some of the conservs here have been on the war-path! With this new revelation though See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA the RW Reign of Terror will be ending soon! :-) Bmedley Sutler 09:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From the record I've seen, Giovanni33 has moved from serious abuse to relative quiescence to garden-variety gaming the system. Meaning no irony, that is indeed an improvement. I'd have to agree that the ancient block log is relevant - it shows that he risks returning to old patterns - but we should acknowledge that there does appear to be a long period of improved behavior. In the last interaction I had with him, he had violated 3RR on Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation, and self-reverted per my advice: I resolved the thread because it seemed the problem had been solved, and Giovanni33 seemed reasonable, if a little disingenuous about his supposedly naive knowledge of the rule for which he'd been blocked before. My impression was one of a person who would revert more often it if he thought he could get away with it, but was keen to stay in the good graces of the community and avoid a block. So, there is something here to work with. When I looked at the content dispute, it was impossible to really pick a side. The other editor, Ultramarine, was removing poorly-cited material, which is good, but then turned around and tried to separate this from School of the Americas, which, while I'm no leftist, struck me as a serious whitewash. I tend to disagree with Giovanni33's politics, and vaguely agree with those of his accusers, but that itself gives me pause. I don't know what to do here. As a 3rr report, it goes nowhere on its own, for there was no technical violation. I honestly haven't looked into this enough to really say what is just. My feeling is that this is an "it's about time" block supported by a lot of people who are plainly exasperated with him, and generally, a lot of people are rightly frustrated at our chronic inability to address the subjective but real problem of tendentious editing. What is missing is a serious warning that a problem was coming, instead he was let go again and again (I share responsibility for this) and now all his debts are being collected at once. Thus, two weeks seems too harsh. I think reducing the block is justified, but I'd be judicious in how much we do so. Say, to three days, with the recognition that some people are in all seriousness proposing a ban: not a good sign. Giovanni33 is advised that a non-cosmetic change in behavior is necessary, as it's the recurrance of complaints that will do him in, and we see that staying within the technical confines of the rules is not enough.Proabivouac 09:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Block amended per Proabivouac's investigation. As the admin reviewing the unblock request, I thank him for his extensive input and insight. El_C 10:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree w/ Pro and El C here. Well, Continued long-standing pattern edit warring applies to the other side as well. I've seen User:MONGO getting away w/ it a few times at the AN/I. I remember User:ThuranX arguing about that. I am also finding this edit of User:Tbeatty as disruptive. So was he edit warring w/ ghosts? -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me up®} 10:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Me getting away with what, exactly. Yeah, I remember Thuranx stating here that I was a "giant fucking WIKIDICK" and an "asshole"...and guess what, nothing happened to him. So what is your point? Block those who file complaints that are legitimate and ignore those that call people giant fucking wikidicks and assholes?--MONGO 15:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What exactly do you find disruptive? It was Giovanni's third revert that day without a talk page contribution. --Tbeatty 15:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I haven't got much to say about this except that I feel it sends the rather wrong message that edit warring is not a big deal if you are "improving" and if others are also edit warring. I also suggest we consider making that RFC. Heimstern Läufer (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An RfC would be a very good idea.Proabivouac 22:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Someone remind me again how the project is furthered by a series of POV editors constantly bickering and edit warring about everything? I'm not singling out any one editor here, but the names on this ANI report are repeated on at least a couple other currently active reports as well... and there are others not part of this report that are related to what appears to be a pretty constant POV war. Maybe it's just me, but I'm starting to wonder at what point these editors actions are becoming more of a detriment and time waster for Wikipedia that outweighs any positives to the project from their contributions.--Isotope23 ^talk 14:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You typed what I have been thinking. We need to look more at the net effect of an individual's actions, and not just continually tolerate poisonous behavior because they make some positive contributions. Raymond Arritt 16:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Amen. I don't have a problem with shortening the block (it seems to be a fait accompli anyway), so long as it sends a message and the edit-warring and system-gaming actually stop. If they don't, it's going to be really hard to convince anyone next time around. Supporting "liberal POV warriors" as a counterweight to "conservative POV warriors" is a recipe for disaster, for the simple reason that Wikipedia is not a battleground. MastCell ^Talk 16:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"If they don't, it's going to be really hard to convince anyone next time around."

It certainly will be.Proabivouac 22:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is everyone missing the 900lb elephant in the room here? Giovanni33 is using lots and lots of sockpuppets [64] in his edit warring and vote stacking efforts? Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That case is a year old. I think current behavior is more relevant. Raymond Arritt 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Since my name came up, I figure I should chime in. Long term POV editing which circumvents 3RR, when substantiated, should be treated just as swiftly as a regular 3RR, if not more so for the gaming of the system, which makes the conscious awareness more evident. At least a regular 3RR can be attributed to hot tempers and zealous belief in being right but allows reflection later. Persistent reversion's worse. I also agree with Isotope23 and Raymond Arritt that there are a number of peopel who show up often on AN/I for the same stuff over and over. As for Fayssal's comment above, glad someone else is noticing this too. ThuranX 04:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Pablothegreat85 wrote this about me "Something still needs to be done about users such as Bmedley Sutler and SevenOfDiamonds and their IP sockpuppets. They both, especially Bmedley Sutler, are accounts that used mostly for left-wing POV-pushing and trolling." I am not a troll and I have no sockpuppets. Check my edit history to see all I do tonight. Link I left a NPA warning on his page as part of 'dispute resolution', so I would not need to have to post here and bother you. I was told to try some dispute resolution first. He erased my warning and called it 'trolling'. Link I ask for a block of at least one week for thwarting my efforts to communicate as a part of disputing. He suggested a forever ban for Giovanni33 for a 3 rr. I think he needs one week or two weeks to settle down and stop his attacks and poor behavior. He is a long-time editor so he knows better. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 07:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Erasing warnings from talk page is frowned upon. It isn't a blockable offense. --DarkFalls ^talk 07:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That's not good! I'll post it again. Bmedley Sutler 08:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Just an fyi, the corresponding "policy/guideline/essay/article" reads: "Policy does not prohibit users from removing comments from their own talk pages, although archiving is preferred. The removal of a warning is taken as evidence that the warning has been read by the user. Deleted warnings can still be found in the page history." A user can remove pretty much whatever he wants from his user talk and edit warring over a warning like this is silly. Kyaa the Catlord 08:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And edit warring to keep unwanted content on a different user's talk page can be interpreted as harrassment and can lead to a block for the editor who keeps posting the warning. Kusma (talk) 08:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He attacked me, then removed my warning as 'trolling'. That is not right. If he says in his edit summary "Okay, I made a mistake attacking you, removing warning" that will be Okay. Not to label it trolling though. Not after he attacked me! Sorry! Bmedley Sutler 08:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Templating a talk page isn't an effort to communicate! I'm going to revert your revert. Try actually talking him to him instead. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 08:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

