Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive283

User:MadmanBot
Hi. MadmanBot appears to be semi-protecting articles and talkpages at random. It may need turning off. Regards SilkTork 17:18, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Errm, it's not protecting the pages, it's adding the template that shows the page is protected. And, it's not doing that task anymore. ~  Wi ki her mit  17:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool. I've just discovered that I can remove the template myself. Thanks for looking into this. SilkTork 17:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've restored the template. The article is semi-protected so it should have the template. If you wish to request unprotection, then you need to make a request for that. Removing the template does not affect the protection. -- JLaTondre 17:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If I may ask a related question out of curiosity, what is the reason for ordinary users being able to use this template? Since non-admins cannot protect the pages by themselves, what is the rationale behind this mechanism that allows a non-protected page to look as if it were protected, or vice versa? --Kudret abi 17:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's because the software has no built-in mechanism for displaying a page's protection status, so we use templates. There's also no mechanism to prevent non-admin users from adding a template to a page that is not protected. Sandstein 18:03, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a bot, DumbBOT, that does remove protection templates from non-protected articles. While it's main use is for cases of expired protection, it would also catch cases where a template is used incorretly. -- JLaTondre 18:19, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not fully sure what is happening here. It appears that that we have a Bot adding protection templates at random. I query it. I'm told it's just a template, that the page is not protected. I remove the template because the page is not actually protected. JLaTondre now protects a page which looks stable and tells me I now need to request the protecting admin (which is LaTondre) that the page be unprotected ! I have already requested unprotection, then when I was informed the bot was not protecting the page, merely adding the template I removed the template myself and left an appropriate note:. At this point we seem to be going in circles. I apologise if I have done something wrong along the way. Can I ask that somebody else deal with this  because I am confused and at this point I'm not even sure who I should be talking to! SilkTork 18:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * JLaTondra is not protecting the page, any more than you're unprotecting it. The page is semi-protected, meaning that registered accounts which have been around longer than four days may edit it. That of course includes you, so you're perfectly able to edit it. (If you want to see how it works, log out and try to edit the page.) Only administrators can actually protect or unprotect a page, removing or adding those templates has no effect on the page's protection level. They only exist to say that the page is in fact protected. Seraphimblade Talk to me 18:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi SilkTork, if you look at the protection log for the page, you will see that it was protected by User:Can't sleep, clown will eat me on March 30th. Its not fully protected (that would mean only admins could edit it) - full protectiomn is indicated in the logs by edit=sysop. A log entry of edit=autoconfirmed means that only logged in users whose accounts have existed for several days (such as yourself) may edit the page. I'm not sure whether this level of protection is still needed, but I hope that explains to you why the Bot added a protection template to the page... WjBscribe 18:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the templates can be misleading occasionally. The surefire way to tell if, and when, a page is protected is to look at the page logs, as WJBscribe mentions. Just go to "history" and click on "Logs". All protections and unprotections are logged there, with the admin responsible. MastCell Talk 21:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the normal way of checking, but it's not conclusive. Logs can be misleading when the page was protected and then moved (where you won't see the protection in the log at the new title), or if the page has been deleted and restored since protection (where you will see the protection in the log but not the unprotection). You therefore need to also examine the log for moves and deletions as well as signs of protection. -- zzuuzz (talk) 21:55, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Also, when you go to edit a semiprotected page, if you're allowed to edit it, it will tell you right above the edit window that the page is semiprotected. Admins also get a message when they go to edit a fully protected page. Seraphimblade Talk to me 22:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be some vandalism from this IP mixed in with good-faith or constructive edits. Just64helpin 19:02, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

User:FSX-2007
This user is disrupting Wikipedia by adding "confirmed" tracks to the Exclusive track listing. He/she proceeds to add the "confirmed" tracks with a source (catch is, the source does not confirm the tracks, just shows Brown in the studio with a piece of paper which has a list of tracks on it, thus being not confirmed and WP:BALL). Only five songs have been confirmed, which are listed in the current article table and they are from MTV and Chris Brown's official fan club. The user does not understand WP:BALL even though he received numerous warnings on his talk page. Here are some diffs (in order - newest to oldest):


 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 

Richard Rossi (BLP concerns)
There seems to be an ongoing issue with this article - various new accounts and IP addresses seem to be popping up to put in unsource and what appear to be libelous claims - some extra eyes would be appreciated. --Fredrick day 21:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've semi-protected the page. JoshuaZ 22:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Some research suggests the incident is true; the anon edit-warrior appears to be adding this (so it's really a copyright violation, too). I'll get better sourcing, since Shepherd draws all his stuff from newspaper accounts.


 * In the future, WP:BLP/N and WP:RPP are the places to go. THF 22:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've researched and sourced the material. THF 00:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Attack pages for deletion
For some reason this obvious attack page is sitting for a long time waiting to be deleted, and was being discussed without removing all of the attacks.

It discusses this, without references, about its subject: he challenges experts in fields which he has no formal training himself.... All of his argument's have the underlying themes of poor reasoning, use of non-existent "factual" data, and ill-formed grammatical structures.... he has attained an unaccredited pastoral ordination ... which required nothing more of him than to simply apply for one. He hopes to develop (his enterprise to include) a special "pastor's house" in a tropical beach setting. He is a self-described believer in a number of new age ideas that are considered by the vast majority of the scientific community to be rooted in unscientific and pseudoscientific approaches. He is a self-proclaimed "Hell of a man." He is known to refer to himself as "a gifted man" and "a freaking genius."

Frankly, if GUY were editing this would have been deleted before I had to wade through the speedy delete incomprehensible jargon to request its deletion, much less watch it sit on Wikipedia this long, posted by an editor and his sock puppet. And why is an administrator putting this up on AfD instead of deleting it? Look at my edit history to find it, instead of announcing it in yet another place for everyone to read. Could someone just delete this crap now? KP Botany 23:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I've deleted the article and closed the AfD. The AfD itself was an overwhelming delete, and the article does appear to meet speedy criteria as a page created primarily to disparage its subject. MastCell Talk 23:22, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to take this to DRV, but I would suggest that speedying was inappropriate inasmuch as, even if the article was created primarily to disparage its subject and at one point took a form that might have merited deletion, its nature at the time of deletion surely did not contravene BLP. Although in its stub form it may not have made an assertion of notability, such that A7 might have applied, speedy deletion was not counseled by BLP, and no harm would have been done by our allowing the AfD, which might have borne out sources to establish notability (AfD often serves, after all, to improve articles that are thereafter kept, which is why we tend not to close "early" AfDs that trend toward deletion, especially where deletion is suggested because a subject is non-notable or because sources toward his/her/their/its notability are not adduced), even as it was tending toward delete as non-notability, to proceed, with the provision that one might have deleted the problematic edits, as KP suggested at the AfD (to be clear, I don't think it necessary for us to remove every BLP-non-compliant version of an article from its edit history, and I don't find there to be any consensus for the view that we ought to excise all egregious BLP-non-compliant edits, but selective deletion might have helped to assuage concerns here).  Joe 23:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Eh. If anyone can explain how any of the revisions of that article were in any way appropriate for the encyclopedia, I'll undelete it. The article can, of course, be recreated at any time if actual sources appear. If you'd like to take it on, I'm happy to provide you with any of the less defamatory deleted revisions to work with. But an unsourced article created expressly for the purpose of defaming its subject is an excellent candidate for rapid deletion, in my opinion. There was no sourced, non-defamatory content to save. We do need Guy back. MastCell Talk 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Deletion was right. As it is, an inappropriate version of the article is the first thing that appears in a google search on the name. Tyrenius 00:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No strong opinion on whether deletion was correct but I will comment that if I understand how most search engines operate whether we deleted the article or replaced it with an ok version wouldn't change how quickly that updated. JoshuaZ 00:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I mentioned that to show how important it is that such problems need to be attended to immediately, as there are wider repercussions than the material just appearing on wiki (which is bad enough). Tyrenius 00:42, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, but the deletion occurred after the really problematic material was removed. Once that has occurred, the deletion isn't that relevant. In that regard, quick removal of the problematic material is not different than speedy deletion. JoshuaZ 00:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just making an additional observation, not directly applicable to the deletion per se (as you point out). Sorry for any confusion. Here's another point, that the edit history would need (at least selective) deletion. Tyrenius 01:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and I don't have any particular problem with that. It seems quite silly to me, though, and quite inconsistent with BLP, to take an attack article that happens to assert the notability of its subject, stub it in a BLP-compliant fashion, and then speedy it as an attack page (its genesis and the reasons for its creation are, at that point, irrelevant).  Once it has been stubbed, as Josh observes, there is an acceptable version in the edit history, and there is absolutely no point to speedying (unless, of course, the removal of all uncited or dubious material renders the article entirely without an assertion of notability, I guess).  In this instance, there appears to have been no damage done, since the AfD was unquestionably going to result in deletion (I, for one, in a cursory search find nothing that I could adduce at AfD toward notability), but it needs once more to be said, I imagine, that one should always opt, of all the possible actions that clearly comport with BLP, for that which is least disruptive/unconstructive. Joe 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * See my comment about this below. KP Botany 03:25, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The article can be restarted as a stub, but BLP policy is clear that if there is no clean version in the edit history, it must be deleted. I left it as a stub, but that left a long edit history of pure crap that would have had to be deleted. In addition, it was being discussed at AfD in a completely inapropriate version. The person who nominated, who I thought was an admin, should have edited it down to at least the level I left it at before posting the AfD. The "really problematic" material may have been removed, but what was left when I looked at the article was shockingly inappropriate for Wikipedia, so there was still "problematic" material for a BLP. It would have required almost no effort to add it anew as a stub without any edit history. Thank you MastCell. KP Botany 02:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Just to be clear, if you're smearing the hell out of a living person in a Wikipedia article, it has to be sourced with 100% reliable sources, every word of the crap. It's edit history clearly showed there were two editors, probably a puppetmaster and his sock, who would write and say anything about this guy, just to get it on Wikipedia, without ANY references, accuracy, or concern other than to smear this person--that is an attack page. KP Botany 02:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, but what about the final version you produced before deletion? If your contention is that, your best efforts to the contrary notwithstanding, the article continued, by the very fact of its existence in view of its creation as an entirely negative unsourced biography and its practical inability to be anything substantive but that, to violate BLP, then I understand your point, even as I probably disagree with you.  I gathered that you were saying that whilst your stub was BLP-compliant (which, to my mind, it was), because the article was created as an attack piece and because without the problematic material we were left with very little, speedy deletion was alright.  It is, of course, true that a stub could be recreated without reference to any of the prior, largely uncited material, but we don't speedily delete simply because an article has problematic versions in its history and because discussion of it at AfD is problematic; we remove the offending material from the AfD and from the edit history of the article, provided that there is an acceptable version to which to revert, as there was, setting aside for the moment GFDL concerns, here.  Joe 02:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The detailed version was an attack page. The stub did not assert notability. There were never any independent, reliable secondary sources, in any revision. Ten experienced editors (or so) had weighed in at the AfD in favor of deletion, none with any arguments to keep. If anyone can produce any reliable secondary sources on which to base an encyclopedic article, I'll support recreating it. If this is just about process for process' sake, when we all agree on the outcome, then consider it a case of WP:IAR. MastCell Talk 03:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, it still violated BLP as the stub I left it as, because there were no independent sources in the article, and there was no version in the history of the article that had any independent sources.
 * I do leave rather negative articles up and allow them to go through AfD if there are any sources, even if I think they should be deleted due to notability, although I edit them down to stubs to remove attack material that is poorly or unsourced.
 * This was simply not the case for this article--there was no acceptable reversion material, because I don't count anything I write without sourcing it on Wikipedia to be acceptable material for an article. I've never heard of the guy and don't know anything about him.  I'm not sure whether the guy could be an article or not, because I didn't research him because of the nature of the article itself--I'm not going to do anything, ever, to support and assist someone's efforts to use Wikipedia for their own personal attack site.  So, no, anything I write on Wikipedia that is completely unsourced about a living person is not acceptable material for a stub.  If you think the guy could be an article, though, and belongs on Wikipedia, e-mail his name to me, and I will look him up and start a stub or start class article if I find adequate resources.  There are plenty of folks with tons of bad things to say about them, that could responsibly be properly researched BLPs on Wikipedia.  KP Botany 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

wikistalking by User:Jeeny
I need to bring attention to a harassment case. User Jeeny seems to be on mission to stalk different wikieditors including me. She watches their talk pages then follows them around to pages they contribute to, then blindly reverts them if they disagree with someone else. Usually these articles are about things that she doesn't frequent at all and doesn't seem to understand. Most recently, User Laternix was working out a style issue about the page Coptic with User Paxsimius on their talk pages, and Jeeny without comment and without ever contributing to their discussion reverted Lanternix 20 minutes after Paxsimius left a comment on Lanternix's Talk page. This was another incident on another page. In that she's following User Taharqa's style, the person that she helps edit war on a couple of Egyptian articles. Egyegy 01:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Help
Can someone fix HMS Fawn (A325) - beyond my technical capability..I didn't break it...honest. Aatomic1 02:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Done. I dont think this was the correct venue to ask this question, however. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 02:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ty -panicked will check back to my welcome message in future Aatomic1 02:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Recurrent stealth vandalism from 65.60.157.168
Static or stable non-shared IP (3 edits, 3 vandalisms):


 * One month ago, 11 June 2007 stealth vandalism : changing a valid   into an invalid  , makes the opening REF gobble a whole part of the article until the next closing /REF. Only one character to type for the vandal with plausible denial, but a possibly large piece of an article has just become invisible, very hard to notice: the trick made this heavily-edited article stay stealth-vandalized for one week before someone eventually noticed something (18 June 2007 restoration of the hidden part).


 * Ten days ago and a few hours ago, petty vandalism but proving the IP stability: 2 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism and 12 August 2007 "Ethan" vandalism both on Winston Churchill.

The dates show it's a nasty one on a static or stable IP, working smooth and long-term vandalism: he just comes from time to time, bullseye with a stealth vandalism trick, and can leave an article vandalized for one week just by having changed a single character where it hurts. (Unlogged, I don't wan't to be wikistalked by those beasts.) 62.147.38.181 03:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There's not a whole lot we can do unless he's vandalized more than once in one day with a final warning, looks like just some person coming by, and vandalizing every once and awhile. They only have three edits spread out over a few months, but I'll keep an eye on it. Darth Griz98  03:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anthropology
(move-vandalism) --Chaser - T 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

???--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)--Cheszmastre 04:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. -- Dark Falls   talk 04:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

how do i fix it myself for next time--Cheszmastre 04:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Take a look at Help:Moving a page. The harder moves may require an administrator's attention though... -- Dark Falls   talk 04:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User Scipio3000
Concerns about his previous actions have not been addressed. . Fresh off his second block, he has made blanket attacks on Wikipedia, and appears to be claiming ownership of one of the contested articles  where he has a heading titled ‘On my article, Sicily'. Also, since the end of his block, Scipio3000 has accused User El C, the one who blocked him, of vandalism, threatened to report him, and said he had ‘no right to butt in’. Edward321 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * For now I have issued another 48 hour block after he violated the 3rr rule on the Sicily article. ¤~Persian Poet Gal  (talk)  00:17, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How about unblocking him to try dispute resolution? We could always request that he does not edit the Sicily article for 48 hours or until the dispute has been settled. The 48 hour block, though not improper, may not be the best solution. Pascal.Tesson 19:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was considering this since El C's post on Scipio's talk page regarding the request not to issue a 3rr block. But today I was convinced that this block should still stand.  What convinced me was this post by JodyB that provided a diff link showing that Scipio had not been truthful in saying that he had not removed talk page sections from the Talk:Sicily page.  But I am still open to any other admin willing to grant the unblock. ¤~Persian Poet Gal   <sup style="color:purple;">(talk)  19:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I suppose El C should probably make the call then since he will probably be the admin most involved in future dispute resolution with Scipio3000. By the way, I have declined his latest unblock request since this is essentially what this thread is supposed to do. Pascal.Tesson 20:06, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, Scipio always comes up with these heartfelt pleas each time he's warned or blocked. The first time, I bought it and thought it was genuine. Then, when he was no longer being observed, he returned to deleting parts of pages and making very strong personal insults. He is frequently lying to put himself in a more positive light. Edward321 reported a few days ago that Scipio had changed the names in a report that Edward had made to make it appear as if Edward had commited the offences Scipio had done. He claimed that his fight with me was about me claiming stuff about the Holy Roman Empire, a subject of which I have never written a word. Yesterday he was asked by a moderator if he had erased comments from the talk page on Sicily and replied no. The moderator found out that he had been lying, and that's part of the reason he became blocked again. During the last week, Scipio has deleted large parts of articles without given any explanations, violated 3RR, lied about his actions, lied about others, falsified reports and attacked other contributors over their race and religion. See the reports by Edward and myself,  as well as all the information he has removed from his talk page. During my time at Wikipedia, I've come across very few users that are this disruptive and violates so many Wikipedia policies. It's a bit strange that we're discussing if the short block of two days should be  lifted, I find it to be very short given his behaviour during the last few days. JdeJ 21:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify. The block was in place before I had the exchange with him about deleting sections from Talk:Sicily. I am happy to continue watching him very closely but I support the block and would not remove it. I think he could be a useful editor as he is obviously enthused and passionate about the subject. Of course he must learn to work well with others. --JodyByak, yak, yak 21:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * My bad, I thought that was the reason. It's possible that he could become a constructive editor, but I admit to being sceptical. Being hot tempered is one thing, all of us can get upset at times. That he is frequently lying about his actions and about what others have done is more serious. I'm also concerned over his edits to Sicily. It's not just that he deletes large parts of the page, what he deletes is references to Arab, African and Jewish cultures being present in Sicily. That worries me. I've recently had some harsh words thrown at me by another contributor, but I don't doubt that that user is a valuable contributor. We have different opinions in an academic question and he's hot-tempered and not very polite, but he's not delibarately lying and his edits are about an academic matter. I'm sure he will turn out to be a great contributor. As for Scipio, even trying to take WP:FAITH into consideration, I'm doubtful, but let's hope for the best. JdeJ 21:37, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just for the record, Scipio3000 is still claiming ownership of Sicily on his talk page - 'On my article, Sicily'. (Difference is listed above, it was still there as of his most recent revision of his page.  ) Could someone please explain this policy to him, I doubt he would take it well from me. Edward321 01:14, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I have asked JodyB to take over the case for me; he has my complete confidence and I'll back him up in whichever way he decides to proceed. El_C 05:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Scipio3000 making attacks on his talk page
Mathsci asked Scipio3000 to post comments on his (Mathsci’s) talk page, not on his (Mathsci’s) talk page archive. . (Post was restored by JodyB after Scipio3000 deleted it.) Scipio responded with ‘I will delete what I want on my own talk page.’. Later, Scipio3000 called Mathsci’s post ‘crap’, ‘sarcasm’ and ‘insults’ and accused him of being ‘bossy’. (Scipio is currently blocked for 3RR.) Edward321 00:45, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Scipio3000 did not seem willing to accept what I was telling him about the difference between a talk archive and a talk page. Post-archive additions to a talk archive would normally go completely unseen and are deprecated. --Mathsci 13:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:65.15.77.18
I have just had to decimate subprime mortgage financial crisis after discovering that wrote most of it by copying large chunks of text from newspapers.