On top of this, you are complaining about the same thing you have been doing. You have put a multitude of warnings, received on your talk page, into your archive almost immediately. Ursasapien (talk) 08:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You are funny! I am laughing! I made one archive when my page got too long, and I didn't delete anything. Bmedley Sutler 08:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I am glad I could provide you with a little humor, because you come across as fairly angry. By your measure, since it can be seen in the edit history, User:Pablothegreat85 did not delete anything either. Why don't you take a wikibreak. Wikipedia seems to be getting to you. Ursasapien (talk) 09:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the one laughing. You seem angry and you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days! See Who's Editing Wikipedia - Diebold, the CIA Bmedley Sutler 09:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

What has that link got to do with Pablo?--MONGO 09:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"I'm the one laughing." - Yes, I assumed you were laughing at my comment, hence I provided you with a little humor. "You seem angry" - How so, I don't feel angry and apparently I come across as comical to you. "you and your friends will be getting much angrier in the next days!" - Now this seems paranoid. Couple that with your statement: "Call me disillusioned but I just don't see that vision coming to fruition ever with the current power struggles and conflict within Wikipedia and the various factions." and I would say you definitely need a wikibreak! Ursasapien (talk) 09:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're making me laugh again Ursa! I didn't write that "disilluioned" sentence. What a funny joke! Bmedley Sutler 10:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Theresa, my first warning to him was hand written And he erased it. So I used the more official warning template. That's what I'm supposed to do! (use a template) Whats with these rules that have no lines? 24 hrs is not 24 hrs and I follow a rule and now someone tells me I'm not supposed to follow the rule of official templates! Bmedley Sutler 09:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh First off, I do post from an IP at times, the first instance was an IP I managed the whole time as I keep my router up 24/7. I no longer use that IP without logging in and am not aware of if I still have it, the purpose of using it was because I forgot my pass after signing up. I then created SevenOfDiamonds, previously, SixOfDiamonds, so that I could login from my alternate location. The only other time I have used an IP was to edit from a local coffee shop/lounge which I signed as myself. I do not login from public lines because I do not trust transmitting personal information over non-secured wireless networks, its bad practice. So far this "clique" has accused me of being 5, possibly 6 other users, 4 of them in RFCU's. If this harassment continues I will ask for admin intervention. However for now, perhaps Pablo can just apologize for his bad faith attacks and accusations. --SevenOfDiamonds 13:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Apparently now with the last RFCU I am now asking for admin intervention, this is bordering on harassment, the same group has filed 3 RFCU's against me, alleging me to be 5 different users. This is bordering on a violation of privacy and harassment. --SevenOfDiamonds 14:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I find three - which is getting excessive WilyD 14:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have also been accused of being two other users by MONGO and one by Crockspot (he later rescinded). I agree a bit excessive, and becoming a violation of my privacy. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I would have appreciated a notice that this topic had been brought here. The reason I felt that the warning was trolling was because I was given a final warning and I didn't feel that I deserved one. In the interest of being a good sport, I will restore the "final warning" by Bmedley Sutler and respond (even though I am in no way obligated to do so). Pablo Talk | Contributions 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

"your reading comprehension" [65], "your pathetic excuse for an argument" [66], "antisocial behaviour" [67], "intellectually dishonest" [68], "is there nobody ... even slightly reasonable" "willing to read and understand" [69], "I see a lot of [ignorance]", "your nitpicking" [70], "have the decency to at least discuss" [71], etc etc etc[72][73][74][75][76]. More in his edit history, talk page, and block log.
Won't be talked out of his style of discourse because he considers he isn't attacking editors, merely their pathetic excuses for an argument[77] and several editors at once and not individual ones personally so it's not WP:NPA[78]. Any way to calm him down...? Weregerbil 17:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You can't make a personal attack against an argument because an argument is not a person. And if you want to calm me down, then I would suggest that people actually address my arguments and not a characature of them. It gets extremely fustrating when people keep repeating the same refutation of an argument that it not the one you've made. Damburger 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

One of the reasons I don't post to that talkpage a lot anymore is because of the personal attacks lodged by Damburger. This is not a new thing, it has been going on for a long time.--MONGO 17:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the old gambit "I'm not attacking you, I'm attacking your pathetic thoughts" is WP:CIVIL, or a trick around WP:NPA that should be encouraged or allowed. Weregerbil 17:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