For example, he wrote :


 * "On July 12, 2007, the top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan."

which apparently came from a Reuters article:


 * "The top Republican on the U.S. House Financial Services Committee introduced legislation that would create a national registry and set new standards for mortgage originators in response to the subprime mortgage crisis. Spencer Bachus, of Alabama, said in a statement that his bill, called the Fair Mortgage Practices Act, would curb unscrupulous lending and increase consumer protections. The bill would set licensing standards for mortgage loan originators and log those lenders in a national registry, the lawmaker said in a statement. Loan originators would have to submit to a criminal background check and FBI fingerprinting, and loan originators convicted of fraud would not qualify under the new licensing standards, according to the legislation. The bill also would require mortgage lenders to weigh a borrower's ability to repay the loan and would restrict penalties against homeowners who refinance out of a high-cost loan. ... "

This is just one among many examples in that single article. I have listed a number of additional uncited sources identified by Googling on Talk:Subprime mortgage financial crisis. However as 65.15.77.18 wrote most of the article, it basically needs to be restarted.

However, my additional concern is that 65.15.77.18 seems to contributed substantially to a number of other articles, and I would appreciate some help investigating these for copyvios and repairing as necessary. Dragons flight 07:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you know that its a copyright violation and you seem to know where it came from, could you not add the citation? --JodyByak, yak, yak 14:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't become less of a copyright violation if we say where the article came from. Using a newspaper article as a source is perfectly fine, as is quoting from an article in another work, but just copying the article with no additional commentary or analysis would be violating the terms of use. Natalie 14:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Citing sources is used for backing up claims with reputable source material. For example, when we state that the European Central Bank has injected €61 billion into the European financial system due to the subprime mortgage financial crisis, we must add a citation that points to the proof (for example, an article on the site of the BBC, or perhaps the ECB's own website).
 * Copying whole sections from an article is an entirely different thing. That would be copyright violation, since the authors of those publications hold the copyright to the sections that were copied. Citations are used only to support our own material's validity. (In response to JodyB.) <tt>—msikma (user, talk)</tt> 17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if other people noticed but the editor is still active as of recently. I've informed the editor of this discussion and also told them why their behaviour is incredibly bad. While my message may have been fairly stern, IMHO in cases like these was have to be stern, don't bite and assume good faith regardless (which is not to say I didn't assume good faith, I did) Nil Einne 22:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm working on cleaning up his work at American Freedom Mortgage, Inc., and it's a mess. He starts a paragraph with "On date x, the "Mayberry Gazette" reported..." then he pastes in a huge chunk of the content. There's little choice but to gut the article, which I am now doing. Unfortunately. - Krakatoa  Katie  11:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE WORLD. NOW PLEASE RETURN TO YOUR "JOBS" AT STARBUCKS OR BARNES & NOBLES.

User:Skatewalk
are both sockpuppets of: &mdash; EliasAlucard|Talk 12:07 11 Aug, 2007 (UTC)
 * Please refer to WP:RFCU. Not here. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  17:07, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Or WP:SPS.  Mel sa  ran  14:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

9/11 Truth Movement Edit POV
This is a content dispute; does not require admin attention Haemo 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC) <B> Are you an administrator Haemo?</B> I looked at you page and didn't see that. Are you allowed to close this discussion? Thanks Bmedley Sutler 07:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC) No, he isn't, but I am. This is a content dispute, and does not require admin attention. EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a belief in this 9/11 demolition stuff but this edit is way too POV and I think not allowed. Link Please check and see if my changing back to NPOV is Okay. I don't want to war about this. Even though I don't believe this I know some who do and most of them and I think most overall are spending money not making money. It seems that Morton is on the war-path over that PrisonPlanet thing. Link Bmedley Sutler 07:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You haven't left a message for the editor nor have you made a comment on the talk page. What exactly are you trying to accomplish?  It sounds like you want an RfC?  The edit you linked to is not an "incident" but rather a content dispute.  The talk page should be your first stop.  --Tbeatty 07:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I just left a message on Mortons page and left a note in the edit box too. That edit is so far out of line and POV that I thought I should report it. I would almost call it 'vandalism' but that is NPA. It is a non-sense edit though and not real, so I thought to report it here. Isn't that OK? Where do I learn all these regulations about where to post what? I had this page bookmarked. Thanks. Bmedley Sutler 07:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict) These edit are currently under discussion on the talk page, as Tbeatty alluded to above. I am unsure why you felt the need to complain on this noticeboard before going to the talk page.  This is unecessarily taking up space on the noticeboard.   Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:22, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * At the top of this page, between the Title and the Table of Contents is a description of what this page is. There is a sentence or two on content disputes. --Tbeatty 07:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed - I've marked this as resolved. --Haemo 07:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I read it. This is an 'incident' and the page says: <I>"Any user of Wikipedia may post here. Please make your comments civil and please include diffs to help us find the problem you are reporting. As a courtesy, you should inform other users if they are mentioned in a posting.</I> I followed that all. Bmedley Sutler 07:29, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it's a content dispute that doesn't belong here.  Pablo   Talk  |  Contributions  07:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think its an 'incident' and that adminstrators should look at it. Sorry that we disagree. Maybe some people don't <B>want</B> administrators to look at that edit! That's what I think. (edit conlicts) Please let an <B>admimistrator</B> close this discussion. Thanks.Bmedley Sutler 07:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's a content dispute. Admins can look at it, but only as normal editors.  There's not allegation of wrong-doing here, beyond making a POV edit.  That's not something you need admin attention to deal with.  Admins are not police, and they're not grand arbiters of what is, and is not POV.  WP:ANI cannot help you with this problem &mdash; I do not need to be an admin to mark a clear content dispute as resolved when two other editors have already told you as much; Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy. --Haemo 07:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We disagree on that. An administrator can decide if it's an 'incident' or not. I say the edit was not 'good faith' and more like non-sense and trolling and thus a violation. An administrator can decide, not you please. Please leave this discussion open for an administrator. Thank you. Bmedley Sutler 07:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Haemo. Bmedley Sutler 07:58, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not an admin problem - simply warn the user, and if they continue to add the material, report them to AIV after a final warning. Until then, no admin attention is necessary. Also, this is a content dispute or reasonably blatant vandalism - neither is applicable here. Easiest method is to discuss on the talk page, or to file an RfC. Also, non admins have NO extra authority, apart from the ability to press a few more buttons. They are not superior. Any user can close this discussion. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 08:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

AN/I is not the forum for simple content disputes like this. Administrators are no higher than regular users when it comes to mediating disputes; we simply have a couple of extra buttons for maintenance-related tasks. Please bring this to a more appropriate forum. --<font color="#FFA52B">K r i m p e t  08:02, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The improper use of this venue, while obviously unintentional, is becoming something of a trend. This is for incidences that require discussions, not for content dispute. I'm starting a thread on the talk. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 08:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Jonny Buffer
User seems to be asserting that he's another sockpuppet of User:Jonny Cache. Somebody take a look, please. --Jack Merridew 12:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've indef blocked for vandalism/trolling, and noted that the editor is a possible sockpuppet. I'm not convinced, since it is too obvious a name and admission, which is why I blocked on the basis of vandalism. Please would another admin check over the contribs and undo the various merges/redirects? LessHeard vanU 13:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user evading block
has been blocked twice for removing maintenance templates on substandard articles he/she created. Now back doing the same via various Greek IP addresses: This is a newish user who needs a cluebat: adding large quantities of unreferenced material, in poor English, on Salamis Island topics, and refusing to take the hint or enter into discussion about editing practice here. Gordonofcartoon 12:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Please Advice Me
Can I use photos with the tag - for my magazine.Kaystar 15:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The link in the box will explain the terms of the agreement.  . V .  [Talk 16:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks.Kaystar 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:TorstenGuise
frequently insults editors for not being British as somehow inferior Sherzo 15:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please could you provide some examples? - Papa November 16:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note the above discussion. Thanks, CR7 (message me) 17:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Physik
This editor continues to make nonsense edits be creating hoax articles about fake sequals to video games, making poor decisions page moving, like this and when I confronted him about it, he makes attacks. I suggest something be done, because he's continued in this disruptive behavior in the past and he shows no signs that he is learning from it. Previously blocked for disruption, vandalism, civilty, harrassment, how much more should we tolerate? — <font color="FF0000">M <font color="EE0000" >o <font color="DD0000">e <font color="0000FF">ε  16:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I gave him a warning. If he continues like this, he's on the fast track to banville, and I just might be driving the train. Grand  master  ka  18:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Possible harassment
Can I ask if the behaviour of User:Lonewolf BC towards me can be deemed to be harassment, as per WP:HAR? It seems to me that his actions fall into this category as he has a) followed me to other articles - from British monarchy to Rideau Hall, Monarchy in Ontario, Official residence, Royal tours of Canada, Canada Day, Golden Jubilee of Elizabeth II, and now Passport - to engage in an edit war with me, which would appear to be a mild form of wikistalking, or "following a contributor around the wiki, editing the same articles as the target." However, more distressing is b) he has made no less that three attempts to have me blocked in the past month:


 * 10 August 2007
 * 7 August 2007
 * 15 July 2007

This to me fits into the last part of the Wikistalking description: "...with the intent of causing annoyance or distress to another contributor." The fact that we have butted heads previously (articles on Prime Ministers of Canada), along with the following:


 * he spends what must be a significant amount of time digging out months or years old records to try and construct a 3RR breach on my part,
 * tries to smear my character so as to influence whatever admin reads his reports,
 * made a "prediction" of my breaching 3RR in fututre ("I foresee more "playing chicken" with, and violations 3RR by G2bambino, before long" 1), and then himself filed the next report against me,
 * he has himself recently engeged in edit wars and skirted 3RR breaches (List of palaces, Official residence, British monarchy, John Thompson (politician))
 * flat out recommends I be blocked for what he personally, and hypocritically deems offensive ("I recommend blocking him for a while, though, to deter his future edit-warring over this (or other things)" 2).
 * he invests his time communicating, much more collegially, with other users about me, rather than speaking to me,
 * attempts on my part to communicate with him personally were ignored, with the either no reason at all or the excuse that my words weren't composed in a manner paletable to him, or in the correct location, (3, 4, 5, 6, 7)

all says to me that his intent is not to make a constructive contribution to Wikipedia, but instead to target me and have me blocked so as to eliminate me as an opponent to him. I've made one request here previously that someone look into Lonewolf and his interactions with me, but nothing really came of it. I don't know how else to handle someone like this, and I'm really becoming quite disturbed by the whole affair. I'd appreciate some attention and input. Cheers. --G2bambino 03:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have asked User:Lonewolf BC if they would review and comment on the above here, at their talkpage. LessHeard vanU 13:30, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's rather difficult to declare someone a 'harrasser', unless they've disrupted ones personal 'discussion page' (example vandalism or continuous posting when requested not to). GoodDay 18:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Have you read WP:HAR? What you just said above is clearly not true.  Corvus cornix 19:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware of 'WP:HAR' (my blunder). Sorry folks. GoodDay 19:40, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah ha, this complaint falls under -Wikistalking-. It never hurts to research before posting (again, my blunder). GoodDay 19:43, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Um...no. "Wikistalking...[is] editing the same articles as the target, with the intent of causing annoyance or distress...[my italics]" — "...following another user around in order to harass them[not my italics]."  "[It] does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." The reason I ended up editing a bunch of the same articles as G. is that he'd lately made the same edit across that whole bunch of articles.  The edit was, if not flatly wrong, at least plainly unfitting, and I thought that this was obvious enough that G. would simply let it go.  He did not, and it was perhaps my mistake not to withdraw immediately at that point (as I did very soon).  Whether this actually caused G. "annoyance or distress" I don't know -- I somewhat doubt it, from his manner, which to me seems more agressive and gleeful than bothered or worried -- but if it did then that was not at all my purpose, which was only to set the articles right. -- Lonewolf BC 20:42, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My blooper; I was merely discribing G2bambino's charges. I haven't cast judgement on you (that an Administrator's duty). GoodDay 21:33, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

There is such a scatter-shot of complaints, here, and so little merit to any of them, that I cannot reasonably be expected to address them all. Nonsense (whether in the form of bogus accusations or otherwise) is easily made up, but takes time and trouble to show up (as nonsense). However, I shall deal with what seems to be the principal issue: Making legitimate, truthful 3RR reports is not harassment. I am much concerned about the continual edit-warring by G2bambino, against many editors and across many articles, with frequent breaches of 3RR, and even more frequent dances up to the brink of it. For the good of Wikipedia, this must stop. To that end, I have lately troubled to report those of his 3RR violations which have come to my notice (whether because they were perpetrated in editorial disputes against myself, or for some other reason). These reports have all been carefully made and scrupulously accurate, detailing, where necessary, the precise nature of the revert. (And yes, this took me more time in the cases where some of the reverts were less straightforward, but diligence is not a vice.) The three reports that have already been handled have all been confirmed as 3RR breaches, and one resulted in a block. The fourth is (as of this writing) still pending, at AN/3RR. It includes, appended below the report, a very brief summary of the persistent pattern of behaviour that G. has shown, with links to the earlier reports. That stuff is recommended -- nay, needful -- reading for anyone judging the merits of this present "harassment" complaint. Sooner or later, G's behaviour must stop, and better it were sooner. In order for that to happen, it must be be brought to admin attention, and its persistent nature must be made plain. That is what I have been doing. I really don't care much whether G. is actually blocked or not. So much the better if he ceases and desists from behaviour of this kind because he knows that "the jig is up" -- that his offenses will certainly be reported and their tale kept. However, I do not foresee that happening, and believe that blocking shall be needed, and is even overdue. Although G. may find the reports "distressing", that scarcely makes them harassing. Whereas they are true, they are legitimate. If they were false then they would, I guess, be a very clumsy attempt at harassment, but in that case why would G. not just laugh them off? His worry about them only points to his knowledge of their validity. Indeed, and ironically, this whole "harassment" complaint seems to be no more than retaliation for my making the 3RR reports -- a vexatious attempt by G. to make me stop reporting his 3RR violations. However, I am sure that WP users are not liable to sanction for reporting the offences of a persistent 3RR-breaker. -- Lonewolf BC 19:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment I looked over the contributions of both participants before asking Lonewolf BC if they wished to respond here. I would not classify either editor as a vandal, since both appear to be operating under WP:AGF in that each believes the others edits to be "vandalistic" in nature; which is likely why there have been various reports to WP:3RR - since parties do not believe that removing "vandalsim" counts toward 3RR. I also do not see much in the way of meaningful communication between the editors. Neither appear to be willing to move from their particular stance. At the risk of irritating both editors, it seems to be a trait shared by them in respect of other subjects and editors too. I suggest that mediation, or another venue of dispute resolution, may be appropriate to enable two good (if touchy) editors to continue contributing to Wikipedia. LessHeard vanU 21:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Howabout letting a 'third' editor implement his 'compromise edit' (at least until the opposing editors turn up a resolution). Stability of the article, is paramount. GoodDay 21:36, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My understanding of NPOV is that bias may be included in an article, providing that it is properly sourced, as long as verifiable counter bias is also allowed. Here we have is two editors who do not recognise the others opinion as based in "fact". However, if a neutral compromise can be found then it may be that both editors will agree - although it may be difficult to reconcile the two differing stances. What do the involved parties think? LessHeard vanU 22:04, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If we're talking about Rideau Hall specifically, I don't see the debate as one "fact" vs. another. To my mind, it was more a matter of one person seeing a fact as valid while the other first saw it as valid but unimportant, and then later changed his mind to say it wasn't valid at all. I've always been gunning for a compromise - hence the numerous variations I proposed at Talk:Rideau Hall and inserted in the article itself.  Again, from my point of view, what was last done (and what now remains in the locked article) addressed Lonewolf's initial concern of importance.  Unfortunately, it may not now address his concern about validity.  So, in the end I'm now quite unclear as to what he really thinks or wants; he didn't invest any time at Talk expressing his concerns/desires, preferring instead, it seems, to quickly and bluntly revert any alteration I made.  Having my cooperative efforts met with that led me to, regretfully, revert back in anger, thus putting in place the final component that led to the inveitable edit war.
 * In the end, I suppose I'm saying a compromise was what I'd been gunning for all along. What was most aggravating was that anything I did in an effort to reach that compromise was either ignored, thrown aside when the person with whom I was trying to compromise changed his grievance, or deleted by that same person; the one who then went on to target me for 3RR breaches and discuss having me blocked behind my back.
 * Lonewolf does seem to now be acting more collegially, which pleases me, and I do remain open to discussing a resolution that satisfies everyone involved. --G2bambino 18:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I retract that final statement after discovering this, entered from a special section of his Talk page. --G2bambino 01:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Repeated bogus accusations/claims and libel - User:PalestineRemembered
I've been having a problem with User:PalestineRemembered over his insistence to make claims for me or about me to other editors on talk pages of articles.

after a number of notes, requests, and warnings i found that i cannot resolve this issue without taking it to the noticeboard, so i issued a final notice and afterwards opened an AV/I case that was a tad ignored.

i'm reopening the case with new personal attacks made after the previous complaint and am pushing for a one week ban:

-- on this one he recieved a notice that i've issued a notice about this issue to an admin inspecting my AV/I complaint.(15:04, 11 August)
 * "were you one of them?" (22:20, 10 August) - a repeated accusation that i was a fighting member in the "Jenin massacre". (he's received, and removed, a 3rd level warning on this one) 3rd level warning (personal style) and removal.

statements made:
 * this new message from 17:53, 11 August, in which User:PalestineRemembered states the following after all the previous discussions and warnings.
 * 1) are there circumstances under which you could be charged with war-crimes and arraigned before the ICC at the Hague?
 * 2) If there are circumstances under which you might seek asylum

-- User:PalestineRemembered was made aware of my complaint yet refused to take note and continued with this baseless libelous accusation. considering this is a prolonged issue, i'm requesting a one week ban on said user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaakobou (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think I have had direct notification from User:Jaakobou that he has requested the community act against me.
 * I don't think I have accused him of anything, however it has become necessary to ask him if there is a Conflict of interest in some articles he is editing in WP. He has had ample opportunity to deny this is the case, instead of which he chooses to ask I should be blocked for 7 days. I trust that admins will give proper consideration to his request, and the actual circumstances under which it has been presented. With best regards, including towards those with whom I will do my best to behave in a collegiate fashion in future, I am, Yours Sincerely, PalestineRemembered 18:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, refactored. I just noticed that Jaak had already pointed this out. I'm not exactly certain what is up with PR. He accused me on the talk page for Battle of Jenin of being hormonal cause I'm a woman. (Which amuses this catLORD to no end) Kyaa the Catlord 18:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm involved in this dispute, and have had some fairly hostile exchanges with Jaakobou, so take this as you will. Bombast and incivility are always bad, but Jaakobou still won't tell us whether he has a conflict of interest in the matter. He is an Israeli which means he's likely a reserve IDF soldier, but he won't tell us whether he was mobilized in "Defensive Shield" and whether he was involved in fighting in Jenin. A simple "no" would suffice here, rather than this extended drama. Asking the question is not an accusation, claim, or libel. Eleland 19:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comment - User:Eleland, with all due respect, you should really avoid this discussion considering our latest altercation.  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's unreasonable to ask editors if they have a Conflict of Interest. If the requestee refuses to answer, or engages in bluster, or requests I be blocked for 7 days, as he did here then it ceases to be a robust exchange of views between editors, it becomes a robust difference of opinion between the requestee, (User:Jaakobou) and the community. PalestineRemembered 19:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between asking if a user has a conflict of interest and accusing him of being a war criminal, however. This accusation is an amazing leap from "were you at Jenin and do you have a COI?" and "did you indiscriminately kill civilians?" Kyaa the Catlord 19:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