User has a long history of civility issues. He left this comment on my talk page for which I have blocked him for 48 hours.--Jersey Devil 18:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Block endorsed (and unblock just declined by me). Nothing but incivility and personal attacks from this editor - Alison ☺ 18:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm concerned that the WP:NPA policy is being extended to the point where one can't even criticize the ideas of others without running afoul of it. Some people around here seem to be intent to censor all criticism. *Dan T.* 20:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see..so you consider Damburgers commentary to be accepable? Perhaps his arguments would be better accepted if he ceased attacking everyone who disagrees with him.--MONGO 20:43, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your pleas for people to stop attacking others who disagree with them would carry more weight if you didn't have a long history of doing just that yourself. *Dan T.* 21:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is that a fact? Excuse me while I laugh up a lung. And please, now do run off and post further insults about me on the mailing list and at WR.--MONGO 21:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

There appears to have been ongoing sockpuppetry involving The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (see especially talk page) and the associated AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn, Inc.. Other users created Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Kephera975 to address this, but it appears that no one has reviewed it. I think that the evidence already present was extremely strong, and I've just added additional evidence making the connection even stronger. Could some one review this data please? I think it is pretty convincing that Rondus (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and C00483033 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) are both at least socks of indef blocked Frater FiatLux (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), and timing evidence between FiatLux and Kephera975 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) showing the same pattern of periods of editing vs. inactivity seem to be very strong evidence of complete identity. GlassFET 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This user has repeatedly removed correct info from Ronald Reagan's page to give a negative slant to President Reagan, something he tried before, by starting a debate about how Reagan was a "mass-murderer." This is the third time he has removed correct info, even after a citation was provided (he just got rid of it all), and he won't stop. Please help. Best, Happyme22 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

In the article Erin Burnett a WP:3RR will happen so I will ask for intervention. ICarriere (talk · contribs · count) is reverting [79] and starting personal attacks on the [80] talk page. A pointer to the WP:civilty page was placed on the user page but was reverted.

I am asking for Admin intervention as this will not be solved otherwise. statsone 19:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has explained on the talk page why he removed the quote. I quickly scanned that page. I cannot see the personal attack that you are referring to. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Edits are reverted while they are valid. The controversy is valid and should appear on the page. Comments are being made that are not civil (Anonymous Coward from IRS). Comments now appear on my talk page with the same lack of civility. statsone 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Take this to the article talk page. No sense in having two threads about the same thing. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 20:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Will do. For the record, still on going. statsone 23:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

by consensus and sourcing. Thanks to Theresa Knott statsone 12:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Was browsing and found user from ip 71.113.116.38 had made this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chalcedonian&diff=prev&oldid=151437298 containing pornographic images and an off-topic diatribe in an an article about the Chalcedonian theological position. I think this is vandalism but according to the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism page I shouldn't report it there. I'm not very familiar with Wiki procedure so I'm posting this here in hopes that someone can take a look at it. Thanks

208.181.106.137 19:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• I left them a warning. I'll keep a watch on their contributions in case they continue more edits like that.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm[81] afraid[82] I[83] did[84]. My only excuse is that the second of the four reverts is reversion of clear, but subtle, vandalism. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

See WP:AN3. Melsaran 20:44, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I don't think that this is technically a 3RR violation, because [85] is obvious vandalism. Melsaran 20:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I see we differ on which edits were obvious vandalism. Good, then, I'm not likely to be sanctioned, even if I were to report myself. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The point is to keep the editwarring down. so, discuss on the talk page rather then repeatedly revert. Also, use clear edit summaries. --Rocksanddirt 21:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm the Network Administrator for the IP Range 209-7.225-209.7.28.254. You've had issues with bad edits coming from that network range in the past. We're an elementary school and the vandalism. I'd like a permanent ban on that range for anonymous editing. If a legitimate edit needs to be made, it can be made under an account where more reliable, individual user tracking can be had. You can verify my claim by looking up the whois information for that range as well as browsing to our website (http://www.mbvm.org). If you have any questions, please let me know. Imsaguy 21:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC) 21:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Replying to user's talk. – Luna Santin (talk) 04:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Having exhausted all of the means I know of to discuss this issue with a varying group of "editors," I would like to respectfully request some help in resolving this issue.

The Digital Nitrate Prize is a legitimate, not for profit organization that will award a cash prize for the first individual or company to duplicate high-silver, nitrate motion pictures using digital means. It is announced publically, and supported by prestigious individuals in the archival field. It is an extremely important effort in historic preservation.

A small group of individuals who are hard for me to identify, have decided for reasons that I don't understand that this is some sort of "hoax". There have been two attempts to restore this listing as suggested early on by one of the early commentors.

I'm quoting their post in full:

(begin quote)

• Hello and thank you for taking the time to create Digital Nitrate Prize. However I was unable to find any mention of it in Google, Yahoo, or Ask.com. You may comment on this page. This is nothing personal and I encourage you to copy the text of the current article into a text document so when the prize does exist you can create the article again. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Digital_Nitrate_Prize --Mboverload 06:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

(end quote)

Of course it IS in GOOGLE, Yahoo and ASK.Com now... http://www.ask.com/web?q=digital+nitrate+prize&qsrc=0&o=0&l=dir , http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=digital+nitrate+prize&fr=yfp-t-501&toggle=1&cop=mss&ei=UTF-8

The most recent post is from Seattlenow and most recently Realkyhick who deleted the page before 5 days were up and is now making threats.

Despite placing the proper "hold" tags on the page, it was deleted without discussion based upon the fact that someone had deleted it before over a year ago.