It's one thing to try and determine if an editor has a conflict of interest. It's another thing at all to attempt to discern another persons identity for the purpose of disparaging him, especially in emotional situations. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  21:01, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's hard to imagine a neutral application of the COI rule that would forbid Jaakobou from editing because he is Israeli, but permit an editor with a name like "PalestineRemembered" to edit. If Jaakobou says he does not have a COI, WP:AGF requires that to be the end of the matter without further inquiry.  If there is tendentious or disruptive POV-pushing, then address that through DR.  It's a waste of time for everyone when editors (on either side) try to use WP:COI to obtain ownership of pages.   THF 21:17, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - i'd appreciate the de facto libelous claims of the reported user be put into center stage.  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  21:38, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

As it's phrased as a question, it's technically not libelous. It is an obnoxious violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. THF 21:47, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF, i disagree. for example if i ask you "are you a rapist?" in a crowded room. is that not libelous because it's phrased as a question?  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  22:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PalestineRemembered could/should have opened a report on WP:COIN. But it's still strange, that you never responded to the WP:COI charges. --Raphael1 14:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Raphael, please apologize. Editors have no obligation to respond to obnoxious questions like that. THF 14:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Editors have no obligation whatsoever as they always have a Right_to_leave. IMHO the question is only annoying, if there is indeed a WP:COI. What do you want me to apologize for? --Raphael1 15:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You're repeating the same violation of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL that appropriately got PR blocked. Under WP:AGF, Jaakobou, aware of the COI policy, does not have a COI unless he declares one, and Wikipedia editors are not tasked with harassing editors to determine otherwise.  If there's POV-pushing, use WP:DR.  Don't harass a user by demanding they answer obnoxious questions.  You would presumably be justifiably upset if people were to start asking you if you provided material support to suicide bombers.  WP:CIVIL fortunately prevents that sort of diversion. THF 15:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do we have a WP:COIN, if a COI can only be self-declared? And no, I wouldn't be upset, if people would ask me, whether I provided material support to suicide bombers as I can negate with a clear conscience. --Raphael1 15:26, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you would get upset if you were pestered repeatedly with the same question. We have WP:COIN for cases where editors with COIs ignore COI warnings and violate COI policy and administrative intervention is needed.  There are other cases where undisclosed COI can be determined from, say, a Google search or an ARIN WHOIS search.  COIN isn't for content disputes. THF 15:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It might be, that the question was asked repeatedly, because it has never been answered. --Raphael1 15:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Raphael1, i think that anyone who looks to vilify his "opponent" can easily ask such similar questions and i never elicited such impressive leap of faith questions with any of my edits or statements. while the sheer question is insulting considering the POV of the person behind it, the phrasing and insinuations made it more than evident that the editor had more interest in how defamatory he can phrase himself without getting blocked than in the reply he gets. to note, PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence.  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * We can only speculate about the motives PR had, when he asked you about your IDF engagement, but we can never find out ourselves. The phrasing was definitely inapt as he confesses himself on his talk page ("lurid terms"), which is why I agree to the 24h block. But I don't understand, why the sheer question would be insulting. AFAIK a pretty long military service is compulsory in Israel. How can someone be insulted for something he would be obligated to do? --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If someone asked me an irrelevant and obnoxious question that violated WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:AGF, like you're doing now to Jaakobou, Raphael1, I might not answer either. If you want to ask irrelevant and intrusive questions, please become an employment lawyer rather than use that tactic on Wikipedia. THF 21:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * What question did I ask? I consider it superfluous to repeat PMs question. Instead I'm rather interested in why Jaakobou doesn't answer it. --Raphael1 00:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since you keep describing these claims as "libellous", Jaakobou, does this mean that you are intending to begin some kind of legal proceedings? Tim Vickers 21:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tim, i'm fairly sure that being alleged, out of the blue, to be a war criminal and asked if i'm seeking asylum, is pretty damn close to the legal description of libel. am i planning to pursue legal proceedings because of an internet talk page clash? no. am i requesting the user blocked for a week due to his insistence on soapbox behavior and baseless libelous attacks? yes, considering he was warned and patently repeated the offense on more than one occasion.  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  22:57, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Jaak, please don't use the term libel, it makes things very close to legal issues. Please just stick in terms of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. That said, I've blocked PR for 24 hours. This comment in particular is well beyond what could possibly be ever acceptable. We may wish to reconsider whether PR is an editor that we want to have on this project, considering these remarks and his extensive block record. JoshuaZ 00:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * i'll avoid that wording in the future.  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  19:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

comment - PR still makes false and/or inaccurate assertions about me and maintains his innocence.static version  Jaakobou <font color="1F860E">Chalk Talk  15:47, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Changes to White people by User: Baron von Washington
Good evening. I've noted that User: Baron von Washington seems to be trying to push a non-neutral point of view. He will alternate between listing an image of a Schutzstaffel soldier as an example of a "typical white man" and removes Image:Light skin colors.jpg. Please see the edits listed:
 * 
 * 
 * 

I'm passing him off here to avoid a revert war. The picture of the SS soldier is designed to be inflammatory, and the second picture removed is a valid one.

Thank you for your attention.

-- Irixman (t) (m) 02:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * His tactics have escalated. There is a report on WP:AIV since it is a clearcut case of POV pushing and vandalism. -- Irixman (t) (m) 03:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

It's all referenced, the article is being hijacked by cajuns, possibly Communist spies. --Baron von Washington 03:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And finally, a WP:3RR violation. -- Irixman (t) (m) 03:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He's been indefinitely blocked, which I fully support. MastCell Talk 03:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I second the block, someone got him just before I did. <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98 03:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Communist Cajuns? That's a new one.  Clear trolling.  Good block.  Corvus cornix 00:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Qst sockblock review:
I blocked this user indefinitely after I spotted him using TWINKLE to troll UAA. Not only that: checking the contributions before blocking, I realised this was an obvious abusive sockpuppet; he'd added TWINKLE into his monobook on his 3rd edit, in addition to making edits like this. As to who this abusive sockpuppet might be, IMO this is community-banned user Qst (or, less likely, Molag Bal). If anyone wishes to request checkuser, they have my blessings. Moreschi Talk 10:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. I have quite a knowledge of this case (as do you Moreshi, that is for sure), and Rlest/Qst's final statement on his talk page seemed to indicate that he was no longer interested in Wikipedia diff, and he has been on a downward spiral ever since late July - I can't see him picking up again and reverting vandalism as normal. Still, might be worth a look. -- Anonymous Dissident  Talk 12:05, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He has said many things in the past which have turned out to be rather untrue. He suggested he wouldn't use sockpuppets again shortly before creating Ds.mt and said he was going on a break until September time, again, untrue. The account Moreschi blocked is clearly a sockpuppet and Qst is a very likely candidate. I'd like a checkuser to confirm though, it'll give us some idea as to whether Qst intends to circumvent his ban. Nick 12:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Nick's right; he's said many things, and, lately, most of them have not been true. The editing pattern is very similar; nobody installs TW as their third edit and starts reporting usernames in their first day of active editing. I agree with the idea of a Checkuser. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Note: A checkuser has been filed. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  16:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

←Boy, I missed all this...I support the bannination, by the way, and this account seems to fit in with the editor's pattern. My recent interactions with (now-blocked) reminded me of Tellyaddict or the Retinio Virginian account, too...Did anyone else get that feeling? &mdash; Scientizzle 18:24, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Possibly, I hadn't thought of that - I don't think so, purely because more bile would have been thrown in my direction if that were the case. Daniel Bryant reckoned that account was User:Geo.plrd, which is probably a closer guess. Kind of fits. Moreschi Talk 19:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The user has been cleared by checkuser (see ). I really thought Qst was this one also. The evidence was pretty convincing. --<font color="Green">Boricua  e <font color="Green">ddie  20:00, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However, whoever this user was, he was part of a massive sock farm that Voice of All caught and blocked indef. Moreschi Talk 20:51, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Anti-Zionist
- It seems defamatory to me without a specific neutral source saying that a particular living person is anti-Zionist, but I don't care, so I'll leave it to you guys to sort out and will refrain from reverting this IP editor again. Cheers, Alec  ✉  ﹌ ۞ 13:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's my general guideline that unless they say they're Anti-(whatever) or Pro-(whatever), it's not right to claim that unless there's a source which describes them as such; and it should be phrased as "Considered by X to be a Y" or so forth. Allowing biographies to contain (seemingly as fact) contentious information is certainly against BLP.  . V .  [Talk 14:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The IP's edit summaries are becoming more hostile,, and a look through the history of just that page shows the sort of slow boil exception ot the 24 hour period that 3RR requires. Perhaps a block is in order? diffs:, ,. I realize it's four over four days, but the same sort of reverting removals of the category appears on other pages as well:,. the editor is likely to continue, so perhaps a week long range block? longer? he has used: [136.186.1.19], [136.186.1.186], and [136.186.1.187]. ThuranX 06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Removal of information
Two articles, List of Iranian states and empires and List of Turkic states and empires have had sourced information continuously removed from them.

On List of Turkic states and empires, User:Lima6 has continuously removed sourced information:, , , , , , ,

On List of Iranian states and empires, User:Denizz and User:A.Garnet has continuously removed sourced information:

User:Denizz: (commenting out a bunch of sourced information),  (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information),  (again commenting out a bunch of sourced information), ,

User:A.Garnet:, ,

Please look into this, this seems like vandalism.Hajji Piruz 17:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Speaking as an Admin, this seems like a content dispute to me: one side claims that the Ottoman Empire should be grouped as one of the "Iranian states", the other reverting those edits. Discussion ongoing at Talk:List of Iranian states and empires. If asked for my opinion, I might even go a little further & say that this claim is a novel interpretation of facts & therefore original research -- but no one has asked me for my opinion, so I didn't say that. However, if another Admin is asked for an opinion, don't be surprised if she/he actually does. -- llywrch 01:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No, no claim like that is being made at all. No one is claiming that the Ottomans were an Iranian state (as in the nation of Iran) but rather an empire which was culturally and partially linguistically Iranic (as in Iranic culture, civilization, etc... see Iranian peoples, as sub branch of the indo-Europeans, which includes Kurds, Persians, Tajiks, Talysh, Ossetians, etc...), which is an undisputed and undeniable fact which is even heavily sourced. None of the Turkish editors even deny this fact.


 * Some users are distorting what the article is actually about and simply removing sourced information. This is not just about List of Iranian states and empires but its also happening at List of Turkic states and empires.


 * Its simply a matter of confusion which, after a talk with Deniz, is hopefully cleared up, but still, this seems like borderline vandalism. Sourced information should not be removed like that until the issue is discussed. It would have been different had the information not been sourced, but in this case the information was heavily sourced.Hajji Piruz 06:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Public records legal threats?
Admins may need to look into this edit to see if there are any legal issues or practical issues for Wikipedia (protect the article, block the IP, etc.). --ElKevbo 18:59, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And also send its editor back to grade-school English class. Baseball Bugs 18:16, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Possibly a sock of who apparently feels he has a right to spam us; and who seemingly makes threats, which this (reverted) may be an attempt to carry out. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * blocked. &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  20:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress
On King Edward VI Aston (I'm about to step away from my PC). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Squash Racket
Hello. User:Squash Racket is currently involved in a revert war, in which he/she has already violated 3RR. This violation despite a warning on the user talk page has been reported by User:Roamataa. Squash Racket has not been blocked yet and he/she is using his/her time to post personal attacks on my talk page. The attack can be found here, my response, in which I asked Squash Racket not to resort to personal attacks here. As he/she keeps reverting my removal of the personal attacks on my own talk page, I would like to ask someone either to block him/her, so he/she has time to cool down (Squash Racket has already violated 3RR anyway) or to protect my talk page against his/her spam. Tankred 20:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 3RR aside, I think you really need some form of dispute resolution rather than administrator intervention here. Nick 21:01, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Reverting done by "Diesel 10"
The user User:Diesel 10 (whom hasn't yet created his userpage) has been reverting the formats of the episode lists for "Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends" to sloppy versions that:


 * Give away too much of storylines
 * Carry redundant and unsorted information, as well as original research
 * Used insults and rude commands to stop the edits (Please see his comments in the history page for Thomas and Friends - Season 8.)
 * —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rusty5 (talk • contribs).
 * See dispute resolution, or leave a message on the episode list's talk page to arrive at some form of consensus what to do.  <font color="#084C9E">Mi <font color="#4682b4">r <font color="#6495ED">a <font color="#4682b4">n <font color="#084C9E">da  02:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

NPA, CIVILITY, EDIT WARRING, refusing to accept DR involvement
Jmfangio starting an RFC per WP:DR Navou banter 22:44, 12 August 2007 (UTC) I continue to have problems with Chrisjnelson. I have been attacked (blatantly) several times and reported his actions here and through all of the stops at WP:DR. I'm asking someone to please step in and have this person leave me alone. His latest attack is to title a section on my talk page and title it "Childish behavior". It was a refractored comment from this page. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 21:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * You accuse everybody of doing every bad thing possible, when you're the one who instigated this whole thing. I tried to have a discussion with you about a content dispute we had, and you deliberately refused to even listen to me.  This carried over to Talk:Brett Favre; Aviper2k7 and I tried to discuss a content dispute with you, and again you refused to have part of it.  You're the one who has issues with the content, begin a discussion about it, and then refuse to even listen to us.  It makes me wonder what's the point of even talking with him?  You have caused me a lot of tension, no doubt, but I haven't even done anything wrong.  You accuse Chrisjnelson of doing something, when you're no cleaner than he is.  You cause everybody a lot of tension with your very disruptive behavior, and then try to turn us in.  I don't see how you can accuse anybody of anything when you're the true instigator.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 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. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  22:12, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What did I ever do to you? The only reason I came here is because I'm trying to defend myself and Chrisjnelson.  I honestly don't know what he, me, or Aviper2k7 has done to you, and speaking for Chrisjnelson (I've been e-mailing him recently), both him and I feel that you've caused us a lot more tension than we feel we've caused you.  I don't feel I've been the least bit uncivil, and I'm certainly not bullying you nor being the least bit obnoxious.  I even have been trying to help you on numerous occasions.  Ksy92003  (talk)  22:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

A User Conduct request for comments may be useful here for the editors. Respectfully, Navou banter 22:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Been there and done that, but I'll go do it again. What's most frustrating though is that this has dragged on for so long that it's getting very difficult for me to dig up all the information. I just want to be left alone and when people engage in discussions - they need to adhere to WP:AGF, WP:NPA and WP:CIV. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  22:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry - not really the way to respond, just frustrated. Thanks for the advice Navou, I will proceed forward with that. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Request review, protection of John Howard
I have temporarily protected this article due to BLP concerns, specifically the insertion of material which is presented negatively and is only tangentially relevant. Bringing here for wider review, as I'm sure someone is certainly going to disagree. Seraphimblade Talk to me 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi, I think we're talking about people adding cited information, rather than any willful destruction of the article. And the issue with the cited info seems to be not about its accuracy, but how it is presented, or how relevant it is. Personally, I think if people add cited information to this article (whether it makes the subject look good or bad) is a good thing, as the article is lacking cited info. The article currently consists of entire sections that are controversial and uncited.


 * It's almost impossible to add any cited info to the John Howard article, as a small group of editors always delete it immediately it is posted. I think they are trying to protect John Howard's reputation before a coming election. My opinion is that we need to encourage people to add verified and properly cited info, which the article desperately needs. Lester2 00:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that the criticisms are sourced, the more important policy consideration issue here is undue weight. The BLP policy incorporates NPOV as a consideration, so a 24-hour protection is acceptable, but effort ought to be made to determine if this is significant enough to include before extending that protection, as this is a weak case involving a national leader with at least one major newspaper story on the issue (more such stories would give it proper weight for inclusion).--Chaser - T 01:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Is blocking & deleting the best way to handle it? Sure, if it is libelous, it should be deleted. But we're talking about presentation and undue weight, even though the 'AWB Scandal' was one that enveloped Howard's government. Wouldn't it be better to discuss the issue with other editors first? At least the content had a reference, unlike much of the rest of the John Howard article. I don't know what the block will achieve. 124.168.7.125 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "a scandal enveloping Howard's government" is rather gilding the lily. In fact the government's only participation was to commission the Cole Enquiry. Trying to link John Howard to the misdeeds of a private company is drawing a very long bow indeed. --Pete 03:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:WAS 4.250
See WP:AN, where the relevant comment has been copied.

In Articles_for_deletion/Challenges_and_issues_of_industrial_agriculture User:WAS 4.250 once again launched an uncalled for personal attack against me, including a series of unfounded accusations, and an unspecified call for a ban, simply because I have argued for deletion of an article he started as a POV fork.

In the past I have placed another Incident report here on this very user, and it was ignored, however this is the second time the user does this, and this is extremely unacceptable and uncivil behavior.

In response to my AfD request, he says:

''Cerejota, your outrageous personal attacks and biased wiki-lawyering to further the goals of the animal liberation movement are harming wikipedia. You and your fellow travelers should be banned from wikipedia. WAS 4.250 17:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)''

I see no personal attacks from me to him, and I have not wikilawyered in any significant fashion (in an AfD one HAS to state policy violations as part of a nom), and I am not part of animal liberation movement, nor do I have fellow travelers (I have actually been on the other end of editing disputes with User:SlimVirgin another active editor of Factory farming).

His accusations are false, uncivil and calling for a ban of a fellow wikipedian on no grounds at all is extremely bad behavior. I leave remedy up to the admins, but I just want to know why I can't go to ArbCom with this extreme example of unwarranted personal attack.