Polite requests for reasons went unanswered.

Now, I'm being threatened with "black listing" for attempting to properly re-list the item.

Proper references and citations were supplied and the subject can now be Googled (which was not true a year ago because it had not been crawled yet.)

I want to do this in the most courteous and effective way possible. This process is all very complicated and hard to follow and I'm trying to follow the rules as best as I can understand them.

The intentions here are purely honorable and honest.

Thank you for your help.

"Movieresearch 22:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)"

You're looking for deletion review here, not administrator intervention; make a short explanation on that page, and see what the community thinks about it. Admins can't really help you with what is a content dispute. --Haemo 22:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if this is an issue. Chatchien (talk • contribs)'s first ever contribution at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Haemo, showing opposition for lack of credentials. He/she used an edit summary and talked in an experienced way. Is this account a possible sockpuppet? LOZ: OOT 23:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is kind of strange, and they created the account on the same day they voted and it was their first contribution. I'm going to strike the !vote and leave a message on the RFA. DarthGriz98 23:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. thank you for clering the fog for me. LOZ: OOT 00:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex Germanus is displaying a strong anti-German POV in his edits, using edit summaries like "germanic europeans? Where are we, the fuehrer bunker?"[86], removing german related content from articles without any explanation[87], adding a bias to existing article [88] [89], moving articles with german words without comment [90], tedious editing (for example see the discussion on his talkpage regarding Wiener Wurst/Würst/Würstchen) and generally painting Germans and German related things in the worst possible light, especially if WW 2 is involved. To sum it up, Rex is strong pushing an anti-German POV on most (if not all) article he edits - somewhat understandable considering the history of Germany and the Netherlands in WW2 - but not acceptable. 84.145.203.241 04:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I was going to just warn him (her), but he's got a block log as long as my arm for past similar offenses. A month's R&R for now but looks like he's barreling headlong toward an indefblock. Raymond Arritt 04:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocking for a whole month with as rationale "persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc" seems however a bit too harsh for this incident, the more so as the block reason (persistent gross incivility, inflamatory edit summaries, etc etc) does not match the notice (anti German pov pushing) Arnoutf 10:03, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For what it's worth coming from an anon, I revoke my call for a shorter sentence, seeing the way he doesn't learn from anything and keeps being uncivil. Also, the probation thing. 82.157.149.162 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Concur with Arnout.

• Jumping from an intended warning to a 1 month block because previous blocks exist seems indeed to be a weird leap.
• An R&R block (Rest and Recuperation I presume) is certainly not going to be used as such by this user (see his sandbox article while previously blocked).

Let me clarify that by "R&R" I meant giving everyone else a rest from his behavior. Apologies for the unclear wording. Raymond Arritt 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Actually looking at the difs provided by the IP, though the edit summaries are far from tactful, I don’t see blockable issues with the edits themselves at all. --Van helsing 11:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Addendum:

• Why wasn’t Rex notified of this ANI post, or invited to comment on it?
• See defense by Rex on his talk page
• What happened to the "this is not the Wikipedia complaints department"? Despite Rex’s history, if 84.145.203.241 has an issue with another user, why wasn’t (s)he advised to follow the WP:DR steps first, for instance: talk with the user, which I can’t see ever happened. --Van helsing 11:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is on parole and probation following an Arbitration case. He has 'already been through the full dispute resolution process. This noticeboard or WP:AE are appropriate places to ask that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced. Thatcher131 14:44, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may be a bit confused here, but I probably have missed where 84.145.203.241 has asked "that the remedies in the Arbitration case be enforced". I’m particularly missing any reference in 84.145.203.241’s complain that has anything to do with the remedies devised for Rex, things like one revert per page per week or edit warring. As far as I can tell 84.145.203.241 states his/her opinion that Rex has a POV problem, which if true, is certainly unfortunate but not addressed in the arbitration case remedies, or requiring a block.

I also think it is an unwise idea to skip the steps of the dispute resolution process because one of the parties already went through it once. Especially when that party is actually the initiator of going through that process, and the new other party is an "unknown history" dynamic IP, unrelated to the original dispute. Not advising the IP to use WP:DR, but instead advising Rex then again to go through RFC or third opinion when he feels provoked, seems... odd.

Retroactively finding a new potential breach of Rex’ parole to validate the block; not related to, but initiated by the post of 84.145.203.241, doesn’t seem to address 84.145.203.241’s issue above. A "didn’t-he-do-something-wrong-anyway" edit history search, finding a new breach that actually doesn’t seem to be one, is going to irritate Rex. Helped of course by his "fans", Rex uses the unblock tag too often, upon which his talkpage is protected as well; his question unanswered.

Though I feel often uncomfortable with Rex’ edits, I feel uncomfortable with this block as well. I know Rex has a lot of blocks, I also know Rex is a knowledgeable encyclopedic writer, more often right than wrong, and I fear the actions of his "opponents" have insufficiently been taken into account when Rex collected those blocks. --Van helsing 09:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Rex is already on probation and parole for one year

As some people who do not know his history seem to believe that Rex is an "innocent newcomer" or similar, I have to point out once again that according to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz, Rex was placed on Probation and on revert parole for one year last November. According to "After 5 blocks the maximum block period shall increase to one year", he should not be blocked for only a month, as he has been blocked 6 times since been put on probation/parole.