I do admit being involved in previous editing conflicts with this user, however he has declined several calls for formal Mediation around the articles in question, and continues free and unwarranted attacks. He must be brought under control. Thanks!--Cerejota 23:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There is a related thread going on at WP:AN, started by WAS 4.250. You might want to keep the discussion together. Just a note... —<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh  00:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * He didn't inform me of this. Has I known I would have posted there. I will do so now, can an admin close this, as per move to WP:AN? Thanks! --Cerejota 00:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Serial sockpuppeteer vandalising my user page
After I blocked a vandalism-only account which vandalised WP:AN earlier today, the vandal has started to attack my user talk page. Although it's semi-protected, he's got around this by using multiple sockpuppet sleeper accounts, all of which appear to have been created on 16 April 2007. So far he's used, , and. He's claimed in his messages that he has "thousands" more sleeper accounts. -- ChrisO 00:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * And I do, too. But rest assured, I'm only going to use one hundred at the very most today, after all I have work in under eight hours time! Onesanode 00:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked that one, needless to say. I wonder if this is the Manchester vandal again? -- ChrisO 00:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You can try Checkuser. —<font color="#0000C0" face="cursive">Kurykh  00:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You could... or you could just ask for my IP! No, I'm not the Manchester vandal, at least as far as I'm aware. And by the way, as should have been clear, there were two of us. I stepped in to assist with the campaign started by Mr. Lister, and provided him with some accounts (I also apologise for some of the incivility he used). Nothing too exciting about it, really. 81.158.32.82 00:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

HELP!
Someone vandalized a MW: namespace page! Now all editing screens and talk pages are centered and italicized! !??!!!?? 68.39.174.238 00:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed now, what on EARTH was that? 68.39.174.238 00:50, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Probably this. The problem has been fixed. -- zzuuzz (talk) 00:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, it was this. A div that made all text 80% smaller and aligned right was accidentally not closed, and since MediaWiki:Anonnotice is at the top of each page, all text in the page was enclosed by the div. At least it looks that way. Just a mistake, though&mdash;and it's been fixed. Grace notes T <span title="Wikipedia:Administrators&#39; noticeboard/Incidents">§ 00:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I was trying to get sign smaller to fit on the Main Page, and obviously by my edit summary reverting, I fucked it up (sorry). I reverted that edit, but the new change is still retained. It is there because there is a bug that prevents anons from seeing the new messages bar. Maxim 00:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Who is Maxim? Why doesn't he have a userpage? Man this anono-admin thing is frustrating. --W.marsh 02:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I've missed something (in which case someone will and should surely refactor this comment), his name change was and continues to be transparent (although, of course, as W.marsh notes, not mentioned at present on his userpage or user talk page); he is the former Evilclown93 (RfA here). This name change, while not of the troublesome "longstanding admin moving to username that will not be readily recognized by most users" or pernicious "admin is sysopped under a new username with his previous identity known only to a few users" type, was nevertheless a bit confusing for me; we already have a User:MaXim.  Joe 03:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel article
This issue may be better handled by community sanction, dispute resolution or some other forum, but it involves content dispute, edit warring, 3RR and a general issue with a new, foreign-language user that I feel is a bit complicated for any one of those places. Any advice on where to take this next would be greatly appreciated.

New user and single purpose account Frikkers has engaged in continuous edit warring on the Boerboel article. This is a little-known South African breed of dog largely unrecognized in Europe and the Americas, but which has a devoted following in its home nation. For some time, Frikkers simply reverted a whole series of changes that were made by myself and others under a variety of policy and guideline, including adding information that is patently false and controverted by provided citations. I have detailed a talk section for each individual issue on Talk:Boerboel. Since Frikkers completely refused to discuss the dispute to try and reach consensus, he was blocked twice (here and here) for a violation of the WP:3RR. After his second block, he has continued to revert with impunity, as he has added a single general talk statement. I hesitate to revert further, as though he has violated 3RR again, so would my reverts be since he has technically engaged in discussion. The following is his revert history after the last block.

Before his talk comments on Aug 8:
 * Aug 6
 * Aug 6
 * Aug 6
 * Aug 8

Myself and other users (including admins) have attempted to explain in-depth about consensus building to no effect. My response to his comments was simply deleted, and he reverted without responding to my retort. Frikkers has not only deleted and altered warnings, notices and conversation without reason from his own talk page, but has deleted other user's talk comments in article talk space. I realize blanking one's own talk is not a violation of any policy or guideline, but it isn't conducive to an attempt at consensus, and I see it as trying to hide or ignore conversation in general. Sadly, I think the user has good intentions, but is seriously hampered by the language barrier. Their English is rudimentary and their computing skills also seem to be primitive. As, after blocks and warnings, the user has clearly demonstrated their disregard for Wikipedia's process, policies and spirit of collaboration, I feel some stronger recourse is desperately needed. But considering their new status, the language problems, and what seems to be their general ignorance of Wikipedia, I feel just another time block is both unfair and (obviously) ineffective. Thank you for your attention  VanTucky  (talk) 04:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You say it is a content dispute. Administrators cannot do better than yourselves. Try WP:DR. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  04:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not just a fight over content, it's that a debate hasn't taken place because of one user's refusal to do so and their violation of policies such as 3RR. Since this user has completely ignored attempts to engage from "regular users", I feel the weight of an "official" voice may have an actual affect. VanTucky  (talk) 04:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, after using my microscope, i gave that user a 48h break. You know why? Because they never tried to talk. Reverting never solved anyone's issues. All their talk namespace edits were removals of warnings. Thanks for bringing this to the AN/I. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  04:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your swift response and advice, much appreciated. VanTucky  (talk) 04:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Tobias Conradi returns
I had thought things were a bit too quiet on the Conradi front, and I just figured out part of why. He's been editing quietly under the id User:Tobias Conradi2. Since he is a banned user, I have blocked this account. I wanted to give everyone a heads-up, since 1) he is likely to unleash another wave of personal attacks once he discovers his new account is blocked, and 2) he's evidently not accepting the idea that he is banned and unwelcome here. So I suspect more new accounts will follow. - TexasAndroid 15:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've cleaned out all the edits from this account since the date the ban was made official. The account has been active since a few days before the ban was finalized.  The edits from before the ban, while technically block-evasion edits, and not ban-evasion edits, and thus are not as automatically reverable. - TexasAndroid 17:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Why do people do such sloppy jobs? This is why that tool  should be used only if they are destroying things. Unless I am reading that wrong, it doesn't seem like mass removal had much of a point. --SevenOfDiamonds 17:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The point is enforcement of the ban, as laid out here. Conradi is banned.  He is not welcome to edit on the project any longer.  All his edits are subject to removal/reversal.  That's part of how bans are enforced. - TexasAndroid 17:59, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It would also be hypocritical of us to say "you are not welcome here, but we're going to keep a few of your good edits". - Crockspot 18:02, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That is exactly what happens. Articles created by banned users I am sure are not then deleted. Removing wiki linking seems pointless. Also all information submitted falls under free use. Perhaps what should be considered is more if they user just wants to edit now and avoid whatever got them banned. Exposing quiet editors who were once banned, that are editing articles in a positive way, seems counter productive to the goals here. P.S. If I have a slab of meat in my pocket, please let me know Crockspot. --SevenOfDiamonds 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Articles created by banned users can and are deleted. There is a specific Speedy Deletion criteria (G5) for exactly this case.  I speedied a number of articles written by Conradi on his new account just this morning.  In Conradi's case, yeah, he does good edits.  But the general opinion at the ban discussion was that the good was not worth the bad that always seems to come with it.  Many who endorsed the ban did so reluctantly, but they endorsed it none-the-less.  I'll include the summary of the ban message from the ban list page below these comments.
 * But there is a psychological component to the systematic removal of edits by banned users. They are not welcome, and their contributions, good or bad, are no longer welcome.  And by systematically removing their contributions, they will hopefully get the idea before too long that continuing to try to edit in a place that they are not welcome is simply a waste of their time.  Their edits will not remain, so why make them in the first place?  Will Conradi get the point?  Who knows.  But I at least intend to continue to make the point. - TexasAndroid 19:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * , July 28 2007: Banned for continued incivility and personal attacks. Multiple second chances were given, but eventually the patience of the community regarding his tendentious editing was exhausted and, following a discussion at the community sanction noticeboard, a site ban was enacted.  Additionally, he engaged in IP hopping block evasion in order to continue the attacks and incivility once blocked.  (Copied ban summary)

No offense to you, since you did not make it up, but that is a foolish system. People wish to edit, and are creating articles, are being chased off by those who probably do not, and instead correct the work of those who actually take time to research. The silly politics on Wikipedia seems to outweigh the notion of a collection of information for the public. Not wanted? The community said so? The idea that 20 ppl who frequent this board are "the community" is further absurd. But the 20 people who make up the general posters here are probably pretty sure they represent the community well enough. If only this was really a collaborative project. I could only imagine the total rewrite I did of Cali cartel and the 11 articles I created being removed because I said something flagrant, talk about depriving others of information and to spite only yourself and the community you are trying to help prosper. --SevenOfDiamonds 20:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not sure what else to say. The policy is the policy, and until/unless it is changed, it is what it is.  And this is far from the right place to debate whether it should change.  So, I'm sorry that you disagree with it, but... . - TexasAndroid 21:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ... Yeah ... It doesnt matter I re added much of the work, thanks for giving other people work you did not feel like checking. --SevenOfDiamonds 21:11, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Policy is not a noose with which to hang ourselves. Removing perfectly good edits that someone is going to have to replace is biting off your nose to spite your face, and as such is a complete waste of time. Deletion for the sake of deletion is incredibly stupid. Kamryn · Talk 10:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * G5 applies only to work by banned users *while they are banned*. If a user creates significant areas of work before being banned, then they are not a banned user at the time of creation and hence G5 does not apply. Makes sense in the context. Orderinchaos 18:15, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * People are banned for a reason. They're not welcome, because they can't work in the community. It's an enforcement issue. The fact that we're even debating this is feeding the troll. You get banned, and sockpuppet, you get blocked and reverted. Too bad, so sad, should have thought of that beforehand. The Evil Spartan 18:20, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To say they are not able to work with the community, or are not better wikipedia, then to go and delete X ammount of articles they may have made and revert X ammount of edits that are useful, is quite a set of contrary statements. --SevenOfDiamonds 23:54, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Whatever. It really isn't worth fighting over. My point isn't to try to say "gotcha" to every vandal we see. I really do believe it's for the better of the encyclopedia; but like I said, not worth fighting over, sorry if you took it that way. The Evil Spartan 23:04, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * One solution to this problem of reverting all edits by banned users while keeping useful contributions, was for an Admin to revert the edit, then make it under her/his own name. Although this can be tedious, it is a simple solution -- & it appropriately frustrates the banned user in trolling Wikipedia. -- llywrch 23:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * That sounds like the most useful method. Instead of removing content from Wikipedia, essentially "vandalizing" in an attempt to get rid of someone deamed a "vandal," the admin would actually be preserving content. --SevenOfDiamonds 10:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If any user makes bad edits, they will be reverted. For non-banned users, we check their edits and keep the good ones. For banned editors, we can revert blindly (which is a lot faster). If we keep some edits by banned users, that means they are not banned. Kusma (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo
Sherzo's has taken a course of actions that I feel need investigating at a higher level. He has been offensive and rude to users and assumed a superior position to other users in order to push forward his point of view.

When I got involved with the debate over the notability of Glasgow University Student Television, it appeared to me that Sherzo was trying to railroad the article towards deletion. That being said, the article had not been re nominated for deletion by any user. When I next saw the article, Sherzo had, on his own authority, wiped the article with a re-direct to an new article he created that he took from another users userspace. I have restored the article and marked it for deletion so that the matter can be resolved correctly and within the rules.

I then got involved in the debate over the changing of the name of British Student Television. Sherzo preceded to personally attack myself and CR7 in an inappropriate manner. He gave the opinion to me that he thought he owned Wikipedia, and the article in question was his own personal property. In the time I have entered debates on matters, I have always assumed good faith, but I fear my assumptions were wrong. I have never suffered such personal attacks from another user, whos methods include vandalism and not keeping to a neutral point of view. TorstenGuise 19:53, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I never once claim "ownership of any article" despite tortenguise frequent accusations, in fact asked him many times to contribution towards the article rather than just berate me for not being British Sherzo 15:48, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I left out the personal attack before too and in the previous thread no administrators looked at Sherzo's 'ownership' of British Student Television. Sherzo's tactic of changing the main page to support his stance on the renaming discussion is blatant vandalism. CR7 (message me) 20:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

no i changed it back from an edit by TortenGuise to support his argument, so perhaps your accusing the wrong person of vandalism Sherzo 15:50, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has vandalized List of US Presidents by miltary service for at least the 8th time. This is unwarranted. Bush's service is questionable, yet it is still a controversy and not proven fact that he was AWOL. That is why it has no business being placed on that page.Bluecord 12:11, 12 August 2007

''Please be sure to read this too. -<font color="#FF0000">J <font color="#000000">acќя <font color="#FF0000">М <font color="#2E8B57"> ¿Qué?  20:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)''

The link above that <font color="#FF0000">J <font color="#000000">acќя <font color="#FF0000">М <font color="#2E8B57"> ¿Qué?  has posted is now defunct. I have archived it below. TorstenGuise 09:09, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Please note, as Sherzo is changing content controversially without a concencus, he is now on his final warning. If he changes content in a similar manner again, please report it. -<font color="#FF0000">J <font color="#000000">acќя <font color="#FF0000">М <font color="#2E8B57"> ¿Qué?  16:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Sherzo has now opened an incident report for TorstenGuise below to counteract this report. CR7 (message me) 17:11, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Can we please have an administrator rule on this complaint, and the counter complaint filed by Sherzo. Thank you. TorstenGuise 23:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo has now vandalized after his final warning. He changed the page without consensus AGAIN, and it appears he's been blocked for this before. -<font color="#FF0000">J <font color="#000000">acќя <font color="#FF0000">М <font color="#2E8B57"> ¿Qué?  10:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Surely there's enough evidence for an administrator to take just action now? 82.20.134.51 12:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved the article to a more suitable location, the existing title was inappropriate given the content being discussed and even on it's own, it was completely incorrect and should have read "British student television" though the fact it discussed the Rep of Ireland does rule that title out. Please do remember that titles of pages need to accurately reflect the content for other users and personal preferences should have no part in the naming of pages. Nick 13:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Unhappy with the page move, Sherzo simply reverted without any consultation. I've since returned the page to the title I believe best fits with our Manual of Style and the content being discussed, protecting the page from being moved but not edited. Sherzo proceeded to copy and paste the content from one page into British student television, sans the history of course, so I've proteced both previous page titles until Sherzo realises that page titles need to be accurate and reflect content, consensus and geopolitical considerations, and that he cannot just copy and paste content from one page into another. Nick 14:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Any chance of that administrator decision over Sherzo's fate? TorstenGuise 16:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This has been running for two days since it was started below. He's been given a final warning, can he please be blocked? CR7 (message me) 17:53, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;">
 * The following discussion is an archive of a previous entry to this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Hi, I requested that the article British Student Television be moved on its talk page. So far Sherzo has been the only objector. He is reverting the main page as if he owns it and is also being very uncivil about the 'discussion' about the renaming - eg. ''you thought it meant northern ireland despite saying Dublin? don't they teach geography in the UK anymore? outside of fringe of vocal lunatics on the internet the british isles is an oft use term in the rest of the world''. Please can someone drop into the talk page and make a definate decision and/or can Sherzo be sanctioned? On another note he's also been edit warring on List of United States Presidents by military service against Bluecord. CR7 (message me) 00:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No wonder that discussion is sitting on WP:RM's backlog. Obviously not the best model chosen for discussing a move proposal. I'm closing it as inconclusive.-- <font style="color: #082567">Hús ö <font style="color: #082567">nd  01:08, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sherzo refuses to accept that Ireland is not part of Britain. The name of the article is geographically and politically incorrect and is as such unneutral. CR7 (message me) 01:09, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Sherzo continues to vandalize List of United States Presidents by military service. His vandalism is biased and politically motivated. Ronald Regan served in the U.S. Army Reserve and on active duty during WWII. George W. Bush served in the U.S. Air National Guard during Vietnam. He continually deletes Reagan's service because it offends him that Reagan served in Hollywood making propoganda and training films for the Army. Reagan is not the only WWII veteran that recieved stateside service. He can not help that he was ordered there by the Army. He continues to revert Bush's status as AWOL even though that is still under dispute. My contention is, being a History teacher and a veteran myself, that you can not take service away from someone and both of these men served no matter what your personal feelings are of that service. There are clearly questions in relation to the service of some democrats, most notably Clinton and his deferment, however, Sherzo does not even want to admit that. This is what makes this a political point of view on his part. He is basically revising history to meet his own personal beliefs. He also leaves pretty nasty messages on other peoples talk pages.Bluecord
 * That's pretty ridiculous; especially the Reagan part. I've watchlisted the article.  --Haemo 01:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've also watchlisted it, and since he's changing it from the original content without a concencus, his edits in question will be considered vandalism by me. -<font color="#FF0000">J <font color="#000000">acќя <font color="#FF0000">М <font color="#2E8B57"> ¿Qué?  02:10, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a previous discussion in this section. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made after this. No further edits should be made to this section.

References
 * GUST debate.Talk:Glasgow University Student Television
 * British Student Television debate.Talk:British Student Television
 * Abuse on TorstenGuise talk page. User_talk:TorstenGuise
 * Complimentary debate to the above abuse User_talk:Sherzo

Personal attacks
User:Azizbekov is attacking others at using inappropriate language. This user has been registered for merely a week, and already made a number of accusations against users who were blocked 4 months ago. So it's quite likely that User:Azizbekov is a sock of an experienced contributor. Atabek 19:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Given the amount of socking and revert warring we've seen from Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan, I wouldn't doubt it in the slightest. Obvious sock. Unfortunately, I'm not acquainted with the edit war; you would know better than I who it is. The Evil Spartan 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that Azizbekov is definitely a sock, most likely it is User:Fadix or User:Robert599. He is too knowledgeable for a newbie, and urgent admin attention to this user’s editing is necessary. Grandmaster 06:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * - checkuser report including User:Artaxiad, User:Fadix, User:Robert599 with User:Azizbekov, where admin commented that obvious cases don't need a checkuser. Atabek 06:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Since an arbitrator said it's an obvious sock of a blocked user, I've blocked the sock. --Golbez 13:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

serious problem with two other editors
Hi there, I need some serious intervention/comment/third opinion/i don't know. but what's happened is that while discussing a term on the talk page of WikiProject Music/MUSTARD/Usage. (See Usage of sophomore and [| Sophomore usage (again)]. We came to a consensus during the first discussion, and then again during the second. But suddenly User: Violetriga has been arguing with me about it, still, and reverting the page for MUSTARD/Usage and Sophomore back to what they prefer the two to look like. Not only that, but this person, and all of sudden User: Melsaran have been following my contributions and reverting them, even on matters that don't concern the discussion. (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=%27N_Sync&oldid=150834794| This edit, for one) It's become a real headache, and I need some help here. I don't know how to get these two to calm down and see reason. Thank you in advance. Bouncehoper 23:14, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, they seem to have blocked me in at the MUSTARD page, as if I revert it to what was agreed upon and correct, I could be cited for the 3RR rule. If someone could please help us work this out, that would be so wonderful. Bouncehoper 23:41, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is the administrators' noticeboard. There is nothing that administrators can assist you with here. Try resolving the matter with us first.  Mel sa  ran  10:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfair treatment from Administrators.
I would like to report admin. JodyB for unfairly dealing with me. I have made mistakes on here in the past and I am a newbie and I am trying to learn the ropes. I have apologized to everyone on here I offended, several, several times and all I want is a second chance. But I have no voice and even today JodyB told me "I need no protection".

I had a complaint about someone vandalising my work, which is blatantly obvious as this user Edward321 is obsessed with ruining me and has compiled a list on me miles long. Edward321 has never made a contribution to the article I was working on until he has had this feud with me. And the only sentence Edward321 changed was the one I was working on. I went to report it to JodyB and he told me it is not my article and I have no right to complaint...He didn't even look at the complaint and he is well aware of me and Edwards321 past.