Since June, Rex was reported several times at ANI by several users. He got away several times, like at Rex Germanus calls me nationalist and idiot, Rex Germanus, and Rex Germanus. In Rex Germanus user page he finally got blocked for two weeks in July. Among the first things he did after his return was stalking me [91], a habit he continued [92]. Rex Germanus' anti-German stance shows in many instances, e.g. when removing [93] the section explaining the name of the American Gesundheit! Institute. -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       12:54, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't specifically endorse blocks for "POV pushing", however, Rex has violated his 1 revert per week parole on at least two articles (moving Ethnic Germans to German Diaspora and on Dutch (ethnic group). A month block is appropriate per the previous record of blocks at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Ulritz. Thatcher131 14:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As I said above, I think most of his blocks were deserved but this one seems a bit over the top. Also note that between March and the July block (which was also on a relatively minor issue compared to some of his previous blocks) he has been editing without problems. While the parole allows for a full month block, I wonder whether the punishment is not unreasonably harsh for a relaively minor breach of conduct (see reported case above), even for someone with Rex history. Arnoutf 14:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I looked at 3 articles he has been editing within the last two weeks and found violations of his revert parole on two of the three. If he feels he is being provoked he should attempt to address content disputes through RFC, third opinion, or by contacting the various Wikiprojects that have tagged these articles. (Frankly, if the Wikiprojects do not exist to provide expert and experienced help and guidance on the articles within their claimed "sphere", then what the heck are they good for, but that's a side issue.) A minimum of two weeks is called for as Rex has repeatedly shown that he does not or can not work collaboratively. (And that does not even address the "fuhrer" comment.) Thatcher131 14:41, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

My reasoning for the block was along the lines of Thatcher131. In addition to the incivility and the "fuhrer" edit summary, Rex had deleted plainly factual material from articles, such as statements that certain languages were Germanic. I'm not sure whether that's called borderline vandalism or hyperaggressive POV-pushing; either way, it's destructive to the articles and to goodwill between editors. His history shows he is unwilling or unable to modify this behavior despite blocks and parole. I'll agree to reduction of the block if that's community consensus. But how long are we willing to tolerate this behavior and the poisonous atmosphere it creates before we say "enough"? Raymond Arritt 14:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Note that the use Germanic can have nasty Nazi ideological connotation in any but old history and linguistic situations. But your answer is for the rest fair enough. Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I say "enough", and I'm sure there are many others who would agree. I've got the impression some already have left Wikipedia, or (try to) stay away from articles "owned" by Rex. See User:Ulritz or User:Kingjeff, or the IP accused by Rex in Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Matthead. I've repeatedly paused to edit, or tried to ignore Rex's edits on my watchlist, but he follows me around, even to Piotrus' RfA. User:Molobo has been blocked for a year, how many lives and second chances does Rex get? -- Matthead ^discuß!     O       17:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Another case of incivility: [94] , and more in the history of that page, against kingjeff. 82.157.149.162 16:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Both Kingjeff and (especially) Ulritz have been reprimanded for luring Rex into edit warring (in the Ulritz - Rex case arbcom put slightly more of the blame to Ulritz, and recent edits of Kingjeff on Rex talk page are pretty unfair). Please do not use these editors as facts in a case against Rex. He makes enemies I grant you (Matthead probably being one of them), but it takes two sides to engage in a conflict. I have had my problems with Rex but not more than with some other editors; remaining civil and consistently discussing actions has solved these (although with a lot of effort). Rex behaviour is at its worst when other editors respond in kind to his actions sending page into a spiralling edit war; but even then it takes two to Tango. Many of the sentiments aired here (not by the blocking admins btw) seem to be those of Rex old enemies, kicking while down (also the reason why I defend him here, to prevent an unchallenged view of his enemies going on record). Arnoutf 19:48, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A quick comment, since I am somewhat of a party in this. Although I obviously do not always agree with Rex Germanus' statements, the kinds of sources he uses, or the way he uses them, I don't feel he has trespassed the revert parole in Dutch (ethnic group) as far as my contributions are concerned. I consider those edits adjustments rather than wholesale reverts, and I agree with his explanation in the second unblock request on his talk page. Iblardi 10:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Reduction

Following the discussion here, as suggested by User:Thatcher131 I'm agreeable to reducing the block to two weeks. If no one objects, I'll do that soon (or if another admin wants to do it, I won't object). Raymond Arritt 18:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be commendable. --Van helsing 20:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Done. Raymond Arritt 00:53, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

As the person who reported Rex Germanus here in the first place (and not the same person who Rex accused of "revenge reporting", feel free to checkuser me) I neither will object to the reduction. Still, Rex has both a civility and good faith issue. Also knowing (and displaying) one's bias is not a permission to indulge it - Wikipedia should be neutral and consciously allowing one's bias to color one's edits (be it by rephrasing things to "paint" them in a much lighter or darker way, or any other way) is exactly what creates a venomous climate; I hope that Rex will see this as an opportunity to change his editing style - if not I can only see mediation as the next step. 84.145.247.69 13:01, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

This thing (including its talk page) is turning into a barfight. I'm not commenting on which side is right or wrong, but is there anything that can be done other than letting it burn out? Raymond Arritt 02:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to comment there anymore. If people want to equate Crockspot with Satan cause he made some shitty comments some time back on another website, that's up to them. He'll forever be branded as something he really is not, as he made clear in his commentary and responses to questions.--MONGO 02:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for stepping up. Self-restraint by all concerned would be a big help at this point. Raymond Arritt 03:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is quite unfortunate and will have make a useful contributor into a lightning rod now, and likely useless on anything controvertial in the least bit. --Rocksanddirt 16:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

another sock on the Crockspot RFA

One blatant sock has already been blocked during this RFA, and seems that restore the republic (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is also one. They have made absolutely zero edits outside the discussion. They are either a sock or a someone who was email canvassed to vote stack. VanTucky ^(talk) 15:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Two more users who fit the mold are Runesrule (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and Hypotroph (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) New England ^{Review Me!} 15:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a way to protect from new users? OR perhaps Crockspot can withdraw and it can be closed. --SevenOfDiamonds 15:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I will not withdraw. - Crockspot 15:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