Please read how he responded to me on my user page and please look to see how blatantly obvious what Edward321 did to me on the Italian People history section. I am being treated like a dog and I want protection and a committee to review the actions against me, I can't take this mental abuse anymore, I haven't slept in weeks from this mental torture and I am going to have a nervous breakdown, I am so sick to my stomach, I haven't done anything to deserve this. All I am trying to do is fix these article that mean so much to me, and I have brought in referenced, facctual material. Despite my past I deserve to be treated equally and I have not been at all, please, please, help me as I can't take it anymore, I just want to do good, please help, thank you. Either block me for good or give me the fair and equal treatment everyone else deserves, I just can't take it anymore, I am so depressed.(Scipio3000 04:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC))


 * If Wikipedia is making you lose sleep and have mental breakdowns, then you need to take a break, or leave permanently. In the whole scheme of things, Wikipedia doesn't matter. Your welfare in real life is more important.
 * Back on topic, asking for a personal "committee" seems a bit...self-centered, no? Administrators have other responsibilities than "protecting" users. Sean William @ 04:06, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

''I am not trying to sound self-centered but the admin. JodyB and El_C and user edward321 have made my life impossible on here, and are abusing there powers. I made mistakes in the past, but I am trying my best for a second chance. These articles mean alot to me, and I only use referenced, factual material. If the administators won't help..how can I contact higher authority or the people in charge, A site this large has to have higher authoority. I beg you, I am being treated so horrible it is inhumane, Please, I don't know what else to do, thank you(Scipio3000 04:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC))''


 * Scipio let's see if we can help defuse the situation rather than complicate matters. I've made a post to your talk page. Juan Miguel Fangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat  04:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

'''JodyB already told me I could come to him for help, when I did he instead berated me, told me I need no protection and instead yelled at me for writing on an archive section, which was a pure accident, why would I do otherwise? I am new here and everything is confusing. JodyB knows the past me and Edward321 have and he did not even look into the matter, instead he condemned me. Edward321 has a list on me a mile long and follows me to everywhere I go. He had no interest in this article until he started his feud with me. And the only thing he changes is what I write, How is THis a Coincidence? All I want is equal treatment, I apologized for what I have done, I served my block. Where can I go to higher authority as no one seems to be able to help me? I say either block me for good or give me equal treatment like everyone else has, thank you(Scipio3000 04:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC))'''

Please follow the steps of Juan. In parallel, try to communicate w/ Edward or Jody. If that won't work, please come back here. -- <font size="2px" face="Verdana"><font color="DarkSlateBlue">FayssalF  - <font style="background: gold">Wiki me up®  04:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have left a note on the user's talk page, there is nothing to make a block or warn either of the users alleged with vandalism or attacks. I suggest talking it out as the other users have suggested. <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98 04:17, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

''This is far more complicated and deeper than it may seem on the surface, But this doesn't matter anymore, it is not worth getting deeply depressed over, my sun will still rise and fall regardless, so I am taking a break....I can't take this anymore, all I was doing was improving articles with facts and referenced material to back this up. I have a great deal of knowledge on my material and If I was given a chance without constant harrassment and condemnations from JodyB, El_C, Edward321, I would have created a superior and proffessional page that would have been of the highest standard, but I am not going to fight the world, because people are offended by facts.

History is what it is, it is not to be changed or molded by personal views, beliefs, or propaganda. It can not be something it is not! '''The reason we are able to enjoy history today, is because previous generations felt it was imperative to pass down historical facts completely intact and with the fullest integrity regarding historical accuracies, names, dates and events. It is our duty to continue this trend for all future generations''' Thank everyone who helped and for your concern I truly, truly appreciate your concern and kindness, thanks again and best wishes.(Scipio3000 05:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC))


 * This editor is very passionate about the articles he edits and that is a good thing. I believe he can be useful but he must make some adjustments. I appreciate anyone making any suggestions to help him or for me. --JodyByak, yak, yak 11:19, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Question Is the peformance of Admins monitored in any way? Aatomic1 11:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Formally, no, we are not monitored. Informally, every single one of our actions is closely scrutinized by involved users, other admins, uninvolved users, and stalkers/trolls.-Wafulz 14:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * So far, there have been four admins involved. El C has blocked Scipio 3000 twice, for ‘Attempting to harass other users’, and ‘Attempting to harass other users: still attacking other users’ .  Persian Poet Gal has blocked Scipio3000 once, for 3RR, .  JodyB investigated Scipio3000’s report here and said ‘There was no substance to the report’ .  Darthgriz98 also found ‘no merit’ to Scipio3000’s accusations.


 * It seems to me the problem is not lack of oversight of the Admins. But you should decide for yourself.  Take a look at the edit history of [Sicily] and the other articles, take a look at Scipio3000’s edit history and those of the other editors involved and decide for yourself. Edward321 14:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can find is a user that is very passionate about their work, and that causes problems when other users edit said work. But I can't find anything that leads me to believe any of you harassed Scipio3000 and he won't provide me with specific instances. <font color="#084B8A">Darth <font color="#008080">Griz98  14:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Dissectional & User:Revan ltrl
Hello. There has recently been an editing conflict over the System of a Down article, most specifically on the genre of the band. While myself and others have discussed the genre issue on the talk page and reached a reasonable consensus for the different point of views, users Dissectional and Revan ltrl prefer to edit the article against consensus and insult other Wikipedians on the talk page, respectively. Here are some of the diffs:


 * 1 - User:Dissectional removing a genre from the infobox, despite the debate not being over on the talk page.
 * 2 - User:Dissectional blanking a section of the talk page.
 * 3, 4, 5 - User:Dissectional blanking other sections of the talk page (but I'll AGF in case (s)he meant to archive). There are plenty other diffs on the talk page where this user blanks sections.
 * 6 - A very long comment left on the talk page by User:Revan ltrl. To give a little summary, the user calls me a "fool", calls my points "stupid", "ignorant", and "cheap", and even implies that Bush lacks intelligence. But the most important part is this one: the user threatens to disrupt another article (that of Tool) if his point of view is not supported. This is a clear threat that violates WP:POINT.
 * 7 - One of User:Revan ltrl's contributions, which shows clear uncivility.

I did not reply to User:Revan ltrl's posts, and when I was messaged by User:Dissectional about the post, I only replied about the user's uncivility, putting the genre dispute to the side. See 8.

Thanks in advance for watching these editors, for their edits could get quite flamey. ^^

 Zouavman   Le   Zouave   06:13, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've put warnings on both user pages. <font color="#FF0000">Citi <font color="#151B8D">Cat  <sup style="color:#000000;"> ♫ 13:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! ^^  Zouavman   Le   Zouave   13:18, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I was wondering when i was insulting other wikipedians? i don't remember doing that. also, based on the discussion, more people think the genre which i removed, nu metal, should be removed. Dissectional 17:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam campaign
User:Marchartzman is creating a spam campaign to promote his book, he is leaving a misspelled link to his webpage that is broken since it is misspelled. He has done a dozen or so. See: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 14:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have cleaned the additions. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Trolling at Talk:Holocaust denial
Can someone please look over the last 50 or so edits of Talk:Holocaust denial and take whatever actions they think are appropriate? I'm involved, so I prefer not to act myself. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz 15:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I left a note on a user's talk page. Remember, a smart fish doesn't take the bait. Raymond Arritt 15:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexander Graham Bell
. Another editor is reverting all changes made to the article, back to their versions. All my changes are documented and involve formatting references and wikifying names. It is now at the point of 3RR. Can someone intervene and see if the changes are justified. Their side of the story is here: --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 16:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If I'm not mistaken, it's just about preferences in listing references and citations. At this stage, it doesn't involve administrator attention.-Wafulz 16:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy
DreamGuy repeatedly pushes his own agendas, ignoring consensus arrived at via RfC (e.g. see Talk:Photo editing), using lying and abusive edit comments, ignores and removes warnings and writes abusive replies, etc. See photoshop (disambiguation), Photo editing, Adobe Photoshop (the latter being an example of where he rearranges the page and rewrites the MOS at the same time to support the way he wants it to be). He's been blocked several times, but it doesn't seem to deter his bad behavior. Dicklyon 21:48, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't have used the word "lying", but I concur with the rest of the comment. Today's (since about 1630 UTC) reverts include
 * Adobe Photoshop 3
 * Photo editing 2
 * Photoshop (disambiguation) 2
 * Satan 2
 * Domain name 2
 * Shroud of Turin 2
 * Some of those really are reversion of vandalism, some others seem to be reasonable reversions, but the photo ones are just wrong. &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Every single one of those reverts is completely justified, and if you wanted a more accurate description of my edit style you could have shown a lot, lot more edits where I am doing badly-needed clean up. You've been upset at me ever since you started edit warring on domain kiting and didn't want it redirected, and abused your admin status to give out false warnings. After other admins cautioned you, you backed off, and clear consensus showed your position to be wrong, and ever since then you've been trying to find articles to "win" on. You just blind revert edits just to be contrary, and you've been warned on it more than once. You apologized for your actions at some point in the past, but I see now that you are up to your old tricks. DreamGuy 23:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * What part of "per the old discussion -- photoshop contest already linked in see also, no need for it here, image not representative and gives undue weight, refs not reliable and unneeded" is not a lie? He is the only editor who believes any of these things, and refuses to participate in the discussion that he says supports him. I would actually support 90% of his edits, if his summaries weren't so abusive, but he's been obsessed with the whole photoshopping think since 9 March (this diff), when he blanked the article and made it a redirect, and he seems to be unable to tell, or to admit, so nobody is on his side; it gets tiring. And the claims that the references in support of the thesis that "photoshopping" is slang for photo editing are both unneeded and unreliable; how can that be anything but desparation when the evidence is against him? Dicklyon 22:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Egh. I'd like to act on this, but I have too much bad feeling from an old edit war, I recuse myself. <font color="#275CA9">Nihiltres ( <font color="#000">t .<font color="#000">l ) 04:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, all the photo-editing related edits seem odd, or combative, some of the others are likewise combative. Especially odd is his removal of citations at Photo editing. ThuranX 04:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * They're not "citations" they are unreliable sources being linked to for no reason when the later reference (to a real reliable source: Adobe's site) already cites what needs to be cited. This was already fully explained on the talk page of the article in question, and was agreed upon by other editors until the gang of harassers decided to team up again and ignore it. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I left DreamGuy a note directed here. --Iamunknown 04:34, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Apparently it was left, removed, and then I left it again. Sorry!  --Iamunknown 05:13, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually, no, it was not left, and not removed... The guy has made countless false threats in the past, and just said something about filing a vandal report or maybe reporting to ANI, but no link was made that it was really real. From his past history, and his claim that it was a "vandalism report" it looked like more of the same bullying... especially considering I had already told him thanks to his constant false threats and insults that he was banned from my talk page. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, you missed his fun edit summary on removing my courtesy notification: "removing two harassing messages from long term problem editors both of which have been banned from this page, and comment from one person encouraging them". Dicklyon 05:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

It should also be noted that, especially in regards to the photo editing article, DreamGuy no longer appears to be participating in the discussion on the talk page. His last post there was on July 12, 2007, even though he's made numerous edits since then, nearly all going against what would appear to be an established consensus on the talk page. Having your opinion is all right, but not bothering to discuss it with other editors before imposing it on an article goes completely against the spirit of Wikipedia. --clpo13(talk) 06:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I discussed there in the past, then people agree with me, then Dicklyon and Arthur Rubin go revert and it got useless as things had already been discussed and agreed upon, so I stopped looking, since it was the same old going in circles. "Discussion" involves not, as Dicklyon has always done, reverting any and every change I make... and to think *he* is filling a report about *me*, it's laughable. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * He seems averse to discussion in general. I know I would certainly like to hear his opinions on how the MoS is written by idiots with too much time on their hands and it just generally isn't right anyway. There's also the issue of using WP:DICK as a general term of abuse for edits he doesn't like. I don't really think that's what it's meant for. Chris Cunningham 07:08, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Pointing people at WP:DICK generally means you're being a fucking douchebag. Seraphimblade Talk to me 07:11, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * So what's WP:DICK for then? Oh, so when people are harassing, break policy, uncivil, and pointing them to the appropriate other policies doesn't work, pointing them to a page that was created exactly for that purpose is bad...? And so telling someone not to be a dick is bad, while calling someone a douchebag is not? Do you even think about what you say? Come on, get serious. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I keep seeing complaints of rudeness and bad faith by DreamGuy. Are all these editors out to get him, or is this a case of "where there's smoke there's fire"?  If we need to do something about this long term problem involving many parties, perhaps AN/I is the wrong forum. Last time I suggested WP:CSN for a problem like this one it ended up at arbcom.  Maybe DreamGuy and his detractors can agree to chill out and stop baiting each other before external solutions are imposed on them.  Eh?  Jehochman  Talk 07:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously? What it is is that there are people who try to get their way by bullying, citing policies they don't follow, leaving threats, acting like they WP:OWN articles despite knwoig little about the topic. And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. If you want to solve the "long term problem" then stand up for the editor doing what other editors should be doing. I clear out massive amounts of spam and POV-pushing all the time, and these guys following me around like a pack of rabid dogs trying to get at me. So, by your argument, that means *I* am the problem user? Give me a break. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Most of his edits are generally all right, but the main beef (at least the way I see it) is the way he deals with edits and editors he doesn't like, usually through his edit summaries, where he often accuses other people of being problem editors and harassing him. DreamGuy would probably say I'm out to get him, but I've noticed his rudeness, especially to Dicklyon on the photo editing article, before I even got involved in any disputes with him. I don't much care about his edits, but he can be rather rude (and even bullying, such as when he threatened to get me blocked when I hadn't violated any policies). --clpo13(talk) 07:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If you'v notived my being "rude" to Dicklyon, then certain you should have also notived that he has, in fact, left threatening and harassing comments on my talk page even after he was explicitly told more than once never to post there again, and you've also seen him say straight out that he will always reverting any and all changes I make to any article dealing with Photoshop in anyway, and you've ALSO seen people agreeing with me on the talk page of the articles in question and be completely ignored by Dicklyon so that he blind reverts the whole thing. This stuff is nonsense, it's just schoolyard kids running around pulling stunts, and then being upset when they get told not to. If I threatened to try to get Clpo13 blocked, then you can be assured it was for something he was doing that was a blockable offense. DreamGuy 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I will concede that Dicklyon hasn't handled this the best way, but that's really no excuse to be rude and uncivil right back. As for harassing comments, I don't quite follow. Notifying you that you might be violating WP:3RR isn't harassing unless it's done completely out of spite, and from what I've seen in the photo editing article, it's not entirely spite driving such accusations. Even if you consider his edits wrong, reverting them more than three times is still in violation of the three-revert rule. That's where discussion comes in. Now, I know you've been discussing photo editing for a long time, but there is still (new) discussion going on. A solid, unchallenged consensus was never established. For instance, if you'll look on the talk page, there's still the issue of what image should be used in the Photoshopping section, if one is to be put there at all. There is no solid agreement about that. Discussion isn't something that happens once and isn't done ever again. (And while people do agree with some of your edits, they don't all agree about the way you're going about implementing them. It's right there on the talk page.)
 * Also, your block threat hails from the incident with KillerCalendar, when I was pointing out that he wasn't necessarily a spammer (even though he eventually confessed to being one). As I recall, you said I was "cruising for a blocking" simply by interceding on his behalf, which you saw as wiki-stalking in order to spite you. Defending a user from accusations that aren't backed up by solid evidence is most certainly not a blockable offense. --clpo13(talk) 22:03, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is the wrong forum indeed. Remember WP:RFC? You can ask for community input on a user's conduct there. In my experience, DreamGuy is a valuable editor with a no-nonsense approach very much needed on Wikipedia, where we often spend pages of debate about absolute trifles that could be solved by thinking for half a minute. dab (𒁳) 07:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * We did an RfC already (see Talk:Photo editing and subsequent sections), and it resulted in a number of editors helping to form an acceptable compromise. Trouble is, he ignores that results and continues to dismantle the section he doesn't like. Dicklyon 15:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd never noticed him prior to his accusing me of being a dick and a vandal last night for the completely innocuous act of moving a template per the MoS. I'd rather not waste my free time getting involved in an RfC with an editor who is seemingly productive most of the time just because he occasionally picks pointless fights with people. I shouldn't have to put up with it, and neither should anyone else. Nor should he be encouraged to continue his "no-nonsense" approach of misleading edit summaries and infantile name-calling by other editors. Chris Cunningham 10:45, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * What one person thinks is an absolute trifle may be rather significant to other editors. Discussion is what Wikipedia is all about, unless someone changed something while I was sleeping. Being bold is all well and good, but when people disagree with your edits, discussion is in order. That's the main problem here. Of course, I have no objection to this being brought up on RfC. I'm just putting in my opinion where the current issue is at. --clpo13(talk) 07:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the gem he left on my talk page when he single handedly decided to change the Guide to layout. Apparently he is not capable of both cutting and pasting during a single edit, as he cut some of the guide without re-pasting it back in. When he finally got around to fixing it, instead of repeatedly reverting, he blamed the whole thing on someone else. “See also was not removed, except perhaps for edit the other editor messed up”