An admin could semi-protect the page. New England ^{Review Me!} 16:00, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This sounds like a good idea. It's been done before. Gracenotes^T § 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, the RFA in question was mentioned on two blogs (both attacking Crockspot and acting as a call-to-arms against his candidacy) wired.com and mashable.com New England ^{Review Me!} 16:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Including one supporting where a picture I guess acting as evidence is now being edit warred over on the talk page. Can we force a closure or institute the semi protect please. --SevenOfDiamonds 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I have formally requested a semiprotect. VanTucky ^(talk) 16:08, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

And one more: comment by "Save Wikipedia". Sigh. Gracenotes^T § 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Page was S-Protected by Deskana New England ^{Review Me!} 16:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user disrupting my RfA from off-wiki

• I've been investigating, checking timestamps, and discussing this with Eleemosynary, and while I cannot rule User:Eleemosynary out as vectorsector, it appears just as possible that a third party could have picked up on comments of mine, put two and two together, and set both of us up. Someone like Joehazelton/WillyPeter, or an ED, WR, or PrisonPlanet troll would be possible players. So without any further evidence, I am striking my opening report. - Crockspot 05:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Eleemosynary (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), who is currently serving a one week block for chronic disruption, thanks to my 3RR report, appears to be canvassing off-wiki to disrupt my RfA. This post, was written by "vectorsector". Look at vectorsector's profile. His block is due to expire in the next day, and I have been responsible for at least two of his recent blocks, so he has quite an axe to grind with me. I think he deserves a much more extended block for this. - Crockspot 16:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Identical message also posted here. (See "Save Wikipedia"). - Crockspot 17:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I tentatively support extending the block significantly. I was the one who issued the block to eleemosynary, and I have had extensive troubles with him. He routinely violates 3RR, editwars and is disruptive. If support is shown, I will have no problem extending. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 17:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just extended the block to 1 month. If someone wants to go longer that is their call, but I think off wiki canvassing and disruption warrants it.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:24, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The effort this guy took to undermine an RfA puzzles me. Why would anyone go to such lengths? Is this a common occurrence around here? Sidatio 17:29, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He has a history of harassing and smearing me. Dragged me through a nasty sockpupped investigation a couple of months ago, in which I was vindicated. Just does not play nice with anyone who has a different political outlook, and has a particular dislike for me personally. I think he was also pissed to see my RfA open within hours of his last block. Revenge. It's better to wait until it's cold to serve, otherwise it burns. - Crockspot 17:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Isotope, I have not yet seen any verification that Eleemosynary is the person behind these postings. Most of the postings are on Digg. The Digg username Eleemosynary has not been registered (as of my posting this). The vectorsector account was registered today. If vectorsector is User:Eleemosynary, you would think he would either have done a better job consolidating or separating his identities. Blocking (or extending a block of) Eleemosynary for off-wiki activities, I'm afraid, would set a very poor precedent; it would be far too easy for anyone to just go around the web canvassing or posting as any of us, just to ensure our inability to edit Wikipedia.   justen   17:30, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I considered that this was possibly a smear job before I blocked and honestly I don't believe that to be the case after reviewing and considering his contributions here. That said, if someone wants to boldly refactor my block to extend or reduce it, I won't see that as wheel warring.--Isotope23 ^talk 17:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't see why it was necessary to immediately extend a block without an admission, evidence, or at least further discussion. I think of a block as a last resort. Clearly, the Eleemosynary account posed no immediate threat to Wikipedia. (Also discussion on Eleemosynary's talk page, here.)   justen   17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks - there is no substantial evidence that vectorsector is Eleemosynary. The extension of the block is setting the precedent that anyone can go off-wiki, pretend to be someone on-wiki and make slanderous remarks, and the on-wiki person gets blocked for it, regardless of that person's guilt. That is embarrassing. For all we know Eleemosynary has nothing to do with vectorsector. I recommend reducing the block immediately before this gets out of hand. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:28, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I expressed similar concern since the website is anonymous, and anyone can register as any username. However I do not know enough about the user to say if they are or are not capable of those actions. Just sets a bad precedent. I do remember someone posting as MONGO on PrisonPlanet, which obviously wa snot MONGO, so this would not be a new issue it seems. --SevenOfDiamonds 18:32, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well that's exactly the thing -- how do you know the person posting on PrisonPlanet wasn't MONGO? There's just no way to tell. Blocking or judging someone based on off-wiki actions is just a bad idea. There's no other way to spin it. That goes both for Crockspot and Eleemosynary. We should be focusing on on-wiki activity, not off. Rockstar (^T/_C) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So that should mean all the Opposes on the RfA for off-wiki behaviour should be ignored? --Tbeatty 18:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ignored? Absolutely not. Should the Oppose !voters focusing solely on off-wiki behavior reconsider their positions? Probably, simply because it sets a dangerous precedent. In the end, it's not my call -- I'm just making the point that we get into murky territory when we focus on anything other than building or operating an encyclopedia. Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Tbeatty, there is a difference between alleged canvassing off-wiki and verified off-wiki activity. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:52, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I didn't post to prisonplanet. The main moderator there commented about myself and Morton devonshire and his comments about Morton were just plain awful. Someone else also used my username to make edits I think to wikitruth or some similar website, but that wasn't me either.--MONGO 19:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Exactly my point. And don't get me wrong, I totally believe you, I was just using your experience as an example. What I'm saying is we can't control what happens off-wiki, and someone can easily impersonate a Wikipedia editor off-wiki (as evidenced by what happened to you). Blindly blocking someone when there is zero evidence supporting actions off-wiki is a bad precedent to set, especially with the ridiculous amount trolls out there, you know? Rockstar (^T/_C) 19:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