Misleading and bad faith edit comments

You recently reverted an edit I made and labeled it "rv v". For someone who has been on Wikipedia as long as you apaprently have, judging from the welcome message, you should be well aware that "vandalism" (what "rv v" is short for) is not an applicable in that case, and that it is extremely deceptive and uncivil to falsely label edits that way. Please actually go read the vandalism policy and specifically the section on what vandalism is not if you are unclear on the concept. DreamGuy 04:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Rv major removal of material from guidelines. I don’t see where you have discussed this on the talk page, it looks to be a “non-constructive edit”, which are also sometimes called “Vandalism” Brimba 04:59, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Uhhh... Did you even look at what you were doing? Nothing, I repeat NOTHING was removed from the article in my edit. I just moved one section, so if you'd bothered to scroll down a little, you'd have seen that the section that went missing from one place showed up exactly same just a teensy bit further down the page. I would hope that you go revert your edit and apologize for your false accusations in your edit comments, because calling someone a vandal for no reason is a major breech of civility. DreamGuy 10:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I did scroll down. If you decide to “cut and paste”, please make sure that after “cutting” you remember to “paste”. The article went from 21,025 bytes down to 19,748 bytes when you editied it, so, yes, something was removed. Brimba 14:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and the outcome was that SV had to protect Wikipedia:Guide to layout from editing. Brimba 07:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, I was absolutely right... this person falsely labeled edits he disagreed with as "vandalism" even though it doesn't at all meet the definition. That's not an "outcome" that's another case of SlimVirgin took it upon herself to lock the page because she has a history of doing such when I am involved in any edits she happens to see, like when she locked pages falsely accusing me of using sockpuppets (the "outcome" there was admins overwhelmingly agreed that the page was wrong and I was right to object and that SlimVirgin's preferred version was harassment). SlimVirgin also has a history of making extremely drastic changes to WP:EL without discussion and often ignoring discussion when it is there to do whatever she wants, so it's quite interesting to see her trying to claim that I was actually doing what she has a demonstrated history of doing.
 * But anyway, yeah, it seems like now every couple of weeks every editor who got miffed that he or she didn't get his way comes to ANI whining about it, typically led by the spammers and POV-pushers. This is just a colossal waste of everyone's time, and if people are serious about making changes to prevent this in the future, then there needs to be more support for editors who enforce policy against people who want to violate them for personal, agenda-pushing or advertising-related reasons. When, for example, Dicklyon's comments are not helping matters and only intended to harass, and he is told to stop, when he posts to my talk page for more of the same he should be blocked for it. When people falsely label edits as vandalism they should be told to knock it off. And so forth and so on. Everybody seems to be all worried that I offended them but not that they are doing more offensive things themselves. When a spammer makes his ten millionth edit to add the infamous timtang spam link to multiple articles from rotating IP addresses, and has no moved to trying to claim it's a legitimate news reference and adds a link pretending it's a news story about timtang when it's something else entirely, that guy needs to just be blocked and all the various IPs and so forth warned not to start insulting and lying and swearing at me for it. These little witch hunts are ridiculous, because it encourages people with bad behavior to make more accusations and attacks while their actions go unexamined. DreamGuy 18:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Whether or not he's "correct" in the photo articles, he's going against a clear consensus. If he is unable to see the consensus, he probably needs to be blocked.  (And edits against a clear consensus, where the editor has been informed of that consensus, are vandalism.  Intent is not the entire content of vandalism.)  &mdash; Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have encountered DreamGuy in the past, and have watched him since. He is extremely rude and uncivil to most of the editors he encounters. When he thinks that guidelines are incorrect, he tries to change them without discussion. When he is reverted, he simply claims that the consensus version is wrong. For example, here's a nice little response to another editor on his talk page:. There have been two previous RfCs abou this user: Requests for comment/DreamGuy and Requests for comment/DreamGuy-2. I believe that at the very least, this user needs to be watched more carefully by administrators. IPSOS (talk) 20:44, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Agree with the views expressed here
 * Those two previous RFCs only go to prove my position: They were brought by editors who were shown to be conspiring to falsely label my edits as vandalism, and all three editors involved in the second one were permanently banned for POV-pushing, uncivil behavior, and personal attacks. Trying to use false and old claims against me as proof that I am a bad editor is nonsense... and considering your edits you certainly are not in a position to try to complain about anyone else's alleged incivility either. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I wipe out a lot of spam and POV pushing and get trolls blocked, but I don't have a pack of users hunting me. DreamGuy, maybe you can be more polite, even to people you dislike. Jehochman  Talk 21:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't care about the impoliteness, or the "banning" me from his talk page after I post a warning that he characterizes as harassment and threat. I just want him to stop tearing up an article that he's been after since March 9, claiming consensus on his side when in fact nobody supports his position.  I can keep reverting, but if some way can be found to throttle his behavior, that would be useful. Dicklyon 22:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Dicklyon's version here is, as always, an outright lie, as he just ignores the editors who disagree with him, and they run off after a while and give up due to his harassment. DreamGuy 23:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're saying that I'm mistaken, and that there are indeed others who support your position, could you point them out? As far as I know, nobody has accused me of harassment, present company excepted. Dicklyon 01:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd just like to interject to say that by trying to discredit or attacking others by using a link to WP:DICK, which is in actuality an essay and not a policy doesn't strengthen an argument in this, or any context. If you continually point people to WP:DICK and remove criticism then it's likely that you'll just accrue a group of people who will monitor your actions in their watchlist. Again, please try to stop using the term "Harassment" as that usually constitutes repeated abuse or offensiveness over a sustained period, rather than just simple reverts that have occured over the same mistake. I just think this is blown out of all proportion over a simple misunderstanding that has somehow been taken as a personal attack and reciprocally has ended as several. ♥♥ ΜÏΠЄSΓRΘΠ€ ♥♥ slurp me! 00:09, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at this accusatory edit comment. I have in fact been a regular editor of the article since 31 January 2007. IPSOS (talk) 00:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Another example

Bottom line here is that the same individuals who start up nonsensical and false accusations on this page every couple of months ago are right back at it again, and purposefully working together to try to harass me, both on my talk page and following each other and myself around to blind revert edits I make on any number of other articles completely unrelated to the one that they originally had their complaint on. You can see in the one IPSOS is complaining about above that an individual who moved over to photo editing based upon prior conflict that he lost on domain kiting has now gone to Leviathan to do reverts for him, These editors are also doing the same to a large number of other articles now. If anything all this is is a demonstration of how people out for revenge can band together and cause additional harassment all across Wikipedia out of pure wikistalking malice. Every couple of months they complain with the exact same nonsense. What they need to to be told in no uncertain language that any offense they think they see does not in any way give them the right to make personal attacks, to post false warnings on my talk page about nonexistent violations, to continue to harass me on my user space and elsewhere, to go jump into completely unrelated articles and give false edit comments (like on Template:Infobox_given_Name_Revised, where IPSOS edited for thefirst time because he saw a post about it on my talk and did a blind revert with this false edit comment claiming the revert was done without discussion, which is false not only because it was discussed on the talk page of WP:EL but also on my talk page with the editor who originally made it, which he obviously saw). Frankly, any claims any of these people might have about my supposed lack of civility are nothing compared to long term coordinated harassment, personal attacks and highly uncivil behavior of their own. DreamGuy 02:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why don't we just stick to the issue? I've never been here before, nor harassed you before.  Our only interaction has my defense of "photoshopping" against your dismemberment, and my reporting you as a "vandal" when I didn't realize there was a better venue for my complaint.  I can't help it if you've accumulated a lot of ill will from others from disputes like this one.  So the question is  this: will you stop hacking at the article, claiming consensus, when you're actually the only one outside the consensus? Dicklyon 15:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not to 'jump onto the pile', but I wasn't too surprised to find a complaint about DreamGuy here. There are several comments he's made on an AfD discussion that outright scream incivility, without even the slightest provocation. The article in question is Mermaids in popular culture, an article he created. That, coupled with the reactions I see to edit wars above, makes me think he might have a slight problem with ownership. CaveatLectorTalk 07:43, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * AfDs as well

DreamGuy is still at it, in spite of civil progress among all other editors. See his [latest diff] with edit summary "back to last good version, per talk page discussion, WP:UNDUE weight policy, WP:RS, WSP:FORK & to undo WP:OWNership issues by people not even trying to follow Wikipedia standards", which is at odds with ALL other editors; who has ownership issues here? Dicklyon 20:12, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Latest removals with untrue edit summaries:

And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it... I just want to nominate this for the best irony ever. --Thespian 09:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Since we've got a pretty solid consensus, minus DreamGuy, who won't discuss, at Talk:Photo editing, I propose that an admin simply tell him plainly that he should back off making changes against a clear consensus, with a binding warning that if he persists then a long block will be forthcoming. That way, we can unprotect the page and move on. Perhaps the same should be done for his "See also" MOS dispute. As to whether he continues to use uncivil talk and edit summaries, that really is not so important. Dicklyon 17:06, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * A proposal

I must agree with a number of statements in this thread. Dreamguy appears to be a generally hardworking editor, in some conflict-fraught areas; but that doesn't excuse the fact that he is frequently rude to seemingly anyone who disagrees with him, and he often edits against consensus. See this mailing list post from June for another example of a good admin (Bryan Derksen) who was exhausted by arguing with him. I would second the request that he gets more oversight from some uninvolved admins, and that he personally try to exert more effort to be polite/friendly/patient/AGF with other editors in the future. --Quiddity 20:38, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Frequent incivility

I would like to add my perspective. After reviewing a long history of Dreamguy's edits (going as far back as 2005) a pattern has shown itself clearly. When people disagree with him, his first step is to try to war with them, his second is to insult them, and then he accuses them of breaking policy in various ways, be it sockpuppetry or AGF or other acronyms. He regularly ignores consensus and many times has claimed he has a right to decide who is allowed in a discussion at all.

How this behavior is tolerated on Wikipedia, I cannot say. He's wrong far more often than he is right. Moryath 03:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * His behavioural trend is somewhat difficult to take a look at, since this editor prefers to periodically delete his talk page discussion rather than archive it. A look at his edit summaries shows a general lack of civility and assumption of good faith (example: "(→Photo editing - removing harassing, false warning message.... what is it with these people? can't count, or think anything more than one revert deserves a warning? get off my page)", diff; "(revert false warning again.... apparently the editor insists upon not actually reading the policy he links to. his cluelessness and harassment are not my problem)", diff).


 * I gave DreamGuy and Dicklyon 3RR warnings when they were at their 3rd consecutive reverts of the Photo editing article, and while Dicklyon responded with discussion, DreamGuy accused me of being a harassing newbie who hadn't read the 3RR policy (which, of course, regards more than just 3 reverts). His response gave me pause, but reviewing the policy, his past reverts at Photo editing and DreamGuy's block log has convinced me that the warning was apt. In fact, his behaviour from what history I could piece together leads me to wonder if he has read many of the policies he's accused of or accuses others of violating. --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 15:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution
Could some admin please resolve this? Options range from ignore through block; I've recommended a firm warning about editing against clear consensus, with block only if it's repeated. We'd like to unprotect the Photo editing article and move on. Dicklyon 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now he's going on break to move, but has taken time to explicity refuse to comment on the consensus discussion that is ongoing at Photo editing. Oh, well, at least he'll not interfere for a few days.  If there's a better page for reporting his behavior next time he gets into it, please let me know, since neither AIV nor AN/I gets any admin action one way or the other.  Dicklyon 06:05, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Why can this not be brought to arbitration? He has had multiple RFC filings already. I would suggest another one but it seems he is an abusive person who somehow, either by protection of friendly administrators or sheer luck, has managed to be abusive (see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ADerumi&diff=145083465&oldid=145080961) and get away with it too long. Moryath 12:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Although WP:DRAMA redirects here, AN/I isn't the best place for a complex case with multiple parties. If you cannot resolve this particular dispute yourselves, you can go to the community sanctions noticeboard or file a request for arbitration. Jehochman  Talk 13:09, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, and to supplement what Jehochman stated; the best place to work from is the dispute resolution policy. Please review that as there are many tools, options, and ways to go about it.  If you need further assistance, I offer my talk page.  Navou banter 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Been there. We did an RfC, but he ignored the resulting consensus.  Mediation was tried on another DreamGuy issue a month ago (Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy) but nobody was willing to mediate.  I suppose we can try again, but it feels like a waste of time if no admin is willing to cross him. Dicklyon 15:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * It looks like Sean William offered to mediate, but DreamGuy removed his offer and posted an unsigned "administrative" comment (diff). --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 16:13, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Tracking down the Therianthropy discussion, it looks like Sean William did make the offer after the case was closed, and retracted his offer in Talk:Therianthropy. --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 16:17, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, that's an interesting read. Maybe we'll need to dub him TeflonGuy. Dicklyon 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I took it to Mediation instead of RfC because of the confrontational nature of it; perhaps RfC would have been more appropriate, but DreamGuy had ignored consensus on other pages and RfCs in the past (I had looked at his edit history to see how he could be approached), and I just felt, considering what he was putting in his edit summaries, an RfC would be treated as 'well, it's just *comments*, and I know what's right!'. I don't know what's going on with other editors at therianthropy, but I had initially started editing it, Otherkin, and other pages in that subject because I know furries and their fandom, but I have a really low flake tolerance (and think a lot of it is insane), and did a lot of removing of links that were complete crap. Despite this, when I disagreed with DreamGuy, I got called a furry, a furry supporter, and a lot of that, as well as being insulted for my intelligence/lack thereof and lack of critical thinking, etc.
 * Eventually I just decided that involvement in the furry pages, which had taken up very little of my time, just a little bit each day to make sure there wasn't anything too flaky added, was taking too much time, oddly because I was fighting with DreamGuy, who is on the same side of the fence that I am (instead I have several other projects, my Signpost things, and a really big new original article that I'm working on, which is why I'm editing less this past week). He is radically POV driven despite his own belief that he is neutral on the subject because he isn't 'pro-furry'. I last edited Therianthropy on the 17th June, Bryan Derksen, another moderate editor on the 14th. I don't know if Bryan's still watching it, but I'm not. Wasn't worth it. *That* was what I meant above when I pointed out the irony of DreamGuy saying And whereas other editors might just leave them be and run off because the harassment isn't worth it, I stand up to them. as a description of his own tendentious editing. I just didn't care about the otherkin/furry stuff enough to stay. Normally, that would actually be exactly what you need on a page that draws polarized editors, but it simply wasn't worth my time any longer. --Thespian 15:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean. I often find myself on the same side of issues as DreamGuy, too.  I try to remove flaky, unreferenced, and original ideas, spam links, etc.  But encountering him makes everything more complicated, because he can make any small disagreement into a major unpleasantness.  I happen to have been attracted to therianthropy myself last night via this discussion, and made some edits there, removing some stuff fact tagged since February, adding a definition from the oldest source I could find (definitely not in the neologism category), etc.  I have no idea whether he's going to support these changes or flip out when he's back, so I'll just wait and see. Dicklyon 15:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps Dreamguy may get a little heated and call people furries but he is a good editor. His work on Saucy Jack was exceptional. Jmm6f488 18:53, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He certainly does some good work. Also some bad.  And some very bad, if you count his summaries, talk comments, and general behaviors. Dicklyon 22:57, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * to Jmm6f488: If others are being treated in an uncivil manner and are harassed to the point where they stop editing a particular article or WP altogether, that is a very bad thing. Etiquette and politeness is the lubricant of society. I'm sure we've all seen other editors becoming uncivil in turn because of the manner they're being treated. --<font color="#3333FF">健次 (derumi)talk 00:35, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
 * To Derumi: No I agree Dreamguy is the one out of line here and other editors should not have to deal with said abuse. I'm just saying that he does do good work so don't ban him outright. Jmm6f488 16:47, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Looking even further back in DreamGuy's history, he is as far as I can research guilty of the following things: - Accusing people of being sockpuppets with no proof (and not even on the same topic the person he was accusing them of being sockpuppets of was related to). - Attempting to declare that he was the judge of who is and is not allowed in a conversation. - Numerous times ignoring consensus of other editors - Numerous times refusing to participate in discussion and merely edit-warring - Ignoring the result of at least one RfC and possibly more. - Falsely and manipulatively "closing" a mediation which had been opened regarding his conduct, without justification from the accepting mediator.

I do not feel he is a net positive to the project. Far from it, I feel his presence is one example of the ongoing systemic problems that Wikipedia faces, his survival being more from an amazing ability to call friendly administrators to his aid and ignore policies and consensus with impunity due to their protective influence. I suggest whatever means are necessary to fix this, whether that is your arbitration committee or something else.

Wikipedia needs healing. This may be the first step.Moryath 23:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

He's back
DreamGuy seems to be back, and back at it. He didn't like what eight other editors did on Dissociative identity disorder while he was away, so he reverted to "last good version", meaning his last version before he left. This is how he interprets consensus? I have no opinion on that particular content dispute, but this mode of conduct is what makes him so hard to work with. Will some admin please advise him? Dicklyon 21:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

User:DreamGuy (again)
I had originally posted this as a separate ANI, but I think it might be better to bundle them together.

Since the previous ANI on this user I have had the 'pleasure' of coming against more incivility by this user, and overwhelming evidence that s/he does not wish to work with other editors in order to improve the project. Please look at the history of Dissociative identity disorder and DreamGuy's edit summaries, plus that article's talk page to see how he has dealt with the article (particularly with ideas of ownership over the article.) In that article, I undid a reversion that DreamGuy made, in what has become his MO of flicking off edits, comments, and sources without any discussion. In that edit (as you can see on the article's talk page, I chide both sides of the edit war for being unwilling to work with each other towards the betterment of the article. In this case, DreamGuy had reverted sourced statements from respected scholarly journals on the topic while claiming that such edits were 'POV'.  Not seeing HOW this was a POV violation, I reverted back.  Today, I found my edit and all following edits undone and posted this diff on my talk page.

Understandably, I took many of these things (being 'guilty of misconduct'?) as personal attacks. I left this on this talk page.

Less than one minute later, DreamGuy had reverted his talk page (which I had thought was a strong taboo). Please see the history:. As you can see, I posted my comment again with the comment that he hadn't actually read my comment. But before that, he left this note.

Which I replied to.

DreamGuy then reverted his talk page again with the edit comment that I had posted 'harassment' and then went once again to my talk page.

I then took all of his edits off my talk page. It is clear who is doing the harassing here.

My complaint centers around DreamGuy's continual disregard for everybody but him and his editions to the project. He even popped up in a recent AfD again at Articles_for_deletion/Hermes_in_popular_culture (another article that he 'owns', by the way. He is the creator), and you can see his comments there. Like I mentioned in this discussion I had with him, I have no interest in DID and only a passing interest as an editor in the health of the article there. What concerns me the most in this AN/I is DeramGuy continues his incivility time and time again after many editors have expressed issues with how he addresses and deals with others. That and his issues with ownership must be addressed by an admin. CaveatLectorTalk 21:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for arbitration filed
Requests for arbitration --Ideogram 05:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * As far as I can see, you've had no recent (or ever) interaction or dispute with DreamGuy, and are the subject of intense complaint yourself. Why jump in here now and muddy the waters?  Dicklyon 06:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It does happen that uninvolved editors decide a dispute is worth taking to ArbCom. In my opinion there is a great deal of evidence that DreamGuy is a problem editor.  I didn't realize my intervention here would be unwelcome.  --Ideogram 06:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you want me to withdraw the filing? I'm not sure I can do that, but I can ask.  --Ideogram 06:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea. If anyone else involved with DreamGuy brought this to ArbCom, he'd probably take that as a personal attack by "problem editors" (his favorite term for people who frequently disagree with him), which would lead to more bad blood. Having an uninvolved person step in should make it seem much less personal. --clpo13(talk) 07:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure it is possible to have DreamGuy take it better, but this way makes it clear to ArbCom that the problem is focused on DreamGuy and not between him and a particular other editor. --Ideogram 07:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to withdraw the filing, the time to speak up is now. --Ideogram 14:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry. --Ideogram 14:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't know what the right thing to do is. It should would be nice to have some advice here from an uninvolved admin.   Dicklyon 21:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are no uninvolved parties here. DreamGuy has the protection of some powerful people.  --Ideogram 02:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * When uninvolved admins do respond you put abusive comments on their talk pages and accuse them of being in my pocket. It appears what you are really asking for is admins to come along and tell you that you aren't violating policies yourself and encourage you in your harassment campaign of good editors for your own petty purposes. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a hard time imagining who or what you are referring to, so can you be more explicit? Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

So... The accusation was that's it's uncivil of me to accuse people of sockpuppeting and so forth when a clear sockpuppet here filed a completely out of process and baseless report? Oh, and people claiming RFCs were filed and that I ignored the results when said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves and most of them later permanently banned? And now some highly uncivil people making edits that multpile admins have agreed were highly POV-pushing is in my face because I said they were POV-pushers? Bottomline here is we have a gang of malcontents working against the policies here, common sense and standard civility procedures wasting everyone's time with their constant whining. Instead of them saying smething needs to be done about me some admins should take the time to tell them that they are way out of line -- and, indeed, I thank those admins who have done just that, though these people simply ignored those helpful suggestions and warnings about following policy and continue to whine and complain because they don't want to admit that they are the problems. DreamGuy 22:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It does seem strange to assume sockpuppetry. He seemed to be just trying to help, and backed off when it was suggested that perhaps this wasn't the best way to do it.  But maybe it was.  Among the RfCs referred to that you ignored was the one on Talk:Photo editing.  Who is being uncivil to you?  Who is malcontent or out of line?  What policy do you refer to?  If you're going to make accusations, being clear would be useful. Dicklyon 00:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * People are out of line on both sides here. DreamGuy, you aren't as innocent as you would like to think, but that's not to say that there aren't policy-breakers harassing you. It's just that not everyone who disagrees with you is one of those people. --clpo13(talk) 06:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bottom line: further refusal to cooperate
On his talk page, in response to polite inquiry from the guy who has mediated the compromise on the content dispute on Photo editing, DreamGuy makes clear his position:

"I've made comments on the talk page. The same people out to edit war to the bad version ignored them as usual. We had a consensus version, but most of the people who built that consensus gave up and were driven off by harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users who further went to receruit edtors to the article who never expressed interest in the topic previously but had lost conflicts with me in the past elsewhere. The article is simply a battleground and not a real discussion over actual Wikipedia policies. DreamGuy 14:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)"

- DreamGuy

In fact, he has made no comments on the talk page since July 28, and has not responded at all to the proposed compromise. One can infer that he rejects the consensus and intends to go back to unilateral dismantling of the content section after it's unprotected, if that ever happens. His view of "harassment and bullying from some very hardcore problematic users" seems delusional; is there a solution, or a proposed course of action, for such situations, or do all admins just want to continue to ignore it? Dicklyon 16:38, 7 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I cooperated: I fully explained the reasons for the edits over and over and over and over again, for something like five or more months now, which you simply ignored. To try to portray my getting sick of it all as somehow proof of bad behavior is just ridiculous. But an editor did politely ask me to respond, so I found time out of my busy day of real work and undoing the vandalism and fullscale doctoring of the RFC page to remove any info that made your side look bad to also go in and, what else, re-explain the same things I've said over and over and over. It shouldn't be too difficult to pay attention instead of blind reverting to your version all the time. DreamGuy 20:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

User conduct RfC
So it seems that in addition to the content RfC that he ignored, we need to do a user conduct RfC before arbitration makes sense. So I tried to open one, but the button to create it (here: Requests for comment/User conduct) took me to an already existing page on a previous 2005 conduct RfC on him: Requests for comment/DreamGuy. So that's probably what he was referring to above as "said RFCs were filed years back by people who were known problem users themselves." So what is the procedure for opening a new one when there is already one by the preferred name? Dicklyon 02:43, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to create a new RfC about that user, create the page Requests for comment/DreamGuy 2 with the content DreamGuy . Then fill out the page as normal. WjBscribe 15:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, as you can see from the link color, that worked. I haven't put any content in yet, but I got the page started. Dicklyon 19:52, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I filled in my part. See Requests_for_comment/User_conduct for instructions on how to contribute. You'll find a link to the DreamGuy conduct RfC there. (and sorry about that last edit that got reverted; looks like I got out of sync somehow) Dicklyon 22:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a proper procedure for letting interested parties (such as those commenting above) know that this RfC is open? Or would any such be considered improper recruiting or canvassing? Dicklyon 01:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm checking successful outcomes in Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive before filing my part. «You Are Okay» 08:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * DreamGuy have you anything to say before I file my part? «You Are Okay» 08:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Technically canvassing is defined as spamming talk pages of users who are unlikely to be interested in the case. Posting notices on pages of involved users is borderline, and as noted above, you will need to be careful in your handling of this case.  Posting in public places such as the Village Pump is probably okay.  --Ideogram 02:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Suspected and Actual Sock Puppetry by the Accusers (not DreamGuy)
For the record, has very few edits and shows unnatural familiarity with Wikipedia processes. His first edit ever used cite. A savvy newcomer is okay, but when he or she aligns with a known sock puppeteer, that's suspicious. Ideogram has been caught operating at least two abusive sock puppets, one for block evasion on a block that was given for disrupting Arbcom. See Suspected sock puppets/Ideogram for full details. Jehochman Talk 04:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Just a sidenote: one can be a new user and still know the policies. I edited as an IP for a long time before getting an account. I'm not defending anyone, but it's not really that much of a point. --clpo13(talk) 04:45, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. A savvy newcomer can be explained away, but when that savvy newcomer helps build an RFC with a known sock puppeteer and block evader, he or she becomes a suspect.  Jehochman  Talk 04:56, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, I can see your point there. I wasn't originally aware You Are Okay was a suspected sock of Ideogram. --clpo13(talk) 05:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I refactored my initial comment to clarify the linkage. Thanks! Jehochman  Talk 05:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's just that Jehochman got carried away in collecting sock puppets for ideogram, who is clearly a multiple puppeteer. But User:You Are Okay is plainly just a newbie.  He added three ext links, copying the "cite web" template from the line above in his first edit.  When DreamGuy reverted them (properly), YouAreOkay went to his talk page, discovered this dispute, and piled on, here and at the RfC.  Not a sock, just a newbie following his nose and his hurt feelings; but it would be better for all if he'd go away and leave this matter alone.  Dicklyon 07:16, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I copied and pasted. On my first day of joining Wikipedia I tried to resolve a dispute with DreamGuy over a link to a blitz chess site. He couldn't even respond to, "Do you play blitz chess?" «You Are Okay» 11:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive
 * 2004 ~/Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy (general incivility, biting newcomer)
 * 2005 ~/Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy-2 - RfC closed following general agreement - WikiCivility generally improved allround.
 * At the moment no further censures are appropriate, but if the involved parties continue to engage in Personal Attacks additional measures may be required.
 * 2007 ~/Requests_for_comment/DreamGuy_2


 * I did respond to "Do you play blitz chess?" -- I rightly responded that it was totally irrelevant for determining whether the link there should be there... and this newbie editor also edited to add similar improper links to other articles. So far all this person has done (on this account anyway) is spam some articles, complain when the spam was removed, ignore the policies explaining why it was removed, and jump into somehow digging up extremely old and unrelated RFCs to try to claim that some known problem editors who started them (all but a couple of the complainers in those early RFCs have since been permanently banned from Wikipedia for personal attacks, POV-pushing, vandalism, etc.). This complaint is similar to the other complainers: clear violators of WIkipedia policies trying to lash out at someone they perceive as an enemy instead of working to follow policies or try to resolve (or ignore) disputes. DreamGuy 17:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Now I realize the reason Wikipedia's chess pages are amateurish. DreamGuy writes the chess pages and doesn't play blitz chess. «You Are Okay» 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, I wrote all the chess pages, that's it. :rolls eyes: And funny how the only thing you did to try to change the page was to add a spam link. The only reason I was even on that chess page was I saw you spamming other articles and went in to remove them and thought I'd check your edit history to see if you spammed anywhere else. My not playing blitz chess has nothing to do with you not following WP:COI and WP:EL, links to which I provided on your talk page immediately after removing your edits. DreamGuy 20:10, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not spam. UChess.com is a respected non-commercial chess site. Ask the opinion of any professional chess-player who plays 10 minute blitz chess. Chess is participation. Registration is unavoidable to calculate ratings and rank players. Akin to professional chess tournament leagues. «You Are Okay» 21:12, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Please, DreamGuy, WP:DNFTT. - Jehochman  Talk 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thank you for the comments. I will consider them. -Jehochman Talk 13:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not compulsory that evidence of disputed behavior involve the users certifying, see how previous RfCs have been run ~/Requests_for_comment/User_conduct_disputes_archive «You Are Okay» 16:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ~/WP:AN/I history shows more time wasted


 * More time wasted at ~/WP:AN/I: — Preceding unsigned comment added by You Are Okay (talk • contribs)


 * Who is wrote the above? El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * These are the diffs you seek:   has done nothing but spam and disrupt.  There's not a single productive contribution.  I suggest an indef block. - Jehochman  Talk 20:03, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I warned this very new user to stay out of this dispute; s/he is only making things more complicated for naught. El_C 21:04, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It didn't work. 11 minutes after your warning, the trolling continued with this very unhelpful diff.    This is likely a sockpuppet of a long term disruptive editor.  Jehochman  Talk 21:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Blocked for 24 hours; and we'll go from there. El_C 21:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Checkuser came back as "Unrelated" for Ideogram and You Are Okay. Requests for checkuser/Case/Ideogram. You Are Okay was blocked for disruption, not sock puppetry, so the block remains valid as I understand things. - Jehochman  Talk 14:51, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry for my impulsiveness. «You Are Okay» 05:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. If you need any help finding your way around here, just ask me, OK? - Jehochman  Talk 14:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks Jehochman. «You Are Okay» 15:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Refractor madness
I've tried my best to handle the chaos that ensued on the RfC page during my absence. Conduct RfC rules must be enforced, from now on. El_C 19:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Has anybody noticed that the topic of this discussion has gone from User:DreamGuy's incivility to suspected (though deemed unrelated) sockpuppetry? LOZ :  OOT  05:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Alleged incivility, with the accusations largely coming from extremely uncivil people (many of whom were warned off by other admins for harassment and etc.) as well as mysterious "new" editors showing up to express long-standing grudges. DreamGuy 16:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * And frankly, has anybody noticed that this discussion has been going on for a good two weeks? What's so difficult about giving User:DreamGuy a warning, and if the incicility continues, a possible long-term block? I don't understand why there has to be so much argument and debate over something that is usually settled in under 24 hours. This user's incivility is not acceptable and he/she needs to understand that. And the issue that you are now discussing (which is already settled), with the exception of the filed (and then unfiled) arbitration case, is totally unrelated. LOZ :  OOT  05:21, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Not to be unwelcoming, but it would be best if week-old accounts stay out of this dispute. El_C 06:28, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry. LOZ : OOT  06:34, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL, new editors popping up out of nowhere to immediately participate in existing personal conflicts and demanding long term blocks and etc.... and people wonder why we're talking about sockpuppets. DreamGuy 16:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * W-W-What are y-you t-t-talking about, Dreamguy!?! I'm n-n-not a s-s-sockp-p-puppet!!!

Just kidding. I just think that this argument is going on for too long, and it's just getting ahead of itself. Sorry for butting my nose in where it didn't belong.

And after a week of constructive edits, as opposed to suddenly appearing out of God-knows-where, it's safe to assume I didn't come to Wikipedia to argue with controversial editors. I've added this page to my watchlist to see if anyone responds to me, or leave me a message on my talk page. Or better yet, just forget I was even here. LOZ : OOT  20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Gratuitous use of real name.
I humbly request that this sort of gratuitous personal attack not be permitted. I've repeatedly requested the editor not to use my real name when it is unnecessary, and he is now adding it in gratuitously. I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:30, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Given that your username is "TedFrank" you may find it hard to keep people from calling you that. Have you considered a username change? Friday (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a separate request pending at WP:CHU. THF 17:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It's bizarre that User:TedFrank, who used his real name as his User name, has a problem with editors (I am not the only one) when they use his user name, which happens to be his real name. People consistently use "David Shankbone" when writing to me.  Ted Frank said there is a WP:Policy against "gratuitous use of name" and then began editing talk page comments.  So, Ted wants to have a user name that nobody uses.  Regardless, Ted has never, ever made such a request to me, he just began editing my Talk page comments.  --David Shankbone 17:35, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

It's a bit unreasonable to request that users not refer to you by your username. There is no such policy for this. If your real name was not disclosed, it would be harassment to continue to use it, but your name has been provided willingly. Granted, users who don't want the hassle can use THF in the future, but it's unreasonable to ask others not to call you by your username. <font color="#3D59AB">Leebo  <font color="#2A8E82">T /<font color="#2A8E82"> C 17:42, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked for my username to be changed to THF. I was naive and didn't realize that people were going to engage in wild and untrue personal attacks against me, perhaps because I mistakenly thought that Wikipedia WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA rules would be enforced. THF 19:36, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * David, please be a good sport & use "THF". Ted, please realize that your current username is a perfectly valid way to address you on Wikipedia. I know of no policy that's being violated, but a little less hostility and a little more common sense could end this little dispute now. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You would not wear a name tag, say to a convention, with a name other than what you wanted to be called. Likewise if you did, you cant get mad at people for calling you the name on your name tag.  In short change your nametag, dont try to change everybody reading it. Chrislk02 (Chris Kreider) 17:46, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Note I also want to note that the issue "THF", David Shankbone ("DS") and others are having with THF is over an article he specifically wrote under his real name and is trying to inject on multiple articles, so use of that real name is not particularly unseemly in the context of these discussions. --David Shankbone 18:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm totally willing to be a good sport; but may I suggest to Ted that he pop by my Talk page and make future requests, instead of making the unilateral decision to edit my Talk page comments, especially since we are engaged in a very contentious issue on several pages? That seems reasonable and sportsman-like.  --David Shankbone 17:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. &mdash; Scientizzle 17:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a related thread concerning THF on the Conflict of interest noticeboard. I've commented, per a request on my talk, but would welcome some input from others as well. Newyorkbrad 19:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Allegations against THF

 * This is the thread Brad is talking about. The problem stems from an ambiguity in the WP:COI guidelines.  WP:COI simultaneously refers to two things:


 * The existence of a conflict of interest; and
 * The conflict of interest guideline

This leads to unnecessary confusion: WP:COI permits editors with a conflict of interest to participate on Wikipedia, subject to certain procedural limitations, but other editors misread that to believe that the existence of a conflict of interest violates WP:COI, leading to a lot of time wasted on the COI noticeboard. The report on me (which two administrators have commented on already) is a good example: WP:COI compliance requires editors with a conflict of interest to discuss edits on the talk page. DSB left a lengthy report accusing me of violating WP:COI because I was discussing edits on the talk page after I disclosed a conflict of interest, when in fact, that is exactly what WP:COI says I should do. Someone can be subject to WP:COI and comply with WP:COI: it's a two-part inquiry, and some sort of disambiguation is necessary to distinguish the two to avoid these problems. Per a suggestion by an administrator, I've made some edits to WP:COI that do not change the meaning, but resolve the ambiguity. They are discussed here. THF 19:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * There are more than a couple of us who find THF's behavior disingenuous, and WP:GAME-y. It's at best extraordinary poor form to edit the Conflict of Interest guidelines when he himself is (and has been) up for a Conflict of Interest incident (so he disagrees with the merits - what subject of a COI doesn't?); he writes and sells an article on Michael Moore that includes his own version of highest grossing documentaries, used by nobody, has it posted on his employer's website (for which he is paid) and then strenuously argues for its inclusion on multiple pages, raising the argument that if we don't include it then it's POV (while nobody else in the Mainstream Media uses it).  It's a bit difficult to assume good faith through much of this, when almost universally everyone acknowledges he is on Wikipedia with an agenda.  I think wider comment on the totality of your edits would be merited, and how you go about them.  Gaming the rules and guidelines is disdained as much as flatly violating them.   I would venture a guess that, excepting the situation with THF, 98% of my edits are uncontroversial, where has less than third of THF's edits are the same.  He is involved in many Talk page disputes and edit wars, which has been pointed out on several boards.   --David Shankbone 20:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * DSB is disruptively forum-shopping after having his false allegations rejected on WP:COI/N. Can an administrator please confirm that this set of edits to WP:COI is consistent with COI guidelines?  THF 22:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * How is David forum-shopping? You're the one that started this topic, not him.--Atlan (talk) 23:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's raising a false allegation of Wikipedia guidelines violations that has been rejected over and over and over. At what point does this become tendentious?  Or can he raise the same rejected allegation on every page that I edit and force me to waste time defending myself instead of editing Wikipedia? THF 04:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have a point, but a bit more discretion on your own part would also be helpful. A wise person recognizes that even if certain things are permissible, sometimes it is better to refrain from doing them. Raymond Arritt 05:08, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The solution is obvious. THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance - and abide by their decision.  The complaint about using his name looks very much like an attempt to distract attention from this blindingly obvious fact.  If THF refuses to take a step back from promoting his own work, then the next step is RfC and ArbCom.  This is not, I think the first time he has been in difficulties of this nature.  I could be wrong about that. Guy (Help!) 09:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * THF is engaging in self-promotion and promoting an agenda, having presented his case in respect of his novel theory he should take a back seat and let others judge its significance. This is exactly what I did: I disclosed a COI, made my case in an RFC at 19:01 on a talk page yesterday 17 hours ago, and made no further arguments, not even responding when DSB made additional false personal attacks on me on that talk page and misrepresented facts in his argument against inclusion.  Neutral editors are evaluating the proposed edit.  It won't be in the mainspace unless they agree.  My role in that dispute is entirely over.  Not once did I edit mainspace to promote my article.  This is exactly what WP:COI compliance says I should do, and exactly what I did do.  In terms of whether my edits have been disruptive, I note that this is the fifth time I have had to request an RFC for Sicko, and the first four times, the RFC agreed that I was correct, and that changes to the article were required; this time, a respected administrator has agreed that my proposed edit merits some change to the article.  Consensus may not agree with him at the end of the day, but my request wasn't frivolous, and, at least some of my proposed edit may be adopted, though perhaps without the cite to me.
 * But DSB is continuing to harass me: we now have four administrators who have participated in the COI/N thread, and all four have rejected the complaint that I violated the COI guideline. DSB re-raised the allegations here and a fifth administrator, Raymond Arritt, rejected them.  Not satisfied, DSB posts again at 12:12 today on AN/I repeating the same allegations that are about to be closed at COI/N without identifying a single new fact, instead raising a content dispute that I am not even currently participating in.
 * Wow, you say you made your case to include your own work and then made no further comment, but then why do you have reams and reams of paper making the argument on the Talk:Sicko page that if we don't use your article, we will be violating WP:NPOV. Again, this is disingenuous, Ted. One of the last steps you took was the RfC, after strenuously arguing for inclusion of your hit piece on Talk:Sicko, WikiProject:Films, Talk:The Dream is Alive and Talk:Jackass Number Two.  --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I remind Guy that the last time I was "in difficulties of this issue" in February, the other editor was indef-blocked for particularly nasty harassment and legal threats. I don't know why he thinks it is a damning fact that I was a victim of harassment, and it is unfair of him to insinuate that that was somehow my fault. THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think THF has a point at all, and he's the one who tried to get the his article on multiple pages, and lodged an accusation against me as on the name change page as his reason. WP:KETTLE.  The COI board had quite a few users that felt THF's strenuous, constant efforts to have his paid work ranking documentaries by his own criteria posted on his employer's website violated COI. Had he started on the barely-trafficed The Dream is Alive page (as he did eventually) and nobody noticed an answered, and he made the edit, would that not have been a COI violation?  He would have been in the letter, but not the spirit, of the policy.  This is all too WP:GAME-y and disingenuous.  There were serious problems with WP:WEIGHT, WP:V and WP:NPOV with including his article.  Ted spammed his story on the conservative blogosphere, and then said "Blogs are starting to pick this up" to defend that nobody uses this list.  It was pointed out to him that even when he spammed his story on conservative blogs, right-wingers themselves questioned why he included Jackass Number Two and Eddie Murphy Raw on a list of documentaries.  I stand by my actions, and I still find it a COI issue, as do many other people.  The name issue was really the ultimate:  I am the author, who wrote this piece, and who has now tried to have it put on as many film articles as possible, and yet -- don't you dare use my name when discussing it!  Get real!  Two days ago I told Ted I actually respect his edits; I have absolutely no respect, and assume no good faith, where his edits are concerned.  I think he has completely ruined any good faith assumptions this week.  And yes, this is the second time he has been brought before COI.  --David Shankbone 12:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The record will reflect that the first time I was brought up before COI, it was by an editor in a content dispute who was upset that he had lost an RFC: two administrators evaluated the allegation and found no COI, much less a violation of the COI guideline. DSB knows this, yet repeats a false allegation.  DSB issued the second COI complaint, and four administrators have unanimously rejected it on COI/N.  Yet he raises it again here, ten hours after an administrator on the COI/N board asked to close the earlier complaint.  Again: how many times must identical attacks on me be rejected before someone asks DSB to stop attacking me?  THF 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
 * The previous COI, and the last one, all point to your editing articles that deal directly with your employer, that you do during your work day, and trying to have your own unnotable (paid) work for that employer put on multiple pages, and then saying we are violating policy if we don't put it on. Not only do I find this COI, I (and at least six other editors) find the totality of your edits to be agenda-driven, in violation of WP:NPOV.  That you misrepresent your edits here is par for the course.  --David Shankbone 12:58, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF, DavidShankbone is a highly respected editor on wikipedia with many valued contributions on a variety of topics, most of which have absolutely nothing to do with you. He certainly has better things to do than forum shop just to harass you, and accusations of such are quite laughable. You might want to question whether it is your own behavior at fault here. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  16:27, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It's pretty straightforward, as Guy mentioned. THF did the right thing by proposing his piece on the talk page. But he's gone overboard by vociferously arguing for its inclusion and trying to shout down people who object to it. It's permissible to introduce a source you've authored for consideration on the talk page, but then you have to let it stand or fail on the judgement of other, uninvolved editors. Expending this amount of energy arguing in favor of his source indicates, to me, that it lacks the approval of such uninvolved editors. The rest is just yelling. MastCell Talk 16:35, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