While I would generally agree with you, how do you ask a person to deal with someone who they believe has spewed hate about them? I think the ability of the community to work with someone is important, and how that person is viewed is greatly important. Would you give the mop to someone who seeks to expose admins as long as they did it off-wiki? I would think certainly not, so off-wiki actions are taken into account quite often. I know I would have trouble dealing with a user who offended my race, and as such plan to avoid Crockspot from now on, some people cannot look at a user on wiki and just ignore what they know about them off-wiki. I just want to make clear, while I oppose his adminship I honestly do feel that much should have not been mentioned, but in that same token, it would have been easy to avoid it, if he didn't make it an issue himself. I do not know why you keep the RFA open, but I commend you for remaining in a mood better then I would have expected. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:49, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to reduce Eleemosynary's block back down to what it was before. Theresa Knott | The otter sank 19:14, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Elemosynary is not so stupid. Why would he supply his real Wikipedia user-name if he was going to 'canvass'? Also tell me if the person writing the post asking for canvassing sounds like the same writing as Eleemosynary. It doesn't one tiny bit. Read his long post on Matt Drudge Link at 23:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC) (I can't find the exact link) and tell me that it sounds the same as those posts asking for a canvass. They are not the same person IMO. I suspect fakery just like when someone used Mongo's name on another board. Ask yourself what is more possible. Eleemosynary being so stupid as to use his real name in an outright canvass, or somone trying to make him look bad? Bmedley Sutler 19:35, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It read exactly like one of Eleemosynary's screeds to me. His latest block is for edit warring, after he taunted me to report him after he violated 3RR, and then continued edit warring until he was blocked. Does that sound particularly smart to you? Furthermore, I went back to the beginning of Eleemosynary's edit history, and found the IP address he was almost certainly editing under right before he registered his account - 24.18.128.52 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) . Guess where it resolves back to? Seattle. I have no doubt it was him. - Crockspot 19:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Crockspot, you're not doing yourself any favours here. It would be very easy indeed to pose as a Wikipedia user off-Wiki, in order to get them banned on-Wiki. Unless User:Eleemosynary self-identifies as that being his account, we assume good faith. Neil ム 20:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Crockspot must assume good faith...definitely! not only did a completely different person post that on that blog, but they even went so far as to make their editing style look exactly like Eleemosynary's....now that is some talent.--MONGO 20:53, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

• Another vectorsector post about this RfA, this account opened on August 14. - Crockspot 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that this not be taken any farther. Crock and this user obviously have a bone to pick, but that really is besides the point. We cannot verify they are the same people, therefor punishing someone for their alleged attempt at sabotage is rather silly. I could make myself sound like another user very easily, arguing if he "sounds like him" is really semantics and waay to subjective. David Fuchs ^(talk) 22:55, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Was this just prophetic? Because, twenty-four hours later.   justen   01:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Except that 70 of the oppose voted appeared before that block expired. Am I counting the time wrong? --SevenOfDiamonds 13:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, what was the real point of this thread? Because extending the block of a user on Wikipedia when he may or may not be canvassing off-wiki seems rather stupid in the light that people are saying Crock can't be judged on his off-Wiki activities. Can we just let this rest? David Fuchs ^(talk) 18:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I struck my opening report last night. This particular act of the show is over. - Crockspot 18:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Can I ask someone to appropriately edit this personal attack? Four polite requests on his talk page with reference to WP:HARASS have resulted only in incivil responses. Not seeking sanctions, just remedies. THF 03:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think that no one should be posting any other editor's real-life name or phone number anywhere. That invades privacy a bit too much for my tastes. If we do not respect each other's privacy, we will only wind up discouraging people from participating on this site. Best, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That post is absolutely inappropriate, in my opinion. Oversight is really the only option on ANI, as delete/undeleting a page as large as this will cause a huge amount of server strain. Of course, since all of this is already on the 'net, you could just ignore it all together. Sean William @ 04:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If the editor himself has continually edited under his own name, what, exactly, is the privacy violation here? That horse was already out of the barn a long time again. And "personal attack"? Please. --Calton | Talk 04:10, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:HARASS: Posting another person's personal information (legal name, home or workplace address, telephone number, email address, or other contact information, regardless of whether or not the information is actually correct) is harassment, unless that editor voluntarily provides or links to such information himself or herself. . . . This applies . . . . in the case of editors who have requested a change in username, but whose old signatures can still be found in archives. ElinorD (talk) 16:38, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A personal attack is a comment that comments on the editor, not the edit. So, yes, a personal attack. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, not exactly. That would be called an ad hominem attack. A personal attack is more strictly defined as a a comment on the editor that is derogatory. Just being pedantic... :) —Kurykh 05:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

No one needs to go through the trouble of oversight. Redaction is sufficient. I apologize that I was naive enough to believe that one could edit a collaborative project under one's real name, but I've now had multiple instances of off-wiki harassment from wiki editors who lost content disputes with me, and have changed my username, and would simply like not to have administrators posting links to my phone number. I note that I was threatened with an indef ban when in February I inadvertently mentioned the real-life name of a user who had changed their username, so at a minimum an administrator should know better. THF 04:15, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ladies & gentlemen, you have just been trolled by the man who is the classic example of a usenet troll. Take a look at my original posting, & to the external links there; he is mentioned in an FAQ on Internet personalities -- which makes him at least borderline notable.

He only came to my attention because he was voicing a rather bizarre complaint: another user called him by his first name. The general reaction to his complaint was that since he was whining about something so trivial, other people ought to just stop doing it. My own reaction was that I couldn't believe THF was serious, so I looked into the matter a little. When I had a look at older versions of his user page I immediately recognized the name -- evidence that prevented any reasonable person from assuming good faith. However, this person's name is common enough that I could not jump to any conclusions, so I did a little research -- which further confirmed this identity. However this person has a fairly common name, so I asked him a direct question about his identity in order to remove all possible doubt. This was not a "have you stopped beating your wife?"-style question.

I expected that THF might not answer -- a lot of my questions are never answered. Or he might provide a terse response, ending all further discussion. Or perhaps he'd respond to me in email, explain the situation to me, & seek my help. Instead he removed my question, & left a accusatory & unhelpful message on my talk page under the sectionheader "WP:AGF, please".

Now two things I have noticed that all troublemakers -- whether we call them "trolls" or not -- immediately do is delete uncomfortable questions addressed to them & invoke "WP:AGF". More often than not by its abbreviations. So I restored the information to WP:AN/I with his response. Which led to an exchange between us where I told him, in effect, if he stopped making such a stink about the matter it would go away. Okay, I'm oversimplifying my side of the conversation: only my first response said that; my second one was to tell him that he was acting silly (IMHO, he was), & to leave me alone. Last I checked, commenting on someone's actions is not covered by Wikipedia: No personal attacks. Further, I believe four separate edits, all in response to his actions, & amongst at least a dozen other edits, hardly amounts to harassment. At each step, I was trying to end this matter, but he kept dragging me back into it.

So what is this link I posted that THF is so bothered about? It contains his business contact information -- which I found thru a simple Google search. I hadn't noticed it until now (because I honestly have no interest in calling or writing him). Had THF explained that at the beginning, I would have been far more sympathetic to his requests than I was -- or am now.

To assume good faith does not mean naively trusting whatever we are told, & I can't conclude that THF was truly interested in keeping his personal information private. Had that been his intent. he would have removed all personal information from his user page (he mentions his employer -- mine doesn't), he would have contacted me offline, he would not post all of his personal information on my Talk page, & he would not have been as confrontational as his posts to me were. When I have dealt with people eager to keep their personal information off of Wikipedia, these are the kinds of things they did -- & what any intelligent person acting in good faith would have done.

To repeat myself, at every turn THF had the option of letting this matter drop. At every turn I wanted him to drop it. And had he simply ignored my original question, it would have been archived off (as it was a few hours ago), & he would have gotten his wish. Instead, he's raised all sorts of commotion over this matter -- which is what a troll (in the sense of a practical joker) does. And we are here on Wikipedia to write an encyclopedia -- not to play practical jokes like this. -- llywrch 16:01, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

So far in six months on Wikipedia I've had Wikipedia editors sign me up for pornography mailing lists, sign me up for dating services, and had a Wikipedia editor threaten to try to get me fired. I was forced to change my username so that I wouldn't continue to get attacked and so I could protect my personal information. So as "trolling" goes on Wikipedia, I've been a trollee, rather than a troll. So I asked for my last (not first) name redacted, and the user who repeatedly posted it did so. Two days after this was resolved, notwithstanding my edit history of over 6000 edits to over 2000 articles (more than some administrator nominees), regular participation in vandal-cleanup and on the BLP boards, Llywrch wants to call me a troll and unnecessarily posts a lot of personal information in the process.

So all I've asked is for an administrator, who should already know the WP:HARASS policy, to redact my real name and phone number and not to post it multiple times. Instead, I get this personal attack, which is not based on anything I have done on Wikipedia. Meanwhile, while multiple administrators agree that it was inappropriate for Llywrch to post my real name and link to my phone number, no one has redacted it. Do I really need to ask for oversight? I'm trying to make things easier here: I redacted it myself; I asked Llywrch politely several times to redact it, I asked here for it to be redacted without mentioning his name, and all I get for my trouble is some sympathy, some attacks, and no one acting.

Yes, we're here to write an encyclopedia. Which I've been doing. But I'd like to be able to do it without further harassment, and without administrators enabling that harassment.

So can someone please simply redact what I asked to be redacted? You can leave up the personal attack of Llywrch baselessly calling THF a troll. Just redact the personal information. Please. Does the WP:HARASS policy mean anything? I was threatened with an indef-block the first week I was here because I inadvertently mentioned an editor's real name, and here we have an administrator not only posting it twice, but defending his policy violation, and nobody doing anything about it. THF 16:17, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

He decided not to wait, but went ahead & deleted the information from WP:AN/IA283. Even though it can be found in the article history. Or through a simple Google search. I could revert this vandalism & protect the archive -- but I won't. I have wasted enough time on this Troll, which all started because of his bizarre hysteria when another editor addressed him by his first name. Had I truly wanted to harass him, there are far easier & more effective ways to do it than what I have been doing -- none of which involve Wikipedia. (I leave this as an exercise for the reader.) -- llywrch 21:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

This comment speaks for itself. Admins truly do have a different code of conduct than editors. Cool Hand Luke 04:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Not all of us. Llyrwch's labelling an honest attempt to remove personal information as "vandalism" is neither diplomatic or correct, as is the use of the T-word (which has been overused a lot around here recently). I have asked Llyrwch to step back, and THF to let me know his concerns and I'll deal with them. Neil ム 08:36, 16 August 2007 (UTC)