THF appears to be digging a hole for himself here. First he deletes this question I asked him:


 * Wow, I thought the legal name associated with the username THF looked familiar, so I did a bit of research, and it appears that [personal information deleted - correct allegation that THF used to post to Usenet]


 * Seeing how this thread has gone on so long over an issue of dubious seriousness, I feel it is very germane to ask if (1) he is this well-known usenet personality & if he is, (2) based on this documented history, how can we be sure that he is not simply jerking everyone's chain here. Such evidence makes it hard for the rest of us to assume good faith. -- llywrch 06:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Then he leaves the following post on my talk page, under the section header, "WP:AGF, please":


 * Leaving aside the fact that the meaning of "trolling" has changed to mean something considerably more antisocial than it did 15 years ago, do you really think I've made 6000 edits to 2393 individual pages as part of an elaborate troll, rather than to productively contribute to Wikipedia? Come on. THF 02:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I may not be the most respected Admin here, but deleting my comments on WP:AN/I, then insisting that I assume good faith (by the abbreviation, no less) is not how one makes their case to an otherwise indifferent audience. Wikipedians who want to avoid being considered troublemakers almost never do those things. THF, if you are the guy I think you are, you can come up with smarter responses than that. -- llywrch 04:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

allegations by 74.86.28.230 against THF

 * Gosh. Why am I not surprised there is a section on here regarding THF?

I have contributed countless man-days to Wikipedia, without credit, and have always found contributors and admins to be more than reasonable, and flexible. Suddenly I encountered THF a few weeks ago, delving into a topic I know rather a lot about, but which he demonstrably only has superfical knowledge. I countered his extreme edits on the talk page: only to be met with a wall of 'adminspiel': reference to WP:EL as though it was not subject to interpretation (except for HIS interpretation of course).

Common sense, history, and IMPORTANTLY, the value of the article to the PUBLIC are out of the window. The blunt instrument of his, and only his, interpretation is applied. From the above, he has obviously been busy causing issues with others, but sadly today he is back with hos over-the-top, over-zealous, wielding of the edit-axe.

Is there no way of getting control of this person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)


 * , a WP:SPA, objects to my objection to his repeated insertion of WP:SPAM to the Sarbanes-Oxley Act article, which includes advertisements for SOX-related firms. I encourage administrators to evaluate the dispute, since the page is poorly policed, permitting the anon's edit-warring. I should have escalated it sooner. THF 19:41, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What I object to is the overbearing ill-considered edit attempts by this individual. He applies his interpretations of the guidelines as though no other interpretation was possible. He chops all those links en masse, yet he clearly has almost no knowledge of Sarbanes Oxley, the history of those links, or the article on Wikipedia.


 * It is so easy to chop any article to pieces on the basis of one stilted interpretation of WP:EL. So easy to go into robotic mode, and ignore the effect on the value of the article, or indeed, how silly it will look when certain references are chopped.


 * WP:EL is essential, but it is equally essential that it is applied with commpon sense, and neutral interpretation. THF fails to do this. This was crystal celar when I saw his edits. Finding this page, and seeing what others thought of his approach simply confirmed that he makes a habit of this.


 * The pattern is clear from above. Really, someone should address this matter and deal with the guy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)


 * The links are a mixed bag. I see one that's apparently an academic study, and some others that are dodgy. Suggest both parties trim the list judiciously instead of inserting and reverting in toto. Raymond Arritt 21:30, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * There are many many academic studies. These two are from for-profit groups, and can be included in the main text to the extent they are notable.  If we include every academic study in the EL, there's going to be a WP:NOT problem, and if we don't, there's a WP:WEIGHT problem.  The decision to trim eight of the eleven links was judicious, and, in any event, the anon editor (who has made four reverts of two editors so far today) explicitly rejects the deletion of the plain spam link, and has rejected the consensus calling for the deletion after an RFC. THF 22:48, 10 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The above is a typical example of distortion to support some other unknown agenda.


 * I tried the link by link approach. I selected the Sarbanes-Oxley-Forum in particular to debate simply because that has a particularly strong case and is so central to the compliance efforts of so many. So motivated was THF to chop everything, that he cited a 'typo' as evidence that it didn't belong! That level of desperation to get one's way suggests some other mission is at play with respect to him.


 * It is pointless debating with THF, but that particular source is extensive, and the forum section doesn't operate as standard forum, but largely as a Q&A ref some of the biggest names in the SOA arena, thus having become the biggest reference source for information on the topic!


 * As for academic sources, the line that 'none should appear because there are many', is like slamming a door on knowledge. Why not research and list the most useful? Or if too lazy, leave what is there?


 * Indeed. There is no good answer. Hence back to us questionning his REAL motives here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.86.28.230 (talk • contribs)


 * First of all, external links are not references. They should be material which extends the article but cannot, for a variety of reasons, be included in the article.  On a given academic topic, there will be thousands of different articles related to it; not all should be included -- only those which are directly pertinent to the article, and are probably discussed in the articles.  In addition, please remember to assume good faith all around, and to sign your posts.  --Haemo 07:37, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

possible sockpuppetry by spammer


A WP:SPA who admits to "using several accounts to contribute" is repeatedly inserting links to an obscure talk-forum that consists mostly of spam in violation of WP:3RR, WP:SPAM, WP:EL, and the consensus of an RFC. He rejects the talk-page consensus because the anon considers himself more of an "expert" than the three editors who removed the link. (This is irrelevant--WP:OWN--but the only stated evidence for the expertise is the anon's recognition of the alleged value of the spam-link.)  Some real WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA and WP:TALK violations also on the talk-page and edit summaries. Intervention needed from an administrator, as the user is ignoring dispute-resolution procedures and just about every Wikipedia policy and guideline and the page is little-trafficked. THF 12:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This is an absolutely disgraceful and scurrilous allegation. So someone, who has worked heavily on that article, disagrees with him: so out comes the name calling: a 'spammer'.


 * No attempt to explore the depths of the links in question. Just the usual paper thin dismissal and the abuse ('spammer').


 * I really think someone in the Wikipedia hierarchy should take action against THC (Ted Frank). It is exactly the approach which clearly has upset so many others before me, as we can see above. How long is he going to be allowed to continue to do this?


 * My inclination is to just walk away from Wikipedia. I am an honest contributor who has worked hard on this article, only for some guy to step in, delete material without justification, and then fling abuse like this. It feels like bullying, which is why I won’t walk away.


 * Is there no room for genuine contributors any more? Or is this just a clique for those who love to quote meta-wiki rules/regs SELECTIVELY to get their own way?


 * And yes, I have now registered from the hotel (I am working away). So there is one less stick for 'THC' to hit me with to divert from the issues. SoxMan

That's User:SOXman, not User:SoxMan,. And he has returned from his 24-hour block with a new 3RR violation, disregard of dispute resolution, and continued uncivil personal attacks on the talk page, along with misleading edit summaries. Administrative intervention is appreciated, as my pointing SOXman to Wikipedia guidelines is rejected on the grounds that I don't know anything about Sarbanes-Oxley, as demonstrated by the fact that I don't appreciate the value of the spam link he's attempting to add. THF 20:57, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I most certainly do welcome administrative intervention. Please have a good long look at the history and hostile bullying attitude of THF/TedFrank. Please read all his contributions, not just with respect to myself and SOX, but elsewhere, as evidenced even on this very page. Please also consider his motives and his mission. As a simple contributor, I am not the first to have suffered such hostility and overbearing edit-warring. I guess most contributors would have walked away by now, but that would not help Wikipedia. Please assist.

POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST

Administrators should examine a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. The one website THF disputes on this page from the whole list he deleted is highly regarded amongst Sarbanes-Oxley professionals. This regard does enhance the profile of its contributors, perhaps in the same way that THF hopes Wikipedia enhances his profile. Those contributors may be competitors of THF, in a highly competitive market. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)


 * User:SOXman, who is evading his one-week-block with this anon edit, has rebuffed my invitation to create a Sarbanes-Oxley Forum article on Wikipedia to see if third-party editors think it meets WP:WEB criteria: if it does, I have offered to add the information back into the article myself.


 * As for the frivolous COI allegation, I've never heard of the anon's spam site, and don't have any commercial interest in the SOX website market, or even in any spam site market. (Googlers please note that there is another individual with the same name as me who does run a SOX company. He lives in Ohio and I live in Virginia.)  Three other editors agree the site flunks WP:EL after WP:DR. Wikipedia is a huge waste of time for my profile, which would be much better off if I stayed away from it, as I plan to do for the next few days. THF 22:19, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * THF is making false accusations against me. Having just read the text above I am merely suggesting examination of a potential conflict of interest WP:COI. My own external investigations suggest this is worthwhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.129.131.27 (talk • contribs)


 * This is a spammer who doesn't like his forum being removed - boohoo - THF has removed it, I have removed it, a couple of other editors have seen it - nothing to see here. --Fredrick day 07:59, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is an editor who is blocked being permitted to violate WP:NPA and WP:SOCK? THF 12:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Please advise
See: 81.79.203.71 not sure if this is related to a similar problem I had Here that I reported the other day but I have another anon IP reverting my edits again.--padraig 20:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I've asked for page protection. Obvious sock. The Evil Spartan 21:03, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks.--padraig 21:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

And another one this is getting beyond a joke now.--padraig 22:40, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a political soapbox
Is User:Muntuwandi an editor who uses it as such? Few talk page examples:  

Few of his edits in the article: (he kept putting this pic by edit warring) and adding pic of Barack Obama to the top of white people article  or irrelevant edits such as "have the same eye shapes as most black Africans in that they"

Another editor thought he had an afrocentric agenda and I agree. Is his behaviour within rules? KarenAER 22:23, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, an editor who thinks that race doesn't even exist and that Barak Obama is white. Yes, this would be a problem, without a doubt. The Evil Spartan 22:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind, though, that the existence of race is in some debate right now. -Amarkov moo! 22:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'd say he's within WP:NPA, WP:CIVIL and maybe sometimes has a bit of a problem with WP:AGF at times, beliefs set aside. However, I would say what you're bringing up is strictly a content dispute and as such, has no place at WP:ANI. I believe the correct route would be to ask for informal mediation, at WP:MEDCAB.--Ramdrake 22:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Besides, has anybody told you yet that canvassing is usually frowned upon in such circumstances?--Ramdrake 22:33, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * (ec)I don't know. Someone adding a picture of Barak Obama to a page on white people seems to be far enough out there that it's more important to protect the encyclopedia than process wonk with Medcab. As Rama once pointed out when people were trying to add a really really bad POV: you don't reference absurdities, you remove them. The Evil Spartan 22:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * However, User:Godongwana is the one who added the picture first, and it was reinserted once and removed twice. It's not in the article anymore, and nobody complains about this... Is there still a problem under those conditions?--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * User:Godongwana may be his puppet. It's new, with similar edit history, african name, similar positions. KarenAER 22:49, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is not a content dispute. For ex, here:, he acknowledges the definition of white people but DISPUTES it. Editors' job is not to try to change descriptions as they see fit, but rather use it as they are used by citing reliable sources...KarenAER 22:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He acknowledges that he can tell a white person. He does not acknowledge any specific definition that I can fathom. As far as RS are concerned, there are many, diverse definitions of white, and while they agree on many points, there are many important differences. But yes, it is still a content dispute, fundamentally.--Ramdrake 22:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Then you havent read all the links? Why are you commenting then? "The problem is one of taxonomy, who are "white people". We have assumed that white people are only Europeans, that is the traditional classification.", he then goes on and on why this SHOULDNT be the case ACCORDING TO HIM. Based on that political perspective, he's making edits on the article and the talk page, disrupting the whole process. KarenAER 22:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I left a message at User_talk:Muntuwandi about various policy and practice issues. KarenAER, let me know on my talk page if these issues continue. Ramdrake, continuing your dispute here on ANI is pointless. KarenAER wanted admin attention to to an issue. A continuous tit-for-tat about why you think this is just a content dispute and couldn't possibly be a content dispute with attendant policy considerations does not help. Usually an indication of what the problem is and where is enough, because sysops investigate claims before acting on them. Thanks.--Chaser - T 23:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I broke decorum, it's just that I had seen almost identical complaints on ANI very recently (there's one from yesterday even, I believe) be commented upon as a mere content dispute. It looked to me as this was more of the same stuff. I apologize if I've been disruptive myself.--Ramdrake 23:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem, and I appreciate your conciliatory tone. It's tempting to get in the last word, but usually additional comments are only necessary if there is relevant evidence that someone missed in posting to ANI. Evidence is always more persuasive than comments.--Chaser - T 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think there is more to it than a content dispute. Muntuwandi's conduct, on both the article and its talk page, has been quite disruptive and counterproductive. Muntuwandi, apparently thinking that the "white" classification involves nothing more than skin color, seems to be trying to 'discredit' the racial category through forum-ish talk pages discussions and disruptive article edits (such as this WP:POINT-violating OR comparative image).

I can understand that there may be some ambiguity over the "one-drop rule," but Muntuwandi doesn't seem interested in just writing about different RS takes on it. Instead, he makes a talk page section where he basically complains and criticizes its application based upon his personal beliefs (see Talk:White people). There are numerous other such soapboxing and forum-ish posts by Muntuwandi that aren't really geared towards the article's coverage of RS but more towards discrediting the racial category itself.

In sum, I agree that there Muntuwandi has been soapboxing, and I think that this has been carried not only on the talk page but also in the article itself. I may post more examples of this disruption here (if I feel like it). The Behnam 23:07, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * "Until proven, your accusations are baseless, in the sense that you're blaming the deed of one user on another user, on the unrpoven presumption that there is sockpuppetry involved. I would suggest you start with a checkuser request, if you want to build a case. Myself, I'm rather confident the checkuser will come up negative.--Ramdrake 22:53, 12 August 2007 (UTC)"


 * Done. Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Muntuwandi   KarenAER 23:21, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * This is largely a content dispute, I have issues with the way the article was being presented. I admit though that some of my views are sometimes provocative and  i occasionally enjoy swimming against the tide of popular opinion. Should one jump off a cliff just because everyone else is doing so. I am not a sock and the checkuser will exonerate me. I can recall we were editing around the same time. If User:Godongwana and I agree on some edits it is coincidental. Muntuwandi 23:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I share KarenAERs concerns. The topic needs to stay on topic and not ramble, overdwell, make odd comparisons, or be a soapbox. There are other topics for peripheral issues. Its not a content dispute as  KarenAER noted, its more soapboxing.  The topic doesn't need to be a soapbox against the topic. Thomas Paine1776 19:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

inappropriate edit summary
note left with editor Navou banter 14:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) Is this type of edit summary appropriate? I happen to think it is not. Fighting for Justice 04:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it is. It essentially reverts this edit:  and I fail to see how the editor in question is a known - you-know-what.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  04:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I sent the editor a note. Thanks, Navou banter 04:37, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The edit itself is good, the summary's trolling for a fight, unless that editor has some special knowledge to base his assertion on. XavierVE cites a wikia site as his source. That's probably not sufficient to get him out of the Libel dangers here at WP, though. And for the record, a website where anyone can say you're a pedophile? Probably not the best application of the wiki concept. Seems like too much dmaage could be done by pranksters folks with grudges. ThuranX 05:44, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The edit is fine, the summary sucks, and that name sounds familiar as a player in the whole pedophilia debate....might be friendly note time (if navou hasn't got there first) &rArr;  <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  05:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Navuo got there, but perhaps a further note stating that this AN/I exists, and multiple editors aren't happy about his action would get his perception opened a bit? ThuranX 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * This editor's obvious bias against pedophiles doesn't make him seem like a very neutral editor. Calling out pedophiles isn't a problem but assuming their edits are automatically wrong? Seems like he's done that a few times. Definitely not a good trait in an editor. Editmaniac 08:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It starts as "remove editorial" which is always a good think to do, and was what he (she?) was actually doing. That an unnecessary personal dig was thrown in is bad, but I don't see any need for admin action.  If you're upset by someone's edit summaries, leave a note.  If it's persistant incivility, we can talk. Wily D  13:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Why is calling out a paedophile "not a problem"? --Spankr 14:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * He's the owner of Perverted-justice.com, according to his userpage. Sarah 14:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
 * My my, there is a little WP:COI eh?--Isotope23 talk 14:42, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Enough is enough, his response was to continue the pedophile comments. As such, I have blocked him 24 hours. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  15:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thuis comment where Fighting for Justice accuses Xavier of having accused an innocent wikipedian who did not make any POV edits is equally out of order, IMO. FfJ knows how to work wikipedia and her incorrect and bad faith accusation isnt really acceptable either. At best wikipedia should remain neutral on this issue and not run to help a user who appears not to be acting in good faith, SqueakBox 16:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually side with FFJ on this one. While the text of the revert is no problem, the edit summary is ridiculously inappropriate. &rArr; <font face="Euclid Fraktur"> SWAT  Jester    Denny Crane.  18:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. comment looks more like notifying another attacked editor than anything else. The level of COI, and POV activism from the owner of PJ would be as big as that of the pro-pedophilia activists here. Not sure if anything can be done about this stuff though, the number of zealot-edited articles and topics on WP seems to be increasing, not decreasing. ThuranX 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed about the general problem, I'm not sure if this is the forum to discuss it. I do feel that we as a community need to make it clearer that POV pushing is unacceptable and will not be allowed. Wily D  01:40, 14 August 2007 (UTC)